To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carli Harper-Penman (Chair).

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 14^th September 2010.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 September 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 14 September 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 items for consideration.

There were no deferred items.

There were no deferred items.

On a vote of 2 for and 4 against, the Committee 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 REFUSED for the following reasons:-

(1)      The proposed use would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to the detriment of the amenity of occupiers of adjacent residential properties, contrary to saved policies DEV2 and HSG15 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which seek to preserve residential amenity.

(2)      The cumulative impact of the noise, disturbance and related activities that would result from these premises would be harmful to the living conditions of adjacent residents and would therefore be contrary to saved policies DEV2, DEV50 and HSG15 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and Policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which seek to preserve residential amenity.

(3)      It is considered that the proposal, by reason of its commercial use in a predominantly residential area, would adversely affect the character of the Boundary Estate Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Council Policy CON2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) which seeks to ensure new uses are not detrimental to the character, fabric or appearance of conservation areas and their settings.

(4)      The proposal is considered likely to result in additional anti-social behaviour in the area of the Boundary Estate.  

The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.

Ms Jenefa Khanom, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and stated that her family home was separated from the Rochelle Canteen premises by a 30 cm wall and suffered immediate impact from the complex. Members of her family were aggrieved and inconvenienced due to noise, litter, drunken behaviour and foul smells emanating from the premises. There was also disturbance late at night. The site was being used increasingly for media events and public hire, which was against the previous planning approval. She felt that this was likely to increase if the current application was granted. A petition raised by her and her brother had attracted over 250 signatures from local residents who opposed the application and this should be taken into account.

Mr Rath Ashley read a statement in objection to the application on behalf of Mr Rob Allen, a local resident. Mr Allen was a shift worker and his property was overlooked at all hours of the day. He was kept awake by noise from the Canteen and had complained about this to the staff and manager. The current loading/unloading hours were unreasonable in a crowded residential area and affected the amenity of local people. Many people attended events in the Canteen garden area and large tents had been erected on various occasions.  The premises had no alcohol licence but he had observed alcohol being served. This was the fourth year that such an application had been made and on previous occasions the applications had been withdrawn or refused. He saw no reason why the position had altered enough to justify the current proposal. He added that the Canteen was not restricted to Rochelle Centre employees and it was obvious that the agreed management plan had failed. There had been 89 letters of objection, all from local residents and only 9 letters in support had been received from local people. The Rochelle Canteen site was no place for a public restaurant and the application should not be approved.

Mr Luke Gotelier, speaking in support, stated that he had lived on the Boundary Estate for five years.  He participated in several local committees and was Building Manager at the Rochelle School. His son’s bedroom was 18m from the site and was the quietest room in his house.  His family had never been kept awake by noise from the Canteen but he had noted anti-social behaviour on Arnold Circus, which ought to be addressed. If the Canteen were to close, this would result in Tower Hamlets residents losing work.  The centre also provided work placements for teenagers and local people. The Canteen was used by local people on a daily basis and put back money into Boundary Estate, helping to keep the laundry open.  He added that the complex provided gardening space for local people and extra maths lessons at weekends for Bengali youths. A petition in support of the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1