To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Lutfa Begum and Tim O’Flaherty.  Councillor Oliur Rahman deputised for Councillor Begum (in part).

Apologies were received from Councillors Lutfa Begum and Tim O’Flaherty.  Councillor Oliur Rahman deputised for Councillor Begum (in part).

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Chief Executive.

Councillor Rupert Eckhardt declared a personal interest in item 7.3 as the Ward Member for Millwall.

Councillor Rupert Eckhardt declared a personal interest in item 7.3 as the Ward Member for Millwall.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 9^th April 2008.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9^th April 2008 were agreed as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9^th April 2008 were agreed as a correct record.

To RESOLVE that, in the event of amendments to recommendations being made by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.

The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of amendments to recommendations being made by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.

The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of amendments to recommendations being made by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.

To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.

The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.

The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.

The Committee noted that there were no deferred items.

The Committee noted that there were no deferred items.

On a vote of 6 for and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a roof extension to create a second floor and two additional bedrooms at 23 Bartlett Close, London E14 6LH be GRANTED subject to

Conditions

1)                 Time Limit for Full Planning Permission

2)                 Full Details of External Finishes

3)                 Building Works Hours of Operation

Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the erection of a roof extension to create a second floor and two additional bedrooms at 23 Bartlett Close.

Mr Kieran Collins spoke in objection on the grounds of height, overlooking, loss of light, overcrowding and the adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

Mr Michael Maan spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He believed that the scheme was well designed, and had been revised to address the original concerns of officers.  There were no issues surrounding scale or loss of daylight/sunlight.  The property would remain as a single dwellinghouse.

Mr Jerry Bell presented a detailed report on the application.  He advised the Committee that there was no justification for a refusal on the grounds of loss of light and there would be a minimal increase in height of one metre.

Councillors sought clarification from officers in relation to the location of the balconies.  The Committee was informed that the balconies would over look the adjacent park.

On a vote of 6 for and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a roof extension to create a second floor and two additional bedrooms at 23 Bartlett Close, London E14 6LH be GRANTED subject to

Conditions

1)                 Time Limit for Full Planning Permission

2)                 Full Details of External Finishes

3)                 Building Works Hours of Operation

On a vote of 6 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the infill of ground floor ‘under croft’ and installation of four new windows to create a two bedroom unit at ground and first floors at 1 Hawksmoor Mews, London E1 0DG be GRANTED subject to

Conditions

1)                 Time Limit

2)                 Hours of Construction

3)                 Car-Free Arrangement

(Councillor Oliur Rahman could not vote on the proposal as he had not been present for the whole consideration of the item.)

Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the infill of ground floor ‘under croft’ and installation of four new windows to create a two bedroom unit at ground and first floors at 1 Hawksmoor Mews, London E1 0DG.

Mr Stephen Furnell spoke in objection on the grounds that the proposal was not aesthetically pleasing.  He did not feel that the design was sympathetic and adjacent residents would be overlooked.

Mr Charles Reece spoke in objection on the grounds that the application was inappropriate, causing overlooking and that there would be loss of parking.

Mr Lucas Stone, the applicant, spoke in support of the scheme.  He outlined his reasons for extending the property and clarified the legal position in respect of the parking at the property.  He felt that the design respected the design standard and would improve the look of the property.

Councillor Tim Archer spoke on behalf of the residents.  He raised concerns relating to loss of parking and the tension and conflict between residents which would be caused by the development.

Mr Jerry Bell presented a detailed report on the application.  He advised that the design sought to preserve the conservation area and was considered acceptable.  He clarified that, due to the layout of the Mews, there would be a net loss of one usable car parking space.  He informed the Committee that Government policy supported a move from parking provision to more sustainable developments.  He advised Members that the loss of one car parking space needed to be balanced with the provision of a family sized unit.  Mr Bell also advised that the development had security gates and therefore would not experience intensive vehicle movements.

Members asked a number of questions relating to car parking, ownership of land and the addresses of the petition signatories.  Mr Bell advised that the applicant owned the undercroft currently used for car parking and that the signatories came from both Hawksmoor Mews and Cable Street.  Future residents of the property would be prohibited from applying for a parking permit due to the car free agreement which would be entered into if the proposal was approved.

On a vote of 6 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the infill of ground floor ‘under croft’ and installation of four new windows to create a two bedroom unit at ground and first floors at 1 Hawksmoor Mews, London E1 0DG be GRANTED subject to

Conditions

1)                 Time Limit

2)                 Hours of Construction

3)                 Car-Free Arrangement

(Councillor Oliur Rahman could not vote on the proposal as he had not been present for the whole consideration of the item.)

The Committee unanimously RESOLVED that planning permission for the extension of the partial 3^rd floor over the whole building footprint and add a fourth storey set back from the north and south ends of the building; and the erection of a rear extension part single and part two storey at the Docklands Medical Centre, 100 Spindrift Avenue, London, E14 9WU be GRANTED subject to

Conditions

1)                 Time Limit

2)                 Samples of Materials to be submitted

3)                 Details of refuse provision

Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for extension of the partial 3^rd floor over the whole building footprint and add a fourth storey set back from the north and south ends of the building; and the erection of a rear extension part single and part two storey at the Docklands Medical Centre, 100 Spindrift Avenue, London, E14 9WU.

Ms Rachel McConnel, Planning Officer, presented a detailed report on the application, outlining the reasons why the proposal was recommended for approval.  She advised the Committee that there was no significant overlooking and the site was not a designated right of way.

Councillor sought clarification on the location of the current walkway and the alternative routes which residents could take to reach Sherwood Gardens.

The Committee unanimously RESOLVED that planning permission for the extension of the partial 3^rd floor over the whole building footprint and add a fourth storey set back from the north and south ends of the building; and the erection of a rear extension part single and part two storey at the Docklands Medical Centre, 100 Spindrift Avenue, London, E14 9WU be GRANTED subject to

Conditions

1)                 Time Limit

2)                 Samples of Materials to be submitted

3)                 Details of refuse provision