Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 64 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 Monitoring Officer.
Minutes: No declarations of interest were made.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 81 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 16th June 2016 Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 June 2016 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.
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 AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 94 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.
|
|
South Quay Plaza 4, Marsh Wall, London, E14 (PA/15/03073) PDF 176 KB Proposal:
Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 Residential (Class C3) Units, Community Use (Class D1) together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
The Chair reported that the Council had received representations from objectors to address the Committee. Given that the application was a deferred item and that the Council’s Constitution did not allow public speaking on deferred items he was not minded to approve this request. The Chair then asked the Committee if they had any objections to this decision and they indicated that they agreed with the Chair on this matter.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) reported that the application was previously considered by the Committee on 12 May 2016 where Members were minded to refuse the scheme for the following reasons:
· Excessive density. · Impact on infrastructure particularly the transport network, the highway and social infrastructure including education and health facilities. · Unacceptable level of affordable housing. · Impact on residential amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight. Since that meeting, the applicant had modified the application to help overcome the concerns as set out in the Committee report.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the revised application reminding Members of the site location plan, nature of the existing site and the site designation in policy. He showed the Committee images of the proposed scale and massing of the proposal in context with surrounding buildings.
As mentioned above, the applicant had proposed changes to the proposals to provide:
· 189sqm community facility (D1 use) provided at ground floor level · All 49 on site affordable units (1,2,3 and 4 beds) provided at Social Target Rent Level · Replacement of 27 intermediate units with 27 market sale units · A £7 million commuted sum to deliver affordable units off site · S106 clause securing expansion of approved SQP2 Nursery from 678sqm to 891sqm prior to occupation of the development (SQP4)
He explained the implications of the changes drawing attention to the revised housing mix and the updated viability appraisal including the revised cost of delivering the off site intermediate units.
It was also explained that Highway Services had no objection to the scheme and that any impact would be mitigated by the Community Infrastructure Levy. Regarding the density, the Greater London Authority had no concerns about the plans. The proposal exhibited one symptom of overdevelopment relating to the sunlight and daylight impact. However, this was a common problem experienced in building tall buildings in a dense urban area. Overall, Officers felt that given the significant public benefits of the scheme, it cannot be considered that the resultant harm outweighed this. Therefore, Officers considered that the previous issues had been addressed and Officers were recommending that the application be granted permission.
Mr Thomas advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse the scheme there were suggested reasons for refusal set out in the update report.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about the proposed community facilities, in particularly whether they could be ring fenced for community activities. They also asked about the density of the scheme, the tests in policy for assessing overdevelopment, the sunlight and ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Proposal:
The erection of buildings that range from 3 to 12 storeys in height comprising of 143 residential units including 28 car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informative
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the erection of buildings that range from 3 to 12 storeys in height comprising of 143 residential units including 28 car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee. Catherine O'Mahony (Aqua Vista Development) Andy Ager (Silver Wharf Development) spoke in opposition to the development.
They considered that the concerns raised in relation to the previous scheme around impact on the neighbouring properties still applied and had not been addressed. The application would obstruct sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties given that many of the properties were single aspect. There would also be a loss of privacy, the development would obscure local views (given the height of the scheme), displayed symptoms of overdevelopment due to the density and would have an adverse impact on the amenity value of the canal. They also expressed concern that the height of the scheme was out of keeping with the surrounding building heights and views of Canary Wharf would be obscured . There was no justification for a deviation in policy in this regard. A low rise, low density development would be more in keeping with the area and would comply with policy. They also objected to the lack of consultation with neighbours.
In response to Members questions, they clarified their concerns about the consultation exercise, the height of the scheme and its appearance, the sunlight and daylight impacts, overshadowing from the scheme, the density of the scheme and overdevelopment of the area given the existing issues in this regard.
The applicant’s agent Mike Walker, spoke in favour of the scheme, highlighting the scope of the applicants consultation exercise that involved amongst other measures door step canvassing. There had been significant improvements to the application since previously submitted to the Committee with regards to the height, massing, density, sunlight/daylight impacts, removal of balconies nearest the tow path to ensure that the application would be more in keeping with the area to protect amenity and preserve the setting of the tow path. He also highlighted the benefits of the application including the provision of 35% affordable housing. Should this application be approved, the previously refused application would be withdrawn. The applicant then answered questions from Members about the changes to the scheme, the scope of the local consultation, that primarily focused on the immediate neighbours most effected by the plans, the measures to improve the scheme’s relationship with the tow path and protect privacy including the introduction of landscaping. The Canal and River Trust had no objection to the application and the developers provided a litter picking service covering the canal side and this was very effective.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation of the plans explaining the site location showing images of key views including the canal side. He described the planning history and the key changes to the scheme (compared to ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
116-118 Chrisp Street, Poplar London, E14 6NL (PA/14/02928) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Demolition of public house (Use Class A4) and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building (Use Class B1/B2) and erection of mixed-use development of part 5, part 14, part 16 storeys comprising of 71 residential units (Use class C3) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible use - Use Classes A1/A2/A3), and associated cycle and refuse storage facilities, amenity areas and electricity sub-station. Formation of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses onto Chrisp Street.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement conditions and informatives
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of public house and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building and erection of a mixed-use development.
Brett McAllister, (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the proposals. The Committee were advised of the site location that had good transport links and that the surrounding area included residential developments ranging in height and of a comparable scale to the proposal. The site was located at the northern end of the Chrisp Street Market District Centre. Consultation had been carried out and the outcome of this was noted including the concerns about loss of the public house.
The Committee were also advised of the proposed layout, the level of child play space and amenity space and the separate access cores for the affordable and private tenures. It was considered that the design of the building was of a high quality.
The proposed housing offer comprised 37.4 % affordable housing including family sized housing with private amenity space. Whilst the density of the application exceeded that recommended for a development of this size in the London Plan density matrix, it was considered that the impacts were acceptable, and this should be weighed against the positive impacts of the development. It was noted that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the Equinox development in particular. However, Officers considered that this was to be expected given the existing low rise nature of the application site and given the regeneration benefits, on balance, that this was considered acceptable.
There would be a CIL contribution and Planning Obligations to mitigate the impact of the proposal. In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted.
The Committee then asked questions about the affordable housing. In particular, they questioned the approach of delivering the units as affordable rents instead of social rents; the separate entrances for these units; whether the tenants of these properties would have access to all of the community space or only part of it and the impact of these issues in terms of social segregation.
They also asked about the shortfall in child play space, the overall quantum of the community space, the impact on social infrastructure, the impact on the neighbouring properties particularly the Park View and the Equinox developments. It was asked whether the design of the Equinox building had been taken into account and whether an alternative design would effect that building less.
The Committee also enquired about the contributions for employment, skills and training, the suitability of the retail offer and the loss of the public house. Members questioned the acceptably of this given the lack of alternatives public houses in the nearby area. In particularly the Committee questioned the findings in the viability report in respect of its future viability and if it was possible to include it in the scheme.
Concern was also expressed about the appearance of the scheme.
|
|
Royal Mint Court, London, EC3N 4QN (PA/16/00479, PA/16/00480) PDF 797 KB PA/16/00479:- Full Planning
Full planning permission for comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide an employment-led mixed use development of up to 81,000sqm of B1, A1, A3 and D2 floor space, involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II* listed), remodelling and refurbishment of the façade of the Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations and extensions to the remainder of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone four storey building with the south west corner of the site, alterations to existing boundary wall to create new access points to the site and associated public realm and landscaping and all ancillary and associated works.
PA/16/00480:- Listed Building Consent
Listed Building consent for the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II*), remodelling and refurbishment of the Grade II façade of the Registry, with alterations and extension to the remainder of the building and alterations to existing boundary wall to create new access points to the site and all ancillary and associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for planning and listed building consent for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide an employment led mixed use development.
Gareth Gwynne, (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation on the proposal and the site including the location of the heritage assets. He explained the plans for the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade 11* listed), the proposed remodelling and refurbishment of the façade of the Registry (Grade 11 listed), the proposed changes to Murray and Dexter House, the proposed erection of a standalone four storey building and the proposed creation of new access points to the site and new public realm and landscaping. Objections had been received by historic groups but the plans had since been amended to address these issues involving amongst other things reducing the height of the proposed development to preserve views.
The land use complied with policy. Given the merits of the proposal officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.
The Committee sought clarity about the location and the plans for the nearby subway. Officers advised that it did not form part of the development but would provide a route into the site. The applicant had expressed a wish to engage with TfL to discuss ways of improving the access route.
The Committee also discussed the heritage aspects of the proposal. They welcomed the changes to reduce the impact on the heritage assets and asked if there were any measures to promote such assets and the history of the site. It was questioned whether some of the CIL contributions could go towards providing signage in the immediate vicinity. They also drew attention to the comments of the Twentieth Century Society about the value of the Murray and Dexter House.
Officers replied that since receiving the application, they had worked hard to ensure that the site’s archaeology was better displayed to the public. Accordingly there would be a planning obligation to secure the conservation, management and display of the site’s archaeology including the provision of an event space. The obligation would include a requirement to provide heritage signage. Officers were mindful of the comments of the Twentieth Century society about the historic value of the Murray and Dexter House. However, given the condition of the building and the benefits of the scheme (in terms of the generation of jobs etc.) Officers did not consider these factors merited the retention of the whole building and the scheme being refused.
On a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the planning permission and listed building consent at Royal Mint Court, London, EC3N 4QN (PA/16/00479, PA/16/00480) be GRANTED for
PA/16/00479:- Full Planning
Full planning permission for comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide an employment-led mixed use development of up to 81,000sqm of B1, A1, A3 and D2 floor space, involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II* listed), remodelling ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|