Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Alan Ingram, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 0872, E-mail: alan.ingram@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Stephanie Eaton.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Stephanie Eaton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 45 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 Chief Executive.
Decision:
Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 75 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20 January 2011. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 January 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 January 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS 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.
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.
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, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS PDF 40 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
Please note that the deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is:
4.00 pm: Thursday, 3rd March 2011
Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
None. Decision: Nil items.
Minutes: Nil items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bow Enterprise Park, Cranwell Close, London PDF 2 MB Decision: Councillor Shahed Ali proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Kabir Ahmed, “That a condition be added for details of proposed uses of parking spaces between affordable and full market housing to be referred to Officers for approval at a later date.” On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried unanimously.
On a vote of five for and one against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Bow Enterprise Park, Cranwell Close, London, for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings between 3 to 20 storeys plus basement and comprising Use Class B1 (up to 6220 sq.m.), flexible Use Class A1/A2/A3/A5 (up to 490 sq.m.), 557 residential units (Use Class C3) (up to 46,844 sq.m.) comprising 217 x 1bed, 234 x 2bed, 93 x 3bed, 6 x 4bed, 7 x 6bed with associated landscaping, highways and infrastructure works, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report and amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting.
(2) That a further condition be added as follows:
“That details of proposed uses of parking spaces between affordable and full market housing be referred to Officers for approval at a later date.”
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated in resolution (1) above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to issue planning conditions and informatives to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
(5) That, if within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated the power to refuse planning permission. Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report and Tabled update report concerning the application for planning permission at Bow Enterprise Park, Cranwell Close, London (Ref. No. PA/10/1734). He indicated that the proposal for A5 Class Use had now been removed as a result of negotiations with the applicant.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, made a detailed presentation of the report and update. He commented that there had been no objections from stakeholders and the proposal was considered to deliver an employment-led mixed use residential scheme which would safeguard the employment uses on site and facilitate locally-based employment, training and local labour opportunities for the local community, together with identified public realm improvements. The proposal would provide an acceptable amount of affordable housing and mix of units
The Chair invited questions from Members, who raised points regarding: · the split of parking spaces allocated between affordable housing and full market housing units; · whether there were open plan housing units; · the future of businesses currently located in the Enterprise Park; · intermediate family housing provision; · the calculation of 144 resultant child places and consequent play space provision; · whether or not the development would be gated; · the level of density proposed for the development and whether the S106 reflected appropriate mitigation for transport and other related issues; · the balance of car club spaces and electric vehicle points; · whether there would be right to buy or acquire relating to larger family units.
Mr Bell responded to the questions in detail, indicating that some units were open plan in the market sector; the site owners and current occupiers would need to work out commercial arrangements for businesses but Officers were happy with the mix of business and employment opportunities; child numbers and play space had been calculated according to the existing formula and the proposals exceeded requirements; play equipment would be provided; this would not be a gated development; the housing mix was considered suitable as proposed; suitable density of developments was assessed using a variety of elements; the S106 contribution had been tested by Viability Consultants and had been directed in the main towards health and education provision with some £400,000 from TfL to mitigate for the impact on the bus network.
Ms Alison Thomas, Private Sector and Affordable Housing Manager, confirmed that Registered Social Landlords gave right to acquire facilities and intermediate homes were risky to provide from a Housing Association point of view due to relatively large costs putting them out of reach of most families.
Councillor Shahed Ali proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Kabir Ahmed, “That a condition be added for details of proposed uses of parking spaces between affordable and full market housing to be referred to Officers for approval at a later date.” On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried unanimously.
On a vote of five for and one against, the Committee RESOLVED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
OTHER PLANNING ITEMS PDF 49 KB Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Leamouth Peninsula North, Orchard Place, London, E14 PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Decision: On a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED
(1) That the Committee formally object to the application made by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) at Leamouth Peninsula North, Orchard Place, London, E14 for hybrid planning application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Leamouth peninsula for mixed-use development to provide up to 185,077 sq.m (GEA) of new floor space and up to 1,706 residential units (use class C3) comprising: 1) Full planning application for development of Phase 1, at the southern end of the site, comprising the erection of 5 buildings, namely G, H, I, J & K, and alterations to existing building N, to provide: · 537 residential units (use class C3) · 5,424sqm of office and flexible business workspace (use class B1) · 382sqm retail, financial and professional services, food and drink (use class A1, A2, A3, A4 A5) · 1,801sqm of leisure (use class D2) · 1,296sqm of community uses (use class D1) · 249sqm art gallery (use class D1) · 2,390sqm energy centre 275 car parking spaces
2) Outline planning application for Phase 2, at the northern end of the site, comprising Buildings A, B, C, D E, F & M (with all matters reserved except for access and layout) and to provide: · Maximum of 1,169 residential units (use class C3) · 2,424sqm of office and flexible business workspace (use class B1) · 1,470sqm of retail, financial and professional services, food and drink (use class A1, A2, A3, A4 A5) · 1,800sqm of arts and cultural uses floorspace (use class D1) · 4,800sqm of educational floorspace (use class D1) · Storage and car and cycle parking · Formation of a new pedestrian access (river bridge) across the River Lea · Formation of a new vehicular access and means of access and circulation within the site, new private and public open space and landscaping and works to the river walls. (2) That such formal objection be made, as set out in the circulated report and the update report Tabled at the meeting, on the grounds that:
(i) The provision of 19.6% affordable housing (or 11% without grant funding) together with the proposed cascade mechanism would fail to contribute towards meeting the borough’s affordable housing need and affordable housing targets, contrary to the aims of PPS3, Policy 3A.9 of the London Plan (2008), Policy HSG3 of the IPG (2007) and Policy SP02 in the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure the borough meets the overall strategic target for affordable housing.
(ii) The overall under provision of family housing would result in an unacceptable housing mix contrary to policy 3A.9 and 3A.10 in London plan, policy HSG2 and HSG3 in the IPG (2007) and policy SP02 in the Core Strategy (2010) which seek to ensure developments provide an appropriate housing mix to meet the needs of the borough.
(iii) Given the significance of this strategic site in terms of the Council's overall growth agenda and the vision for Leamouth (especially housing growth, the provision of affordable housing, improved connectivity and the delivery of required social/community infrastructure to support development), the proposal, ... view the full decision text for item 8.1 Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report and Tabled update report concerning the application for planning permission at Leamouth Peninsula North, Orchard Place, London, E14 (PA/10/1864). He indicated that amendments had been proposed by the developer and details thereof, together with additional consultation responses, were contained in the update report.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, made a detailed presentation as to why Officers were recommending that the Committee make a formal objection against the application. He commented that Officers were dissatisfied with the proposals for affordable housing provision and the proposed triggers for additional financial contributions; the proposed inclusion of a bridge in the S106 package when it was felt that this was more properly a development cost; unresolved concerns from the Port of London Authority about proposals for the bridge; unresolved environmental concerns.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Bell indicated that there were proposals to increase bus services to the south end of the site when the rotunda was closed (1.00 am – 5.00 am) and there was a convoluted access route to the top end of the site but this raised concerns around safety issues. Any objection raised by the Committee would be put before the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation on 10 March 2011, when they would consider the application.
The Chair stated that a decision was now required and, on a unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED
(1) That the Committee formally object to the application made by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) at Leamouth Peninsula North, Orchard Place, London, E14 for hybrid planning application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Leamouth peninsula for mixed-use development to provide up to 185,077 sq.m (GEA) of new floor space and up to 1,706 residential units (use class C3) comprising: 1) Full planning application for development of Phase 1, at the southern end of the site, comprising the erection of 5 buildings, namely G, H, I, J & K, and alterations to existing building N, to provide: · 537 residential units (use class C3) · 5,424sqm of office and flexible business workspace (use class B1) · 382sqm retail, financial and professional services, food and drink (use class A1, A2, A3, A4 A5) · 1,801sqm of leisure (use class D2) · 1,296sqm of community uses (use class D1) · 249sqm art gallery (use class D1) · 2,390sqm energy centre 275 car parking spaces
2) Outline planning application for Phase 2, at the northern end of the site, comprising Buildings A, B, C, D E, F & M (with all matters reserved except for access and layout) and to provide: · Maximum of 1,169 residential units (use class C3) · 2,424sqm of office and flexible business workspace (use class B1) · 1,470sqm of retail, financial and professional services, food and drink (use class A1, A2, A3, A4 A5) · 1,800sqm of arts and cultural uses floorspace (use class D1) · 4,800sqm of educational floorspace (use class D1) · Storage and car and ... view the full minutes text for item 8.1 |