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 from Councillors Stephanie Eaton, Carlo Gibbs and Helal Uddin.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Stephanie Eaton, Carlo Gibbs and Helal Uddin and from Councillor Judith Gardiner for lateness.
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS Decision: There were no declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
Councillor Zara Davis stated that she had been previously involved in a campaign against the proposals in the ASDA planning application (agenda item 7.3) and would withdraw from the meeting during consideration thereof, when Councillor Craig Aston would deputise for her for that item only.
Minutes: Ms Megan Nugent, Legal Services Team Leader, clarified the new arrangements for declaration of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
No declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests were made.
Councillor Zara Davis stated that she had been previously involved in a campaign against the proposals in the ASDA planning application (agenda item 7.3) and would withdraw from the meeting during consideration thereof, when Councillor Craig Aston would deputise for her for that item only.
|
|
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 5th July 2012. Decision: Councillor Bill Turner asked that the commentary regarding minute 8.2 (Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London [PA/11/03824]) be amended to reflect Members’ decision that they had wanted to refuse the planning application.
The Committee RESOLVED
That, subject to the amendment shown above, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5th July 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: Councillor Bill Turner asked that the commentary regarding minute 8.2 (Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London [PA/11/03824]) be amended to reflect Members’ decision that they had wanted to refuse the planning application.
The Committee RESOLVED
That, subject to the amendment shown above, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5th July 2012 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 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 14th August 2012
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.
|
|
Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW - Outline Application (PA/10/00373) Additional documents:
Decision: On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the Officer recommendation to refuse the application be NOT ACCEPTED and that outline planning permission for demolition and redevelopment works at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 (PA/10/373) be GRANTED for the following reasons:
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the agreement of the S106 package as set out in the Committee report and to any direction by the Mayor of London.
(3) That the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: The Chair indicated that the planning applications set out in agenda items 6.1 and 6.2 would be considered concurrently, as they related to the same site, but with a separate vote on each.
Councillor Peter Golds stated that he had been a member of the Committee at the last meeting and had participated in the vote on these applications. He noted that negative comments regarding his participation had been made on a local blog and referred the matter to the Legal Officer. Ms Megan Nugent, Legal Services Team Leader, stated that she would take the matter into serious consideration. Councillor Golds added that he would be referring the issue to the Monitoring Officer. The Chair confirmed that this matter would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, briefly introduced the applications for outline and full planning permission at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW, which Officers had been minded to refuse, whilst Members had not been happy to accept those recommendations.
Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, made a further brief presentation on the details of the applications.
The Chair commented that there had been a very detailed discussion at the last meeting, with many Members’ questions on all aspects of the applications. He indicated, therefore, that the Committee should proceed to vote in the light of the supplementary reports and the recommended reasons for approval.
On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the Officer recommendation to refuse the application be NOT ACCEPTED and that outline planning permission for demolition and redevelopment works at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 (PA/10/373) be GRANTED for the following reasons:
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the agreement of the S106 package ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Additional documents: Decision: On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, with two abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the Officer recommendation to refuse the application be NOT ACCEPTED and that full planning permission for redevelopment works at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 (PA/10/374) be GRANTED for the following reasons:
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the agreement of the S106 package as set out in the Committee report and to any direction by the Mayor of London.
(3) That the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: For commentary, see previous item in these minutes.
On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, with two abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the Officer recommendation to refuse the application be NOT ACCEPTED and that full planning permission for redevelopment works at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 (PA/10/374) be GRANTED for the following reasons:
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the agreement of the S106 package as set out in the Committee report and to any direction by the Mayor of London.
(3) That the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
(At this point, 5.45 p.m., Councillor Denise Jones left the meeting. Councillor Peter Golds, who had been an eligible Member to vote on both Stroudley Walk Market applications as he had been a Deputy at the meeting of the Committee on 5th July 2012, took a place in the public gallery.)
|
|
Cayley Primary School, Aston Street, London, E14 7NG PA/12/00920 Minutes: Mr Pete Smith, development Control Manager, introduced the Committee report regarding the planning application for the provision of extensions at Cayley Primary School, Aston Street, London, E14 7NG (PA/12/00920).
Ms Beth Eite, Planning Officer, made a detailed presentation of the Committee report and tabled update as circulated to Members.
NOTE: Councillor Judith Gardiner joined the meeting at 5.55 p.m. and the Chair indicated that Councillor Gardiner could participate in discussion but was not eligible to vote on this item as she had arrived after the Officer introduction.
The Chair then invited Members’ questions on the application, which included: · The likely impact on the school and children if planning permission were not granted. · The variation in design between the original Victorian school building and the proposed extensions. · The proximity of the new extensions to a Grade II Listed Building and whether the setting of the latter would be significantly affected. · The impact on local transport systems of 190 extra pupils, when there were already congestion problems. The situation was likely to worsen even if the school already had a transport management plan.
Officers replied that:
On a vote of 4 for and nil against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Cayley Primary School, Aston Street, London, E14 7NG (PA/12/00920) for a 4-storey extension to join southern side of existing primary school to provide new classroom, resource accommodation, kitchen, hall and office space. New single storey extension to front of the existing building to provide teaching accommodation.
(2) That the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the Committee report and tabled update report.
|
|
Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824) Additional documents:
Decision: Update report tabled.
On a vote of 1 for and 3 against, with 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824) be NOT ACCEPTED due to 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, along with the implications of the decision.
Minutes: Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the Committee report concerning the application for cross-boundary hybrid planning permission at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824), for erection of a concrete batching plant, cement storage terminal and aggregate storage facilities, together with associated structures and facilities, walkway and landscaping, jetty and ship to shore conveyor.
Mr Smith added that the application had previously been submitted to Committee on 31st May 2012, when Members had not been minded to grant planning permission. He made the point that Greater London Authority consultation had confirmed that Orchard Wharf had safeguarded status and they had taken account of matters raised by Members. In the light of additional information and clarifications, the application was now being presented to the Committee afresh.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, stated that he was representing the Blackwall and Cubitt Town Ward, residents of Virginia Quay and also Jim Fitzpatrick MP, who was most concerned about the application. He expressed the view that the application would have been acceptable 50 years ago but the nature of the Borough had changed greatly and there was a large local population in the vicinity of the wharf. The site would generate a large number of vehicle movements in close proximity to Virginia Quay, which was also affected by the large Ballymore site nearby. Transport issues and environmental interests must be an absolute priority in that locality and provided excellent grounds to turn down the application. Councillor Golds added that he was concerned at the level of consultation that had taken place and local people had not been listened to by the developers. Over 200 lorries per day would have severe effects on local roads and the Canning Town flyover. The application should be refused on transport and many other reasons.
Ms Vina Walsh, speaking in support of the application, stated that the application would reactivate a derelict site. A range of environmental and other issues had been raised when the application was last considered. However, the amended scheme was now the culmination of two years’ work, which now contained mitigation measures and the proposals were justified. Public consultation had been conducted through public meetings and mailshots. All objections raised had been reviewed and comments provided. Officers had put forward Members’ concerns and the applicants’ environmental statement addressed these in detail. It was important to recognise the policy statement and the wharf’s safeguarded status. The applicants had done all they could to address Members’ and residents’ concerns comprehensively.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Walsh indicated that: · There would be 30 Borough employees at the construction stage and 30 at the operational stage. · There would be 198 lorry journeys throughout the working day, spread out at about 20 per hour. The site would be largely served by river traffic. Road traffic had been fully assessed and it was felt there would be ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|
ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670) Decision: Update report tabled.
On a vote of nil for and 3 against, with 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670) be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:
1. Concerns over affordable housing provision, in particular in relation to social target tenure 2. Concerns over the impact of the development on the sustainability of educational provision on the Isle of Dogs. 3. Concerns about the building height in the proposed development, having regard to related comments in the response of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, as set out in the Committee report.
NOTE: The Committee further agreed that a parking management strategy should be secured as part of the S106 agreement, so as to be able to negotiate parking provision with the developers and to the deletion of the words “during the construction phase” from the financial provision relating to allocation of £352,081 for Employment Skills and Training in the S106 agreement.
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, along with the implications of the decision.
Minutes: The Chair confirmed that Councillor Zara Davis was not participating in this item of business and her Deputy was Councillor Craig Aston.
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the Committee report and tabled update regarding the hybrid planning application for the demolition of the existing supermarket and comprehensive redevelopment of the site for mixed-use purposes at ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Ms Maggie Phillips, Chair of the St John’s Tenants’ & Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the big objection local people had to the proposed development was that it would not include a petrol filling station, meaning that there would be no such facility on the Isle of Dogs and this was very important to residents. In addition, only 30 social housing units would be provided from a development of 850. There were 24,000 applicants on the current housing waiting list and the lack of affordable housing, given the Government cap of housing benefit, meant that people were being driven out of the East End. This was a disgrace to the community and more homes were needed. A further 750 homes were being proposed for the Skylines development and this would create problems from pressure on local schools and health facilities. She felt that more should be done for local people, who would also feel boxed in by the development.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, stated that the project had been long in gestation but was short in achievability. He queried the nature of consultation, including a questionnaire that simply asked if people wanted a new Matalan on the site. The proposal comprised extensive over-development and the school places mentioned in the terms of the S106 agreement related to the Boroughwide position, not the Isle of Dogs. The applicant’s indicative outline unit and tenure mix showed 86 intermediate units, 30 social rented and 108 affordable rented units out of a total of 850. He asked how this would help Borough residents. Although the provision of a petrol filling station was not a planning requirement, it was important to local people and, additionally, there was no reference in the application to maintaining a chemist on the site. There would be massive over-development if the scheme went ahead, with lack of additional transport and only one extra bus stop.
In response to Members’ questions, Councillor Golds commented that all schools on the Isle of Dogs were bursting at the seams and could not take more pupils. People were already having to bus their children to schools in Whitechapel and this was unacceptable. He asked how additional education and health facilities would be made available for children living in the new development.
The Chair indicated that one of the registered speakers, Mr Danny French, was not in attendance and he intended to use his discretion to allow another person to address the meeting in substitution.
|
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Nil items. Decision: Nil items.
Minutes: Nil items.
|
|