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 0842, 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 Carlo Gibbs, for whom Councillor Denise Jones deputised.
Change of Order of Business
The Chair indicated that the order of business on the agenda would be varied so as to consider item 6.1 first, in view of the large public attendance in connection with the application. However, for ease of reference, the decision list is shown in the original agenda order.
The Chair further commented that Councillor Judith Gardiner would not be eligible to vote on agenda item 5.1, as she had not been present at the meeting on 6th March 2012, when the item had been deferred.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Carlo Gibbs, for whom Councillor Denise Jones deputised.
Change of Order of Business
The Chair indicated that the order of business on the agenda would be varied so as to consider item 6.1 first, in view of the large public attendance in connection with the application. However, for ease of reference, the minutes are set out in the original agenda order.
The Chair further commented that Councillor Judith Gardiner would not be eligible to vote on agenda item 5.1, as she had not been present at the meeting on 6th March 2012, when the item had been deferred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 42 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 March 2012. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered for speaking rights at the meeting.
The Chair indicated that he had used his discretion to grant speaking rights to Councillor Peter Golds, who wished to speak in support of agenda item 6.1. He added that additional time would be consequently made available to the two objectors who had registered to speak on the item.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered for speaking rights at the meeting.
The Chair indicated that he had used his discretion to grant speaking rights to Councillor Peter Golds, who wished to speak in support of agenda item 6.1 in his capacity as a Ward Councillor. He added that additional time would be consequently made available to the two objectors who had registered to speak on the item.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision: Update report tabled.
In considering the application, the Committee required that the following point be formally noted and recorded in the minutes:
On a vote of 4 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED for the hybrid planning application at Former Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street and Land North of Hooper Street and east of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1 for residential-led redevelopment of the site comprising:
(a) Outline Application - All matters reserved (except for access)
§ Development of North East (NE) and South East (SE) quadrants of the site to provide: § Podium blocks of between 7 - 10 storeys (max 46.075m AOD) with two towers on each podium block of between 19-23 storeys (max 85.425m AOD) and dwellings fronting Gower's Walk; § Up to 700 residential units (Use Class C3); § Up to 6,709 square metres (GIA) of flexible commercial and leisure floor space (Use Classes A1 - A5, B1a, D1 and D2) at ground floor level including a health centre (up to 1,581 square metres GIA); § Associated vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access; § At least 9,380 square metres of Public Open Space; and § Related infrastructure and engineering works.
(b) Full details
§ Development of the North West (NW) quadrant of the site to provide: § Podium block between 6-10 storeys (max 46.075 AOD) and two towers up to 19 Storeys (max 76.17m AOD) and 21 storeys (max 85.4m AOD); § 250 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) including a restaurant (Use Class C3) at ground to sixth floor level; § 164 residential units (Use Class C3); § 841 square metre (GIA) ancillary gym and swimming pool at ground and first floor level for residents use; § 1,713 square metre (GIA) flexible commercial / leisure floorspace (Use Class A1 - A5, B1a and D2) at ground floor level; § 17, 778 square metre (GIA) basement level across the site to provide 253 car parking spaces, 35 motor cycle spaces, 50 electric car charge points, 1358 cycle parking spaces and ancillary facilities for storage, management facilities and plant; § Public Open Space to form part of the wider outline public open space strategy; and § Associated access, landscaping, surface car parking and cycle parking and related infrastructure and engineering works.
(2) That such planning permission be 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. (3) That the Corporate Director Development and Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters ... view the full decision text for item 5.1 Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, presented the circulated report and tabled update and referred to the reasons given by Members at the last meeting as to being minded to refuse the application, along with implications of a refusal. Mr Smith indicated that, since the last meeting, the applicant now proposed a mix of 48% social rent, 26% affordable rent (pod levels) and 26% intermediate. This meant more family units at a social rent, leading to a significant change of family sized, socially rented units in that part of the Borough.
Ms Mary O’Shaughnessy, Planning Officer, added that child playspace had now been increased from 1322 sq.m to 2900 sq.m which met the policy requirement. This had been achieved by reducing the amount of communal amenity space, which still accorded with policy requirement. Ms O’Shaughnessy continued that the developer had now provided further information on proposed biodiversity enhancements across the site which were much more consolidated and were considered acceptable.
Mr Smith indicated that a further offer had been made to commit to providing 80 apprenticeships during the construction programme and to encourage engagement with the local community. He referred to a letter appended to the update report received from Whitbread Plc in which agreement was given to enter into a social compact to ensure that local residents had the best possible opportunity to enter into hotel work and related training.
Members then put questions to Officers with regard to:
Officers’ responses included information that: · The viability of the scheme had been robustly examined and the applicant had offered additional levels of housing provision that now affected the viability or profitability of the scheme. · Employment provisions and the training centre were being factored into the scheme through the S106 agreement. The developer would build and fit out the training centre, which would be leased to the Council at a peppercorn rent on a 15 year basis. The facility would be run by a Trust established jointly by the Council and developer and linked to the hotel. · It was now considered that the offers made since the last meeting meant that the previous reasons for possible refusal would not be sustainable on appeal. Should the applicant go to appeal, any S106 arrangements would be determined by the Planning Inspector and, after 1st April 2012, the development would become subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy, which would impact both on the viability of the scheme and the amount of S106 benefits to the Council.
In considering the application, the Committee instructed that the following point be formally noted and recorded in the minutes:
On a vote of 4 ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Decision: Update report tabled.
Councillor Denise Jones did not vote on this application as she had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
In considering the application, the Committee required that the following points be formally noted and recorded in the minutes:
Councillor Bill Turner moved and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded an amendment which, on being put to the vote, was agreed 5 for and nil against, and is shown as resolution (3) below.
The substantive motion was put to the vote and, on a vote of 5 for and nil against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at the Robin Hood Gardens Estate, together with land south of Poplar High Street and Naval Row, Woolmore School and land north of Woolmore School bounded by Cotton Street, east India Dock Road and Bullivant Street, for:
PA/12/00001 (Outline Planning Permission) Outline application for alterations to and demolition of existing buildings, site clearance and ground works and redevelopment to provide: · Up to 1,575 residential units (up to 191,510 sq.m GEA - Use Class C3); · Up to 1,710 sq.m (GEA) of retail floorspace (Use Class A1-A5); · Up to 900 sq.m of office floorspace (Use Class B1); · Up to 500 sq. m community floorspace (Use Class D1); · Replacement school (up to 4,500 sq.m GEA - Use Class D1); · Replacement faith building (up to 1,200 sq.m - Use Class D1) The application also proposes an energy centre (up to 750 sq.m GEA); associated plant and servicing; provision of open space, landscaping works and ancillary drainage; car parking (up to 340 spaces in designated surface, podium, semi-basement and basement areas plus on-street); and alterations to and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access routes. All matters associated with details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and (save for the matters of detail submitted in respect of certain highway routes, works and/or improvements for the use by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians as set out in the Development Specification and Details of Access Report) access are reserved for future determination and within the parameters set out in the Parameter Plans and Parameter Statements. (a) Outline Application - All matters reserved (except for access)
§ Development of North East (NE) and South East (SE) quadrants of the site to provide: § Podium blocks of between 7 - 10 storeys (max 46.075m AOD) with two towers on each podium block of between 19-23 storeys (max 85.425m AOD) and dwellings fronting Gower's Walk; § Up to 700 residential units (Use Class C3); § Up to 6,709 square metres (GIA) of flexible commercial and leisure floor space (Use Classes A1 - ... view the full decision text for item 6.1 Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning and Building Control, introduced the planning application regarding redevelopment of the Robin Hood Gardens Estate (PA/12/00001) and application for conservation area consent (PA/12/00002) for the demolition of building adjacent to and on east side of Steamship public house, Naval Row.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Tom Ridge, speaking in objection to the proposal, referred to the intention to expand Woolmore School from 1 Form Entry. Whilst he had no objections to this in principle, the drawings showed that a large four storey extension would be provided on the existing site. The circulated report made reference to Officers’ views that the overall benefits of the scheme outweighed the loss of the building, implying demolition. However, Woolmore School was one of only 30+ schools built by the former LCC around 1916, when designs of such non-Georgian elementary schools were at their best. Officers had also referred to a detailed heritage appraisal, however, he had made two objections by letter, which were not mentioned and the Officers’ remarks comprised only unjustified assertions. He had visited all such schools and could assure the Committee that all were different, as evidenced by the differences between the Woolmore, Osmani and Bow Boys’ Schools in the Borough. Later examples were less well designed. The report stated that the school had been heavily altered, but he disagreed with that opinion. The north east part of the building had suffered war damage but it was the most original of the schools in the Borough. It was, therefore, premature to consider demolition of the school and this should be avoided.
In response to Members’ questions, Mr Ridge stated that the application seemed to have rubbished the school and Officers considered demolition was acceptable to achieve benefits. He was concerned that the tabled update report still referred to demolition of the existing building. He had sent letters in this regard to Lead Members, Officers, the School Headteacher and Chair of the Governors and Sister Christine Frost had indicated that she was prepared to take up the matter with the Governors. Although no formal response had been received from the school, the only structural criticism related to a long internal central corridor that lacked natural light. However, the classrooms were spacious and in perfect condition. Mr Ridge agreed that the school needed extending on an enlarged site for the 3 Form Entry but adaptations could be made very easily without demolition.
Mr Darren Pauling, speaking in objection to the proposal, stated that he was a resident of Robin Hood gardens and Chair of the Millennium Green Trust. He felt that the entire consultation process had been a betrayal of what residents wanted. It was wrong to say that 80% of residents favoured demolition of Robin Hood gardens and he had raised a petition showing that 92% preferred refurbishment. The current site had a strong sense of community and provided a peaceful ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former Blessed John Roche Secondary School, Upper North Street, London E14 6ER (PA/11/3765) PDF 3 MB Decision:
On a vote of 5 for and nil against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Former Blessed John Roche Secondary School, Upper North Street, London, E14 6ER, (PA/11/3765) for construction of 239 dwellings within two buildings extending to between five and ten storeys with landscaping and 92 car parking spaces, being a revision of Blocks C and D as approved within planning permission dated 21st September 2010 (PA/10/161) and comprising an additional 12 residential units upon the 27 previously approved within these blocks.
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the additional planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
(5) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of development Decisions be delegated power to refuse the planning permission.
Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley, introduced the application (PA/11/3765) regarding the construction of an additional 12 residential units at the site of the Former Blessed John Roche Secondary School, Upper North Street, London, E14 6ER.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, made a presentation of the scheme and indicated that this sought 12 additional housing units for the development previously granted planning permission on 21st September 2010 (PA/10/161).
On a vote of 5 for and nil against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Former Blessed John Roche Secondary School, Upper North Street, London, E14 6ER, (PA/11/3765) for construction of 239 dwellings within two buildings extending to between five and ten storeys with landscaping and 92 car parking spaces, being a revision of Blocks C and D as approved within planning permission dated 21st September 2010 (PA/10/161) and comprising an additional 12 residential units upon the 27 previously approved within these blocks.
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the additional planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
(5) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of development Decisions be delegated power to refuse the planning permission.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||