To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Shelina Aktar and from Councillor Peter Golds, for whom Councillor Gloria Thienel deputised.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Shelina Aktar and from Councillor Peter Golds, for whom Councillor Gloria Thienel deputised.

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.

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

The Chair indicated that she would leave the meeting during consideration of the items for which she had declared a prejudicial interest. Chairing of these items would be undertaken by the Vice-Chair or, in her continued absence, by another Member of the Committee.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 13^th July 2010.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 July 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 July 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To RESOLVE that:

1)   in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)   in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)           In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)           In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)           In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)           In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

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

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.

There are no deferred items.

There were no deferred items.

On a vote of one for and three against, it was –

RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for continued use of Rochelle Canteen (Use Class A3), independent of the Rochelle Centre with ancillary off-site catering operation be NOT ACCEPTED.

The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:

• The potential overlooking of residential properties.
• The impact on local residents arising from the noise and other operational disturbances from the canteen.
• The impact on street car parking spaces due to traffic arising from deliveries to the canteen and from its clients.

In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.

The Chair invited persons who had registered to speak on this item to address the Committee.

Mr Robert Allen (for Mr Raphael Ashley), a local resident, speaking in objection to the application, indicated that he worked shifts and his sleep was disturbed by activities at the Rochelle Centre as he lived in close proximity. Activities could last from 7.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. and this was unreasonable.  Noise and other nuisances emanated from the centre, which also comprised a change of character to the Boundary Estate Conservation Area.  There were often hordes of people in the garden outside the restaurant, causing additional disturbance. The premises did not hold an alcohol licence but alcohol was sold there and this resulted in louder behaviour.  He had complained about these issues regularly but to no avail. This was the fourth year in a row that he had been subject to adverse impacts to his quality of life. Nothing would change if the application were granted as the premises were already effectively being operated as a restaurant, open to all and not just to those working at the centre.  There was already a management in place but this failed to address the problems. Only 9 persons the 67 who had expressed support for the application actually lived on the Boundary Estate.  Publicity for the restaurant was becoming more widespread so he anticipated an increase in use.  Mr Allen concluded by stating that the centre and its users had disregarded planning rules and the application should be rejected.

Ms Jenfa Khanom, also speaking in objection stated that her home shared a wall with the canteen/school complex and thus there was an immediate effect on her family arising especially from noise, which continued past the centre’s opening hours.  There was nuisance from foul smells arising from refuse disposal.  If the application were granted, she anticipated an increase in footfall with resultant disturbance, especially as the purpose was being altered from the original use as a canteen for staff only.  A large number of members of the public already used the restaurant and there was no effort to maintain any restrictions. The premises were in a residential estate and Members should be mindful that local people had a right to peace and quiet. In addition, it was likely to be run as a bar if an alcohol licence were granted.

Mr Kevin Watson, speaking for the applicant, commented that the canteen was actually a very small scale operation and was not used as a restaurant.  There was no alcohol licence and no operation of the café/canteen in the evening. The premises comprised only 30 sq.m floorspace, with 36 permanent covers and a small outdoor area in summer.  The application was being made to regularise the situation and not with a view to intensifying operations in the premises. There had been two years of discussions with Officers which had resulted in the current submission, which included a number of controls tied in by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

On a unanimous vote, the Committee

RESOLVED

(1)     That planning permission be GRANTED for the site at 1-3 Muirfield Crescent and 47 Millharbour, London, to replace extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation of Planning Permission ref: PA/06/893 (outline permission to provide 143 residential units in buildings up to 10 storeys in height with an A1 and A3 use at ground level with reconfiguration of existing basement car parking, associated servicing and landscaping), subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Variation and legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) and to conditions and informatives as set out in the report and the tabled update report.

(2)     That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

(3)     That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission.

(4)     That should the Section 106 agreement not be completed by 3 September 2010, the Head of Development Decisions may refuse planning permission on the grounds that in the absence of a legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure appropriate planning obligations to mitigate its potential impacts.

Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, gave a detailed presentation as contained in the circulated report regarding the application to replace extant planning permission for the site at 1-3 Muirfield Crescent and 47 Millharbour, London, in order to extend the time limit for implementation of Planning Permission ref: PA/06/983.  The scheme had not been implemented due to the global recession and would effectively be a banked application awaiting economic recovery. He referred to the requirement for a further condition following the Environment Agency Flood Risk Assessment, as contained in the tabled update report.

Members then put forward questions, which were answered by Mr Bell, concerning public walkways and access through the site; monitoring of the car-free agreement and its application to future tenants; provision of social housing units and provision of bicycle spaces.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED

(1)     That planning permission be GRANTED for the site at 1-3 Muirfield Crescent and 47 Millharbour, London, to replace extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation of Planning Permission ref: PA/06/893 (outline permission to provide 143 residential units in buildings up to 10 storeys in height with an A1 and A3 use at ground level with reconfiguration of existing basement car parking, associated servicing and landscaping), subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Variation and legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) and to conditions and informatives as set out in the report and the tabled update report.

(2)     That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

(3)     That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission.

(4)     That should the Section 106 agreement not be completed by 3 September 2010, the Head of Development Decisions may refuse planning permission on the grounds that in the absence of a legal agreement, the proposal fails to secure appropriate planning obligations to mitigate its potential impacts.

On a unanimous vote on the proposed amendment, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the conditions on the planning permission include the requirement that construction work at Radford House, St Leonards Road, London, shall not commence before 09.00 hours on any morning.

On a unanimous vote on the substantive motion, the Committee

RESOLVED

(1)    That planning permission be GRANTED at Radford House, St Leonards Road, London, for the erection of a mansard roof extension to the existing building to provide three flats comprising one x one bedroom and two x two bedroom flats, subject to the conditions (as amended above) and informatives as set out in the report.

(2)    That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions (as amended) and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report.

Ms Ila Robertson, Applications Manager, introduced the report concerning the application for the erection of a mansard roof at Radford House, St Leonards Road, London.  She indicated that the main issues for consideration related to land use, design, highways and car parking, which she then addressed as contained in the report.

Members then put question, which were answered by Ms Robertson, in connection with the number of planning applications in the locality; any resulting noise levels from the property and arrangements for construction work.

Councillor Jackson proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Mukit, which was declared carried on a unanimous vote and it was RESOLVED

That the conditions on the planning permission include the requirement that construction work at Radford House, St Leonards Road, London, shall not commence before 09.00 hours on any morning.

On a unanimous vote on the substantive motion, the Committee RESOLVED

(1)    That planning permission be GRANTED at Radford House, St Leonards Road, London, for the erection of a mansard roof extension to the existing building to provide three flats comprising one x one bedroom and two x two bedroom flats, subject to the conditions (as amended above) and informatives as set out in the report.

(2)    That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions (as amended) and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report.

On a vote of nil for and one against, with three abstentions, it was –

RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building at 71A Fairfield Road, London, be NOT ACCEPTED.

The Committee was minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:

• The inappropriate bulk and scale of the development.
• The unacceptable impact on other residential properties arising from sense of enclosure, outlook, privacy and overlooking.

In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.

The Chair referred to the declarations of prejudicial interest that she had made at the start of the meeting and indicated that she would leave the room and take no further part in the proceedings.  She proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Mukit, which was declared carried 4 four and nil against, and it was RESOLVED

That Councillor Ann Jackson be elected Chair for the remainder of the current meeting of the Development Committee.

Councillor Harper-Penman then left the meeting.

COUNCILLOR ANN JACKSON IN THE CHAIR

Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, introduced the report regarding the retention and alteration of existing part 3, part 5 storey building at 71A Fairfield Road, London.

The Chair then invited persons who had registered to speak on this item to address the Committee.

Ms Jose Franks, speaking in objection to the application, stated that her home abutted 71A Fairfield Road and the latter had effectively doubled in size as a result of the development. The increase to five floors had not been previously envisaged and was much closer to her property than first proposed. This was not a negligible impact, as stated in the report.  No-one had visited her home to undertake a sunlight/daylight assessment and the building now dominated the sky line from her kitchen and garden.  There was now also an issue regarding lack of privacy, which she did not feel was suitably addressed by the proposals for cedar louvres and up to eight cars were parked on the site.  She felt that the substantial divergences from the original planning permission should have been noted, but no action had been taken despite having made phone calls to Officers.

Councillor Marc Francis, speaking in objection to the application, commented that this was the second agenda item relating to a request for retrospective planning permission.  Planning permission had been given for a development but something different had been built and this had only come to light following Ms Franks’ actions. He felt that the enforcement process had been very poor in this instance.  The section of the report relating to public consultation did not properly represent local concerns and sought to generalise the position.  The assertion that the actual scheme was a similar building to that originally proposed stretched credulity as there were significant differences, especially internally, and it was much closer to neighbouring properties than intended. Neighbours’ windows were now below sunlight requirements and there had been no meaningful attempt to bring back the development to its previous approved form.  Detailed plans must be agreed to that effect. 

Mr Kieran O’Brien indicated that he was speaking on behalf of his wife, Hannah O’Brien, who was unwell and the Architect was also unable to be present.  He was one of a group of leaseholders who had bought the property for investment purposes before the current problems were known about and they understood the concerns and anger that had arisen.  He was unable to answer technical questions and was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.4

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED

(1)    That the application for Listed Building Consent relating to Stone Alcoves to west of Cadogan Gate Entrance, Victoria Park, Bow, for the cleaning and re-pointing of two stone alcoves; lifting and re-laying of paving; replacement of timber seating and treatment of stonework with anti-graffiti coating be APPROVED and referred to the Secretary of State with the recommendation that were it within its authority to do so, this Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(2)    That the Head of Planning and Building Control be delegated power to recommend to the Secretary of State conditions to secure the matters listed in the report.

Ms Ila Robertson, Applications Manager, introduced the report regarding cleaning and treatment to Stone Alcoves to west of Cadogan Gate Entrance, Victoria Park, Bow, as detailed in the circulated report.  In response to a Member query, she outlined the history of the provision of the alcoves.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED

(1)    That the application for Listed Building Consent relating to Stone Alcoves to west of Cadogan Gate Entrance, Victoria Park, Bow, for the cleaning and re-pointing of two stone alcoves; lifting and re-laying of paving; replacement of timber seating and treatment of stonework with anti-graffiti coating be APPROVED and referred to the Secretary of State with the recommendation that were it within its authority to do so, this Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(2)    That the Head of Planning and Building Control be delegated power to recommend to the Secretary of State conditions to secure the matters listed in the report.