Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber,First Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Alan Ingram, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 0842, E-mail: alan.ingram@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR At the Annual Meeting of the Council held on 18th May 2011, Councillor Helal Abbas was appointed Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2011/12.
However, it is necessary to elect a Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2011/12.
Decision: It was proposed by Councillor Carlo Gibbs, seconded by Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed and RESOLVED
That Councillor Bill Turner be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2011/2012.
Minutes: It was proposed by Councillor Carlo Gibbs, seconded by Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed and RESOLVED
That Councillor Bill Turner be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2011/2012.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence was received on behalf of Councillor Dr Emma Jones for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising. Minutes: Apologies for absence was received on behalf of Councillor Dr Emma Jones for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 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 To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 12th May 2011.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12th May 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PROCEDURAL MATTERS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED
That the Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and dates of meetings of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2011/2012 be noted as set out in the report.
Minutes: Zoe Folley (Committee Officer) presented the report.
RESOLVED
That the Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and dates of meetings of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2011/2012 be noted as set out in the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
The deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4.00 pm, Tuesday 2nd August 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision: Nil items.
Minutes: Nil items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA/10/01458 - Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London Additional documents: Decision: Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 1 for 3 against with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458)be NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision. Minutes: Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application and the tabled update regarding Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London.
The Chair then invited persons registered to speak to address the Committee.
Taz Khalitue addressed the Committee as an objector to the application. He stated that he was a local resident. He expressed concern at overcrowding in area given the number of existing student housing and nearby new developments. The site was derelict and could be converted into a green belt site. It was a nice natural environment with good light. Under the scheme, the pathway would be darker and there would be noise disturbance. Residents had signed a petition opposing the scheme which he could show the Committee if necessary. The site should be used as greenery.
In reply to questions from Members, he considered that the information sent out as part of the consultation was inadequate. It just stated that the scheme was going ahead with no information on the impact.
Steve Taylor addressed the Committee in support. He was speaking as a Town Planner for Network Rail. He referred to the London Plan which specified that there was a need for student housing in this area. Addressing this shortage would reduce pressure on other types of housing in the area. The site was derelict. In terms of the key considerations, i.e. daylight, noise levels etc, the plans complied with policy. Access to the site was restricted to the campus only. There was a lot of green space in the area already. The Petition referred to outdated plans.
In response to the presentation, the Committee put a number of questions to Mr Taylor around the following matters:
Mr Taylor addressed the questions. It was anticipated that the majority of the students would be from Queen Mary University (QMU).So it was considered that the majority of trips to the campuses would be made by walking. Therefore the transport assessment, expecting low transport trips, was accurate. Moreover the site had a good public transport accessibility rating and could accommodate people wishing to travel. There would also be a car free agreement. By virtue of its location and the restricted access, the site was only really suitable for student housing. The request for junction works was disproportionate given the scheme would generate few car trips. The development would fit in well with the area judging by the response from local people. Residents ... view the full minutes text for item 9.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision: On a vote of 4 for and 1 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission and Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED for
2. That such planning permission be subject to
A Any direction by The Mayor;
B The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the circulated report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and Conservation area consent and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the circulated report.
5. That, if within 6 weeks of the receipt by LBTH of the Mayor of London’s Stage II report the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated the power to refuse planning permission
Minutes: Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application regarding Land bounded by Norton Folgate, Fleur De Lis Street, Blossom Street, Folgate Street, Norton Folgate, London.
Elaine Bailey (Strategic Applications Planning Officer) presented the application assisted by a power point presentation. She explained the reasons for the previous refusal agreed at the 12th May 2011 Committee meeting. The Application had since been revised to overcome these concerns. The scheme complied with policy. The previous reasons for refusal could not be supported on policy grounds.
A key change was the omission of the residential units above the public house. Ms Bailey also explained the location which included the Scheduled Ancient Monument. English Heritage had considered the impact on this. Overall it was felt that there would be no adverse impacts.
Ms Bailey explained in detail the plans for Norton Folgate, Shoreditch High Street and Blossom Street. She clarified the improvements on the previous 2007 application. She also drew attention to the increased S106 agreement requiring, amongst other things, contributions to Enterprise and Employment , including the Council’s Skillsmatch programme and the Public Realm. The plans would stimulate employment and economic growth in the local area. The plans would also improve permeability of the site creating a new public space.
Ms Bailey explained the outcome of the consultation of 29th June 2011 advertised in local newspapers, sites notices and letters to residents. In response 2 representations were received.
Overall the scheme complied with policy. Therefore it was recommended that the scheme be granted in accordance with the Officer’s report.
In response to the presentation, Members put a number of questions to Officers around the following issues.
Ms Bailey addressed each question. She explained the options regarding the residential units in view the objections to locating them above the public house. Consideration was given to whether they could be located elsewhere under the scheme. However it was felt that such alternative locations were more suited to commercial use due to their location. Furthermore it was also likely that valuable buildings, (recently subject to conservation work with English Heritage) may need to be demolished should ... view the full minutes text for item 9.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PA/11/00163 - Tower House, 38-40 Trinity Square, London, EC3N 4DJ Additional documents: Decision: Item Withdrawn.
Minutes: Item Withdrawn.
|