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: Councillors Md Maium Miah and Julia Dockerill declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.2, 10 Bank Street, London, E14 (Eastern part of the site known as Heron Quays West) (PA/16/02956) as they had received hospitality from the Canary Wharf Group , which the applicant was a subsidiary of. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 96 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 16 February 2017. Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 February 2017 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. |
|
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part 7, part 11 storey mixed use building with basement parking to provide 291sqm of commercial space (A1/A2/A3/A4, B1(a), D1 Use Classes) together with 160 residential units with associated landscaping, children's play facilities and public riverside walkway.
(Alterations to the development approved under planning permission PA/13/03053 including a two-storey extension to Block A and a single-storey extension to Block B to provide 34 additional residential units and all associated works).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, and the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part 7, part 11 storey mixed use building with basement parking to provide 291sqm of commercial space together with 160 residential units with associated works.
Christopher Stacey – Kinchin (Planning Services) presented the report. He explained the nature of the site bounded by the gas holder site and the River Lea. It was reported the application constituted an amendment to the consented application to provide additional housing. Consultation had been carried out and the results were noted. The provision of a housing led strategic development in this location was supported and it was considered that the increase in height was acceptable in townscape terms. Whilst the density of the scheme exceeded that of the consented application, there would be additional affordable housing and financial contributions for further affordable units off site. In terms of the amenity impact, there would some loss of light to properties, caused partly by the design of existing buildings. Overall the impacts would be negligible. There would be a moderate increase in vehicle trips but overall Transport for London and LBTH Highways felt that the proposals were acceptable subject to the conditions. There would be contributions for the Community Infrastructure Levy and a s106 agreement. It was recommended that the application be granted planning permission.
In response Members asked about the need for the offsite contributions for affordable housing and why the units could not be provided on site. The Committee also asked questions about the capacity for a health centre on site. It was noted that due to the layout of the consented scheme (which was currently under construction) and the terms of the agreement in respect of the housing, there were limited opportunities to provide additional affordable housing on site at this stage. Therefore, it was considered appropriate that contributions be secured as an alternative. In addition, the opportunities to provide a heath facility on site were also restricted due to the site limitations. However, the D1 community use space could potentially accommodate a health centre and the neighbouring gas holder site could also provide such as facility given its size.
Members also asked questions about the viability testing and the Independent Consultants report. It was noted the initial report assessed the costs of the development prior to any work being carried out and found that the surplus would be £2,912,641. The report was then reviewed to take into account the current scenario and the additional costs already expended. This found that the scheme would deliver a surplus of £1,217,699. A contribution for this sum had been secured as a result of this.
The Committee also asked about the quality of and the location of the child play space. It was noted that the play space exceeded the standards in policy. The play area, comprising a podium level courtyard, would be located on the upper ground floor and would be of good ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Proposal:
Construction of a building of 166m AOD comprising 124,734sqm (GIA) of office (Use Class B1) and 293sqm (GIA) of retail (Use Class A1-A5) along with a decked promenade to the West India Dock South, access and highways works, 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 legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham(Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the construction of a building of 166m AOD comprising of office and retail space along with a decked promenade to the West India Dock South, access and highways works, landscaping and other associated works.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
In response to questions, Councillor Chesterton outlined the scope of the applicant’s strategy and the timetable for its production. In light of the positive approach, he confirmed that he no longer objected to the application. Officers advised that the Council were working on a water space strategy. They had received a copy of the applicant’s draft strategy and this could inform the their own strategy. The landscaping strategy could be worded in such a way to allow for further improvements to the public realm if supported by the water space strategy, as detailed in the update report
Howard Dawber (Canary Wharf Group (the Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He highlighted the aims of their new strategy to enhance the dock space. It was planned that the applicant would work with partners to implement the plans. He described the nature of the commercial space, highlighting the need for the large floor plate office accommodation for commercial reasons. The marketing intelligence showed that this feature would increase the units attractiveness to future tenants. It would therefore provide additional employment.
In response to questions, he noted that there have been a number of developments that had encroached on water space. The applicant had listened to the Councillors views and had decided to prepare the draft strategy. No representations in objection had been received and there was support for the provision of the new pedestrian route and the retail space. The plans would facilitate public access to the dock and heritage assets. There were measures to mitigate the impact on the micro climate, protect the biodiversity value of the site and a commitment to provide local jobs. He also outlined the nature of the discussions with the Canal and Rivers Trust and the agreement between the two parties.
Piotr Lanoszka, (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report describing the nature of the site including the location of the nearby listed buildings. He also explained the planning history, drawing comparisons between the extant scheme and this scheme. Consultation had been carried out and the outcome of this was noted. The delivery of office and retail space in this location was supported and would create additional employment. The scheme broadly corresponded with the neighbouring 1 Bank Street development in terms of the land use, ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
Proposed Revised Planning Code of Conduct PDF 93 KB The Committee is recommended to:
1. Note the revised Planning Code of Conduct in Appendix 1 of the report; 2. Note that pursuant to Part 1 Paragraph 4.02 of the Constitution the adoption and amendment of the revised Planning Code of Conduct is a matter for Council; and 3. Comment generally on the revised Planning Code of Conduct so that these comments can be reflected prior to the revised Code being put forward for adoption.
Additional documents: Minutes: Paul Greeno (Senior Corporate and Governance Lawyer) presented the revised Planning Code of Conduct explaining the need to update the code. He drew attention to the key changes, including the new section on Members Interests.
In response, Members welcomed the new code and made a number of comments. In relation to lobbying, it was requested that the rules be reviewed to recognise that Members could engage in lobbying so long as they comply with the provisions in the code of conduct. In respect of Committee site visits, it was also requested that this be reviewed to recognise that Members could express views when attending site visits so long as they did not indicate that the Member had made up their mind.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the revised Planning Code of Conduct in Appendix 1 of the report be noted;
2. That it be noted that pursuant to Part 1 Paragraph 4.02 of the Constitution the adoption and amendment of the revised Planning Code of Conduct is a matter for Council; and
3. That the following comments be reflected prior to the revised Code being put forward for adoption.
Section 7 Lobbying
It was requested that this section should be reviewed to recognise that Members may engage in lobbying so long as they comply with the provisions in the code of conduct.
Section 9 - Committee site visits
Rule Paragraph 9.1 requiring that Councillors must avoid expressing opinions or views on the application to any person present (including other councillors) during site visits.
It was requested that this paragraph be expanded to recognise that Members may express views so long as they do not indicate that the Member has made up their mind.
|
|