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 68 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: Councillor Julia Dockerill declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.3 Land at Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 (PA/16/00899 & PA/16/00900) as she had received hospitality from the Canary Wharf Group, had attended a political conference at a Canary Wharf Group site and was writing a book with the Chief Executive of the Canary Wharf Group.
Councillor Asma Begum declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.3 Land at Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 (PA/16/00899 & PA/16/00900) as her husband had received hospitality from the Canary Wharf Group and, referring to her role as the Council’s Cabinet Member for Culture, on the grounds that the Canary Wharf Group had sponsored certain cultural events in the Borough.
Councillor Maium Miah declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.3 Land at Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 (PA/16/00899 & PA/16/00900) as he had attended events arranged by the Canary Wharf Group.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 107 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Strategic Development Committee held on 24th August and 8th September 2016.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 24 August and 8 September 2016 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 87 KB 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.
3) To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee. 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
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None.
Minutes: None |
|
99 Mansell Street & 31-33 Prescot Street, London E1 (PA/16/00757) PDF 7 MB Proposal:
Mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 9 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 57 serviced apartments (Use Class C1) on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace (Use Class B1) at basement, ground and first floor and a 103 sqm of flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) at ground floor level.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, and conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 9 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 57 serviced apartments on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace at basement, and retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace.
It was noted that the application was previously considered by the Committee on 24th August 2016 and Members were minded to refuse the application. Due to the scale of the change that had been made to the application to address the Committee concerns, the application was being brought back to the Committee afresh as required by the Council’s Development Committee procedure rules where material changes have been made to a deferred application.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dr. David O’Neil and Dr. Maria Salichou (Londinium Tower) addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. The speakers felt that their concerns about the August application had not been addressed. They objected to the impact of the nine storey Mansell Street element on the historic setting on the area. The proposal would reduce views of the listed church. They also objected to the impact that the height and close separation distances would have on neighbouring amenity. As a result, the plans would result in a loss of light to properties at Londinium Tower, particularly during the winter months, a loss of privacy and overlooking into habitable rooms. To address the concerns the height of the proposal should be reduced. In response to questions they discussed the consultation process, the construction impact and requested that the height should be reduced to minimise the development’s impact.
The applicant’s representatives, Simon Smith and Oliver Law spoke in favour of the application referring to the three previous reasons for refusing the application (set out in the officers report). The application, that primarily concerned the Mansell Street extension, had been significantly amended to address the concerns. The height had been reduced so that there would now only be a single storey step up from the existing building and the proposal would be lower than the church spire. The sunlight/daylight assessment had been reassessed and the Committee report had been updated to record that all of the windows passed the BRE tests in respect of sunlight levels. Only three representations had been received. The design would safeguard privacy and there would be contributions to mitigate any impact from the plans. In response to questions from Members, they confirmed the results of the sunlight and daylight testing. A small number of windows would experience a loss of light, but generally the neighbouring windows would continue to receive adequate levels of light and the compliance levels were quite typical for an urban setting. Furthermore, while the separation distances just fell short of the policy requirements, they were sufficient to maintain privacy and there would also be mitigation to safeguard privacy.
Beth Eite (Planning Services) presented the Committee report. The Committee were ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
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 13, part 15 storeys comprising of 63 residential units (Use class C3) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible use - Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4), 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 to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of public house and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building and erection of mixed-use development with ground floor commercial unit and associated works.
It was noted that the application was previously considered by the Committee on 28th July 2016 and Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:
· Overdevelopment of the site. · Height, bulk and massing. · The density of the proposal and the impact this would have had on the · daylight/sunlight of neighbouring buildings. · Loss of a public house. · Underprovision of child play space and communal amenity space. · Quality of the design. · The existence of a separate entrance for the affordable units.
Since that time, a number of changes had been made to the application to address the Committee concerns, and due to the nature of the changes, the application was being brought back to the Committee afresh in accordance with the Council’s Development Committee procedure rules.
Nasser Farooq, (Planning Services) gave a presentation on the application. He reminded the Committee of the site location and surrounds and the changes to the application since previously considered by the Committee in relation to: the reduction in the height of the development and the consequential reduction in units, the reduction in massing and volume and the increase in separation distances to neighbouring buildings. He also drew attention to the changes to the housing mix, the addition of the A4 drinking establishment, the increased level of communal space/child play space and the improvements to the design of the building. The images now before Members showed a more accurate representation of the design of the building.
A further round of consultation on the revised application had been carried out and the results of this were noted.
It was reported that the child play space and communal amenity space provision now met the policy targets and that despite the loss of units, the level of affordable housing remained at 37% per habitable room. The plans also included a commitment to market the drinking establishment as a public house for a 6 months period. The density had been decreased but still exceeded the London Plan guidance. However the plans showed no symptoms of overdevelopment. A small number of windows failed the sunlight and daylight tests in policy but the results could in part be attributed to the design of the existing buildings. Overall the results were considered to be acceptable.
Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted planning permission.
In response to the presentation, Members asked about the proposed drinking establishment, and sought assurances about the robustness of the plans for marketing it as a public house in the first instance. In response, it was reported that the viability report had been updated with the latest marketing information and the information showed that it was not viable in the short term. If granted, Officers would take on board Members comments regarding the need for ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
The Quay Club, Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 (PA/16/00899 & PA/16/00900) PDF 895 KB Proposal:
Demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall to enable the installation of proposed utilities services and future deck; the installation of new piles in the Bank Street; and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club (Use Class Sui Generis) and other associated works incidental to the development.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Officers clarified that the application address should be entitled ‘Land at Bank Street’ Canary Wharf, London, E14.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall to enable the installation of proposed utilities services and future deck; the installation of new piles in the Bank Street; and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club (Use Class Sui Generis) and other associated works incidental to the development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Dave Chesterton spoke in opposition to the application. He objected to the loss of the open water space and that the policy criteria for allowing this in the report had not been met. He also urged that if granted, the proposed S106 contribution for improving and enhancing the natural environment in the Borough should be used to enhance the water space. He cited examples of previously approved applications that had resulted in the loss of a water space without providing sufficient mitigation. Councillor Chesterton then answered questions from Members about his concerns.
The applicant had declined to speak in support of the application.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Services) presented the application explaining the planning history and the site location and the key features of the application. Consultation had been carried out and no objections had been submitted. It was considered that the land use was acceptable for a town centre location and also that the loss of the water space could be supported given the limitations in terms of its potential use. The plans would be of a high quality design and would be carried out in a sensitive matter to protect the heritage assets. There would also be a S106 contribution towards improving and enhancing the natural environment in the Borough. The plans also included biodiversity measures to mitigate the impact of the application
Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.
In response to the presentation, Members also asked about the impact of the development on pedestrian access and the employment opportunities from the plans. Officers explained that the proposal would be subject to a construction management plan and if granted Officers could ensure that it would safeguard pedestrian access during the construction phase where possible. The plans also included obligations in respect of local employment.
Members also asked about the design of the proposals, the nature of the proposed use and if the proposed ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
Planning Appeals Report PDF 332 KB Recommendation:
The Committee is recommended to note the contents of this report.
Additional documents: Minutes: Paul Buckenham presented the planning appeals report highlighting the key issues for consideration. It was noted that Appendix 1 of the report sets out the Council’s Appeal decision results between April 2015 and September 2016 and Appendix 2 detailed live appeals. He drew attention to the importance of the appeal decision process and the benchmarking data for inner London Authorities in respect of major and minor appeals. He also drew attention to some of the appeal decision outcome on applications determined at Member level and the lessons learned from this. The results showed that overall the Council’s performance at appeals compared favourable to the other Authorities in terms of quality of decision making.
In response to the presentation, the Committee discussed the Council’s success rate at appeal and also its approach to negotiating amendments with the applicant to address concerns at the Committee stage. In summary the Chair felt that the Committee had a good success rate in upholding its decision at appeals and thanked Officers for producing such a comprehensive report.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
The contents of the report be noted. |
|