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 |
---|---|
The agenda order was changed at the meeting to consider agenda item 4.1 (Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 (PA/15/00837) before agenda item 3.1 Former Castle Wharf Esso Petrol Station, Leamouth Road, London, E14 0JG (PA/16/01763/A1)
|
|
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 Marc Francis declared an interest in agenda item 4.1 Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 (PA/15/00837) as he had received representations from interested parties, was a former resident of the Collingwood Estate and had served as a Board Member on the Tower Hamlets Homes Board at the same time as, Iain Lawson, one of the registered speakers in objection. However he emphasised that he had not spoken to Mr Lawson or the Collingwood Tennants Residents Association about the application.
|
|
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.
|
|
Former Castle Wharf Esso Petrol Station, Leamouth Road, London, E14 0JG (PA/16/01763/A1) PDF 351 KB Proposal:
Redevelopment of the former Service Station site with a residential led mixed use development, comprising residential units, together with 295 sqm of D1 floorspace, 81 sqm of flexible non-residential floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2), 36 sqm café floorspace (Use Class A3), set across two main buildings including a 24 storey tower with stepped blocks of 20, 17, 11 and 8 storeys, linked by a 2 storey podium at ground level, with a single basement level, landscaping and associated amenities.
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.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the redevelopment of the former Service Station site with a residential led mixed use development. It was reported that the application was previously considered at the Committee meeting on 29th November 2016, where Members resolved to defer the application for a Committee site visit (that took place on the 9th December 2016) and requested further information on:
· The impact of the scheme on schools and health care provision. · Developments with play space on the upper floor.
It was also reported that due to contractual issues, the applicant had submitted an appeal against non-determination. Therefore, the Committee were now being asked to consider how they would have determined the application should they have the power to determine the application. (Further legal advice on this matter is set out at the end of this minute).
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application reminding the Committee of the site location, the routes to local amenities including the two new routes to Canning Town that would be opened by the time the application was built out (if granted).
Since the last meeting, the plans had been amended to relocate the child play space to the ground floor. This had been achieved by relocating the community space to the roof level. As a result of the changes, the level of play space marginally exceeded the policy requirements. Changes had also been made to covert non residential floor space to a Class DI community use.
In terms of the school and health care review, the findings indicated that there would be capacity to sustain the development and the population from other anticipated developments, given the plans to increase the capacity of the facilities. Full details of the findings were set out in the Committee report and were summarised at the Committee meeting. Attention was drawn, in particularly, to the planned new heath practices for the Aberfeldy Estate and the new schools at Wood Wharf and the Bromley Hall Site.
It was also noted that the site falls within an area identified in policy for a high density development.
Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted planning permission.
In response to questions, Officers clarified the plans to provide the additional community use. It was also noted that there would be a Community Infrastructure Levy contribution for health and education facilities amongst other things . It was also report that Officers had discussed the plans for the new Aberfeldy practice with the providers and it was understood that the increased capacity could accommodate other new developments in the area. Furthermore, it could be a number of years before the application would be occupied and in that time, additional infrastructure would come forward. It was also explained that the review of pupil projections covered a range of factors and the review did take into account the impact from other new developments coming forward. ... view the full minutes text for item 3.1 |
|
Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 (PA/15/00837) PDF 13 MB Proposal:
Demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store (Use Class A1) of 5,766 sqm (net sales area), (11,208 sqm GIA to include a Use Class D1 'explore learning ' facility (118 sqm GIA), 871 sqm (GIA) of flexible retail/office/community floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1) and 559 residential units (Use Class C3) arranged in 8 buildings, including a 28 storey tower (101.375m (AOD)), an energy centre and plant (2,509 sqm (GIA)) is proposed at basement level with 240 'retail' car parking spaces and 40 disabled car parking spaces for use by the proposed residential units. 2 additional disabled parking bays are proposed at ground floor level at Merceron Street. The creation of an east-west public realm route from Cambridge Heath Road to Brady Street, including further public realm provision and associated highway works to Brady Street, Merceron Street, Darling Row, Collingwood Street and Cambridge Heath Road.
Recommendation:
That the Strategic Development Committee REFUSES planning permission, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store along with residential units and associated works.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee
Ian Lawson, (Collingwood Tenants Residents Association) and Thomas Antoniw, (Friends of Trinity Green/East End Preservation Society), spoke in opposition to the scheme. They noted the need for the redevelopment of the site and additional housing, however they objected to the height of the proposal and the harmful effect this would have on the nearby heritage assets and the Conservation Area as well as neighbouring amenity. The development would overpower surrounding buildings that were much lower in height and cause a loss of sunlight and daylight. They also objected to the density of the application (given the size of the site) and the level and affordability of the housing for local residents in particular. They also commented on the strength of the opposition to the application. The speakers then responded to questions of clarification from the Committee about their concerns. In relation to the heritage impacts, it was considered that the development would harm the setting of the historic Trinity Green Almshouses by interrupting the unspoilt skyline, particularly at the east and west of the site, that no other development had done. They also answered questions about their other concerns with the application
Bruno Moore (Sainsbury’s) spoke in support of the application. He considered that the impact on the heritage of the area would be less than substantial and the benefits of the scheme would outweigh this . A viewed shared by the Greater London Authority whose comments had been submitted before the height of the application had been reduced. In response to the Committee questions, he commented on the scope of the applicant’s consultation, the changes to the application, the implications of reducing the height any further on the viability of the scheme, Historic England’s comments on the height, and the frontage treatment. He also responded to questions about the housing mix (in view of the shortfall of 4 bed affordable units), the shortfall in affordable housing, due in part to the costs of closing the supermarket during the construction phase, and the energy efficiency measures. He also considered that the density of application was an honest response to the site constraints.
Sunil Khosla (Representative of the Whitechapel Market Traders) also spoke in support of the application. He considered that traders welcomed the application given the beneficial effect that it would have on local trade. It would help modernise the local market and bring customers into the area benefiting the local economy. This was especially welcomed with the coming of the new Cross Rail station
Gareth Gwynne, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a comprehensive presentation of the application describing the key features of the site and surrounds and the application. He described in some detail the merits of the application (including ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|