Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
Media
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 117 KB 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 Monitoring Officer.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 144 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19 June 2019. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19th June 2019 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 142 KB 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 Place 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 Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
3) To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: 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, Place 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, Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS There are no items. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no items. |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 291 KB Additional documents: |
|
Mile End East Estate, Mile End, London E3 PA/17/02373 PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Construction of 2-storey roof extensions to Buttermere House, Coniston House, Derwent House, Windermere House and Loweswater House; residential conversion of ground level garages to Windermere House and Wentworth Mews; infill units to Levels 1-4 of Windermere House to provide a total of 142 new dwellings; access and servicing including car parking spaces for disabled motorists; cycle parking spaces and incidental works.
Recommendation:
Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the creation of new residential units at Buttermere House, Coniston House, Derwent House, Windermere House and Loweswater House; and Wentworth Mews to provide a total of 142 new dwellings with associated works.
It was noted that the determination of this application has been referred to the Strategic Development Committee by the Corporate Director of Place due to the unique strategic implications of the case, including the potential for this proposal to be a precedent for future estate regeneration schemes across the borough, the number of existing residential buildings included within the development site and the proposal’s wider implications for place-making and access to play-space and amenity space for residents across the estate.
Kevin Crilly (Planning Services) presented the application explaining the site location and the key features of the application. Consultation was carried out. 18 letters of objections were received with a petition in objection with 17 signatures. The key issues raised were noted.
In design terms, it was considered that the proposal would complement and be sympathetic to the existing buildings. The proposal would also be in keeping with the surrounding townscape.
Regarding the affordable housing, it was confirmed that Option 1 ‘baseline’ would deliver:
· 49.5% affordable housing by habitable room, with a tenure split of 73% affordable rent to 27% intermediate, providing: 41 affordable rent units at 50/50 split between Tower Hamlets Living Rent and London Affordable Rent, and 15 intermediate units either Shared Ownership or London Living Rent.
Option 2 ‘with grant’ would deliver:
· 78.4% affordable housing by habitable room, with a tenure split of 46% affordable rent to 54% intermediate, providing: 41 affordable rent units at 50/50 split between Tower Hamlets Living Rent and London Affordable Rent, and 58 intermediate London Living Rent units.
On 4th July 2019 the Mayor of London awarded grant funding for the additional intermediate affordable housing (London Living Rent) referred to as Option 2 within the committee report.
As such Option 1, is no longer relevant and the applicant has agreed to commit through a S106 planning obligation to implement Option 2 to provide 78.4% affordable housing.
Given that the 78.4% affordable housing offer has now been confirmed and will be secured as a planning obligation, Option 2 now carries full weight, representing a very substantial public benefit in favour of the development proposal.
The standard of the accommodation would be high. A number of the units would experience sunlight and daylighting impacts. Overall the standard of residential amenity would remain good. Given this and the merits of the scheme in terms of the public benefits, Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of amenity issues. The revised play space strategy would provide good quality play space. A number of conditions were proposed to minimise construction impact. The development would be a car free development and acceptable in highways terms.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee
Sally Goodwin(resident of one ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |