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 0842, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE PDF 379 KB To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Dr Emma Jones, for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Dr Emma Jones, for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 46 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: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
Minutes: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 89 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 4th August 2011. Decision: Councillor Bill Turner asked that it be noted that the Planning Officer had made the point that there had been inaccurate information put forward in the National Rail statement regarding the application concerning the redundant railway viaduct north of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458).
The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4th August 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: Councillor Bill Turner asked that it be noted that the Planning Officer had made the point that there had been inaccurate information put forward in the National Rail statement regarding the application concerning the redundant railway viaduct north of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458).
The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4th August 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 41 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
The deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Tuesday 13th September 2011. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DEFERRED ITEMS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA/10/01458 – Redundant Railway viaduct, North of Pooley House, Westfield Way PDF 53 KB Additional documents:
Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission at the redundant railway viaduct north of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458) for the erection of two separate four storey podium blocks of Student Apartments be REFUSED, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, for the following reasons:
1. The scheme would result in an overconcentration of student housing within the area and fail to provide an appropriate mixed and balance of housing, including a failure to provide family housing. As such the scheme is contrary to policies 3.9 and 7.1 of the adopted London Plan 2011 and policies SP02 and SP12 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, which seek to ensure places have a range and mix of dwelling types and tenures to promote balanced and socially mixed communities.
2. The scheme would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of the surrounding area due to the increased potential of late night disturbance from the occupation of the student housing. As such the scheme is contrary to policies SP02 and SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, saved policies DEV2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007, which seek to protect the amenity of occupants and the surrounding area.
3. The proposal would represent an over-development of this restricted site, resulting in a built form of excessive scale, bulk and inappropriate design, leading to an overbearing form of development and an unacceptable loss of daylight, outlook and increased enclosure with inadequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping, contrary to policies 3.4, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.5 of the adopted London Plan 2011, policy SP10 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 and saved polices DEV1, DEV 2 and DEV 12 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998, which seek to ensure that development is appropriate to its context and maintains the amenity of neighbouring residents and the surrounding environment.
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning & Building Control) introduced the application (PA10/01458) regarding Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London. He added that the Committee, at its meeting on 4th August 2011, had resolved not to accept the Officers’ recommendation and were minded to refuse planning permission for the reasons shown in the report.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Devon Rollo (Strategic Applications Planning Officer) then presented the report in detail and set out the implications of a decision to refuse planning permission, together with suggested reasons for refusal.
The Vice-Chair expressed the view that it should be noted that the Planning Officer had made the point that there had been inaccurate information put forward in the National Rail statement when the application had been first considered.
The Chair commented that there had been full discussion of the application at the last meeting and indicated that the matter would, therefore, be put to the vote.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission at the redundant railway viaduct north of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458) for the erection of two separate four storey podium blocks of Student Apartments be REFUSED, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, for the following reasons:
1. The scheme would result in an overconcentration of student housing within the area and fail to provide an appropriate mixed and balance of housing, including a failure to provide family housing. As such the scheme is contrary to policies 3.9 and 7.1 of the adopted London Plan 2011 and policies SP02 and SP12 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, which seek to ensure places have a range and mix of dwelling types and tenures to promote balanced and socially mixed communities.
2. The scheme would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of the surrounding area due to the increased potential of late night disturbance from the occupation of the student housing. As such the scheme is contrary to policies SP02 and SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, saved policies DEV2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance 2007, which seek to protect the amenity of occupants and the surrounding area.
3. The proposal would represent an over-development of this restricted site, resulting in a built form of excessive scale, bulk and inappropriate design, leading to an overbearing form of development and an unacceptable loss of daylight, outlook and increased enclosure with inadequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping, contrary to policies 3.4, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.5 of the adopted London Plan 2011, policy SP10 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010 and saved polices DEV1, DEV 2 and DEV 12 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998, which seek to ensure that development is appropriate to its context and maintains the amenity of neighbouring residents and the ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 379 KB Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA/11/00163 - Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London EC3N 4DJ PDF 712 KB Additional documents: Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission at Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ, (PA/11/00163) for the erection of a 9-storey building with basement, comprising a 370 room hotel (Use Class C1) with associated ancillary hotel facilities including café (Use Class C1), bar (Use Class A4) and meeting rooms (Use Class B1) with plant and storage at basement and roof level be DEFERRED for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee to enable:
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley (Service Head Building & Control), introduced the circulated report and Tabled update report concerning the application for planning permission at Tower House, Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ, for the erection of a 9-storey building with basement, comprising a 370-room hotel (Use ClassC1) with ancillary hotel facilities including café (Use Class A3), bar (Use Class A4) and meeting rooms (Use Class B1) with plant and storage at basement and roof level. The application also proposed the formation of a pedestrian walkway alongside the section of Roman Wall to the east of the site; the creation of a lift overrun to facilitate a lift shat from ticket hall level to platform level within the adjacent London Underground station and associated step free access works; works of hard and soft landscaping; and other works incidental to the application.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Patrick Gurner, a Director of Montague Evans, Consultant Engineers for the Trinity Square Group, spoke in objection to the application, expressing the view that the proposed servicing system for the hotel would have unacceptable implications for Trinity Square, which was the centre of a major transport interchange and the main arrival point for 50% of visitors to the Tower of London. He commented that servicing for the hotel should take place on-site, rather than on-street and added that drawings had been submitted to demonstrate how this could be achieved. The Corporation of the City of London had voiced similar concerns, although this did not seem to have been taken up by Tower Hamlets’ Highways Section. The proposal would result in many more vehicular movements in the immediate locality of Coopers Row and Trinity Square. Transport for London was also concerned and had asked for footpath widening to accommodate servicing. He suggested that the application should be deferred for the present time.
Mr Gurner then replied to questions from Members relating to the likelihood of adverse impact on the Square and concerns arising from the City of London.
Ms Marianne Fredericks, a City of London Councillor for Tower Ward and local resident, spoke against the application and stated that the proposals were contrary to the Borough’s Development Plan and should be refused. Listed buildings would be adversely affected and it was essential to protect these assets. No proper description or analysis had been provided on the likely harm to the environment of buildings near the Tower House site and the size of the hotel meant that it would loom over Conservation Area buildings. The Tower Hill area was already well-served by hotels for all budget ranges and consequently demand for hotel space was well and truly met. Buildings affected by the proposals included Tower House, 41/42 Trinity Square, the Crescent Conservation Area, Tower square Gardens and the Merchant Seamen’s War Memorial. Concerns expressed by the City of London had not been addressed and she felt that a site visit would be appropriate for Members ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA/10/2093 – Tweed House, Teviot Street, E14 PDF 1 MB Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Tweed House, Teviot Street, E14 (PA/10/2093) for the demolition of existing building and associated garage buildings; partial demolition of the adjacent towpath wall and the erection of a new residential development to provide 115 units (comprising 33 x 1 bed, 43 x 2 bed, 31 x 3 bed, 7 x 4 bed and 1 x 5 bed), 1 disabled parking space, 166 cycle parking facilities, landscaped open space and private amenity space, 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 the use of financial contributions contained in the legal agreement referred to in resolution (1) above, regarding community facilities and child playspace facilities be prioritised towards schemes in the East India & Lansbury and Bromley by Bow Wards only.
(3) That the Permit Transfer Scheme applies to the new development.
(4) That the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal be delegated powers to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(5) That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
(6) That, if by 15 December 2011 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Planning and Building Control be delegated power to refuse the planning permission. Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley (Service Head Planning & Development Control), introduced the circulated report and Tabled update report concerning the application for planning permission at Tweed House, Teviot Street, E14, for the demolition of existing building and associated garage buildings; partial demolition of the adjacent towpath wall and the erection of a new residential development, 1 disabled parking space, 166 cycle parking facilities, landscaped open space and private amenity space.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Jerry Bell (Strategic Applications Manager), provided a detailed presentation of the proposed scheme including plans and a slideshow.
Members then put questions relating to:
Officers’ responses included comments that: · The report contained information relating to new definitions of affordable housing, affordable rent, as well as social rent and intermediate housing. · Officers had also raised concerns about the desirability of a more mixed tenure. The Housing Associations involved had indicated that problems arose in management where housing tenure was mixed and this could result in unsustainable servicing costs for tenants. · The car free policy was well-established in the Borough and the site had a good PETA transport rating, so it was not felt there was any need to introduce further parking spaces or permits. · Playspace would be adequately overlooked for security purposes.
Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed proposed an amendment which, on being put to the vote, was declared carried unanimously and appears as resolution (2) below.
The Chair proposed a motion, incorporating Councillor Ahmed’s amendment and, on a unanimous vote as the substantive motion, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Tweed House, Teviot Street, E14 (PA/10/2093) for the demolition of existing building and associated garage buildings; partial demolition of the adjacent towpath wall and the erection of a new residential development to provide 115 units (comprising 33 x 1 bed, 43 x 2 bed, 31 x 3 bed, 7 x 4 bed and 1 x 5 bed), 1 disabled parking space, 166 cycle parking facilities, landscaped open space and private amenity space, 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 the use of financial contributions contained in the legal agreement referred to in resolution (1) above, regarding community facilities and child playspace facilities be prioritised towards schemes in the East India & Lansbury and Bromley by Bow Wards only.
(3) That the Permit Transfer Scheme applies to the new development.
(4) That the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal be delegated powers to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(5) That ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |