To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Judith Gardiner.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Judith Gardiner.

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:

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 18^th August 2010.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 August 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 18 August 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

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.

Update report tabled.

The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shelina Aktar, Peter Golds and Ann Jackson and were ineligible to vote as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.

On a vote of 3 for 0 against the Committee RESOLVED

That consideration of the planning permission at Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London for continued use of Rochelle Canteen (use class A3),independent of the Rochelle Centre with ancillary off - site catering operation be DEFERRED for a site visit and further clarification of the proximity of the proposal to the nearest residential dwellings .

The Committee also RESOLVED that this application be brought back to the Committee afresh ‘under Planning Matters for consideration’ to trigger speaking rights in view of the length of time taken to consider the application.

Update report tabled.

The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shelina Aktar, Peter Golds and Ann Jackson and were ineligible to vote as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.

Mr Stephen Irvine (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report regarding Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London.

It was noted that this application was previously reported to the Committee on 18^th August 2010 where Members were minded to refuse the application due to a number of concerns contrary to officers over overlooking, parking, noise disturbance and impact on neighbouring properties and the Conservation area.

Mr Irvine drew attention to the legislation on overturning planning officers recommendations, which stated that careful consideration was required as to whether the Council could justify the reasons for refusal.

Mr Irvine addressed the reasons for refusal stating that there was no evidence to suggest they could be supported on planning grounds if tested. The proposed reasons were contrary to the Council’s expert advice.

The proposal complied with the UDP as all of the nearest residential properties were significantly more than 18 metres away from the site. As such, it was felt that the argument of overlooking would be difficult to support. In terms of noise, the premises had not generated any complaints.  The hours of operation were outside noise sensitive hours. In terms of parking, the impact on the highways would be minimal. The site had already gained approved consent for an ancillary canteen in a Conservation Area. Therefore the argument of impact on the Conservation Area was not a valid reason.  The development would be in keeping with the surrounding area as the area was of mixed use.

Members raised a number of questions around the proximity of the site to the nearest residential properties, whether this complied with the guidance in the UDP regarding overlooking, accuracy of the usage figures for the canteen, the waste management arrangements, delivery times, loss of a valuable family area and intensification.

Members also discussed the impact on residential properties, particularly the adjacent Old Laundry Building and family flats. Members expressed concern at the impact on their views, overlooking to their kitchen and bedrooms and noise disturbance from the canteen.  Members requested that these issue be given due consideration.

Members also drew attention to the many letters of objections and the concerns voiced by local residents at the last meeting.

Members also asked officers to clarify the exact proximity of the Old Laundry Building to the canteen/outdoor eating area.

In reply officers reported the following points:

• Clarified the distance between the canteen/ outdoor eating area and the nearest residential units as set out in the Addendum report.  Indicating that no building fell within an 18 metres radius of the premises.  Therefore the application would not create any amenity problems.
• That the usage of the premises was not changing. It was for continued use. Therefore there would be no new amenity issues.
• That the Old Laundry Building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Councillor Carli Harper – Penman vacated the chair and left the room for the consideration of this item. The time being 7:50pm.

Councillor Ann Jackson in the Chair

Update report tabled.

The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shelina Aktar and Peter Golds were ineligible to vote as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.

On a vote of 3 for and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED

1.         That the consideration of the planning permission at 71A Fairfield Road, London for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building which contains 8 residential units be REFUSED for the following reasons.

2)         The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site and this is identified by the following:

a)         The proposed development, by virtue of its increased height and excess bulk and mass at third and fourth floor level, would appear out of character with the surrounding area and the host building. The proposed building fails to relate to the scale of the adjacent building to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009 and policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure appropriate design of buildings within the Borough that respect local context.

b)         The proposed development, by virtue of it’s proximity to the adjacent properties to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road, would result in an unacceptable outlook, increased sense of enclosure and loss of privacy for existing residents. This is compounded by the height of the proposed development and its higher gradient which looks down on to and into these properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009. These policies seek to protect the amenity of residents of the Borough.

c)         The proposal would result in a poor standard of accommodation for future occupants, by virtue of it's small internal floor areas (Flat 1, 6, 7 & 8), poor outlook (Flat 4, 6 & 8) and lack of external amenity space (Flats 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies DEV2, HSG13 and HSG16 of the adopted UDP (1998) and Policy HSG7 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure developments provide sufficient amenity, internal space standards, and high quality useable amenity space for future residential occupiers.

Update report tabled.

Councillor Carli Harper – Penman vacated the chair and left the room for the consideration of this item. The time being 7:50pm.

Councillor Ann Jackson in the Chair

The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shelina Aktar and Peter Golds were ineligible to vote as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.

Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the application regarding 71a Fairfield Road and advised that there was an update report on the site. It was reported that at its last meeting, the Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse this application due to concerns over bulk height and the amenity impact in respect of privacy and resolved that the matter be deferred so that the applicant could consider whether it was possible to address the concerns. Since that time the applicant had advised that it would not be possible to amend the scheme to address these issues without removing the entire building. As a result the application was being presented to Committee with a recommendation for refusal.

In response to the presentation, Members questioned whether, if refused, the existing occupiers of the flats would be made homeless, whether there was anything the Council could do to support the new owners, the timescale for any appeals process.

In reply, Officers explained the enforcement and the appeals process. Officers confirmed that they would robustly defend any appeal lodged by the Applicant.

On a vote of 3 for and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED

1.         That the consideration of the planning permission at 71A Fairfield Road, London for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building which contains 8 residential units be REFUSED for the following reasons.

a)         The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site and this is identified by the following: The proposed development, by virtue of its increased height and excess bulk and mass at third and fourth floor level, would appear out of character with the surrounding area and the host building. The proposed building fails to relate to the scale of the adjacent building to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009 and policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure appropriate design of buildings within the Borough that respect local context.

b)         The proposed development, by virtue of it’s proximity to the adjacent properties to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road, would result in an unacceptable outlook, increased sense of enclosure and loss of privacy for existing residents. This is compounded by the height of the proposed development and its higher gradient which looks down on to and into these properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.2

Councillor Carli Harper Penman returned to the meeting for the remaining item of business. The time being 8.00pm.

Councillor Carli Harper – Penman in the Chair.

The Chair proposed a number of amendments to the conditions, which were seconded by Councillor Mohammed Abdul Mukit to ensure

• That the hours of construction be restricted to minimise noise disturbance 
• Submission of a satisfactory noise assessment including pre-completion testing prior to occupation
• That officers explore with the applicant the need to raise the height of the 1.4m fence to protect privacy, and to report back to the Committee if necessary.

These proposals were carried.

On a vote of 5 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED

1.         That the planning permission be GRANTED at 47a St Peters Close, London for conversion and extension of the pram store facility into a two bedroom ground floor flat with associated private amenity space subject to conditions.

2.         That the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose        conditions and informative on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

3.         Conditions

1. Implementation within 3 years.

2. Development completed in accordance with approved plans

3. Details and samples of all external facing materials used on proposed dwelling and boundary treatment.

4. Details of cycle parking.

5. Details of compliance with life times homes standards.

6. Car Free.

7. Submission of satisfactory noise assessment including pre-completion testing prior to occupation

8. Details of revised fence.

9. Hours of construction:  Restricted in accordance with standard hours

4.         Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

5.         Informative:

1. Any informative considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

Councillor Carli Harper Penman returned to the meeting for the remaining item of business. The time being 8.00pm.

Councillor Carli Harper – Penman in the Chair.

Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the application for conversation of a pram store facility into a two bedroom flat with private amenity space.

Mr David Wilson, addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the residents of the estate, and he had got a sense that they all opposed it. He had managed to obtain 36 signatures for his petition. This was a very densely populated area and if approved there would be overcrowding. It would spoil the character and was out of keeping with the architectural features of the area. It should be stopped. He considered that THCH consistently ignored the views of local people. He referred to a previous scheme which if approved would have inhibited peoples access to their properties. This scheme was eventually turned down. He expressed concern at the amenity impact on the people at number 45, 47 and 49 St Peters Close in terms of overlooking and creating a sense of enclosure.

Councillor Stephanie Eaton addressed the Committee as an objector. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of a large number of residents on the Estate. She opposed the loss of pram space, if used properly they could be used as a cycle storage. They would be popular if better used. The scheme falls well below the minimum requirement for amenity space. It provided around a third of what was required for the site. She disputed the policy argument that this was appropriate as the land was going to be private amenity space. There were also worries about loss of privacy and overlooking to the adjacent neighbours and the inadequacy of the proposed wall. She stated that the Council had approved similar development in the past but in planning terms this did not make this right.

Bilkis Khanom (Applicants Agent) spoke on behalf of Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH) who were the applicants. A key aim of the group was to address the problem of overcrowding in Borough, provide better housing and to deliver large affordable housing. THCH had amongst other things, completed an overcrowding strategy, exceeded its targets in providing affordable housing, tried to deal with Anti Social Behaviour at their housing developments, carried out consultation and engaged with residents to ensure their proposals mirror the needs of residents. They welcomed the views of MPs and Councillors.

THCH had held a community event to discuss 3 other pram store conversions. During which the residents attending were very supportive of the plans and supported the schemes. They had had no objections by post either.

Ms Yasmin Begum(Applicants Agent) also spoke on behalf of Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH). She stated that they supported and worked to meet the Boroughs housing needs. The scheme was of good quality design. She referred to the size  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

Nil Items.

There were no items for consideration

There were no items for consideration