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 67 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 119 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 4 October 2017 Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4th October 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 Place 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 Place 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, Place 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, Place 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.
|
|
1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS (PA/16/03771) PDF 116 KB Proposal
Demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide 57 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1).
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, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Nasser Farooq, (Team Leader – East Area, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide a residential led scheme.
Jennifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the application. The application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 4 October 2017 (along with similar appeal scheme for an 8 storey development for the Committee to express a view to the planning inspector)
The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on the following basis:
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 and the implications of the decision.
The officer recommendation remained to grant the application. However, officers had drafted suggested reasons for refusal to reflect the concerns should Members decide to refuse the application.
Ms Chivers then addressed each of the Committee’s reason for refusal.
· Scale of the development.
It was noted that Members expressed concern that the proposal would exceed the prevailing buildings heights within the local context, despite the reductions in the proposals height. It was noted that the proposal presented a marked contrast in scale to the surrounding buildings and it could therefore be considered that the proposal would be out of keeping with the setting of the surrounding area. Therefore, whilst officers considered that the proposal would be acceptable on this ground, it would be reasonable for Members to reach a different conclusion.
· Land use
Members considered that the proposal failed to provide a significant level of employment floor space and that the proposal would not offset the loss of existing floor space. Taking into account the low quantum of employment floor space, Members could conclude that the proposal conflicted with the aspirations in the City Fringe/Tech Opportunity area. A reason on this ground could therefore be defended at appeal
· Level of affordable housing.
Members were advised that it would be reasonable for them to conclude that despite the submission of detailed and robust financial statements (which were independently reviewed), that there were insufficient benefits of the scheme to outweigh the low levels of affordable housing. Officers therefore considered that a reason on this ground could be defended at appeal.
· Impact on the Conservation Area.
Members felt that the proposals would cause harm to the setting of heritage assets and that the merits of the plans would not outweigh this. In the absence of Members identifying public benefits that outweigh the identified harm to heritage, this reason could be defended at appeal. ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent And 23-39 Pepper Street, London, E14 PDF 24 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent and 23-39 Pepper Street and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys (90.05m AOD) to 30 storeys (102.3m AOD) in height, comprising 319 residential units (Class C3), 1,708sqm (GIA) of flexible non-residential floor space (Classes A1, A3, A4 and D1), private and communal open spaces, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping and public realm works. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission Minutes: Update report.
Nasser Farooq (Team Leader – East Area, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings at the site and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys to 30 storeys
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Councillor Dave Chesterton and Iain Dootson, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. It was considered that the proposal did not comply with the Council’s stepping down policy for tall buildings, due to the height of the proposal. The proposal would exceed the height of the surrounding buildings. It would also harm the setting of the Glengall Bridge and impact on access to the area, particularly during the construction phase and cause overshadowing to properties. The proposals would increase parking stress. The travel information was out of date. The density of the proposal would be too high, and put pressure on local services that were already at capacity. There was also a lack of genuinely affordable housing and concerns about the suitability of the child play space.
In response to questions, the objectors explained in further detail their concerns about the height of the proposal in view of it’s proximity to low rise developments. It would create a ‘cliff edge affect’ and be not in keeping with the existing pattern of development near lower rise buildings that provided an more appropriate gradient in building. It would therefore conflict with policy and the emerging tall buildings policy. They also clarified their concerns about the affordability of the housing and felt that this would not offset the breach in tall buildings policy and the impact of local infrastructure.
Mark Gibney (Applicant’s representative) spoke in favour of the application. He advised of the changes made to the proposals, following engagement with the Council, the GLA and the Council’s Conservation and Design Advisory Panel. The height of the building had been reduced and it was considered that it would conform with the policy and emerging policy and fulfilled the aspirations of the site allocation in policy. There would be conditions to mitigate the construction impact and preserve access. There would also be a generous level of play space, amenity space, public realm improvements and a car free agreement with opportunities for assessable parking spaces. TfL had not raised any concerns about the impact on the transport network. The scheme would provide a generous level of affordable housing weighted in favour of family sized units.
In response to questions, Mr Gibney reported that the applicant and officers had carried out a lot of work in terms of assessing the impact of the height. Overall, it was felt that it would broadly comply with the Council’s policy in terms of building heights. In response to further questions he provided assurances about the transport assessment. With the permission of the Chair, the applicant’s highways specialist, outlined the findings of the travel survey and explained that it complied with the relevant standard. So it included ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
East India Dock Basin, Lower Lea Crossing PDF 9 MB Proposal:
Relocate the Historic vessel SS Robin from the Royal Victoria Docks to the East India Dock Basin. The vessel will occupy an elevated position on the east side of the Lock Entrance beside the River Thames.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Nasser Farooq (Team Leader – East Area, Planning Services) introduced the application to relocate the Historic vessel SS Robin from the Royal Victoria Docks to the East India Dock Basin. The vessel would occupy an elevated position on the east side of the Lock Entrance beside the River Thames. The application had been submitted to the Committee as it involved open metropolitan land
Kevin Crilly (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the nature of the site, the surrounds and the site designations in policy for the site and the historic importance of the vessel. The committee were also advised of the outcome of the consultation.
The committee were advised that the loss of 1.3% of the existing Metropolitan Open Space could be considered to be acceptable in this instance as the proposed development met the relevant exceptions in policy for developing within metropolitan open space and would provide additional cultural and historic interest within the Borough. It was considered that any impact upon the open character of the East India Dock Basin would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. The Council’s biodiversity officer had raised no objections to the proposal. Officers were also of the view that the proposed location of the vessel was acceptable in terms of its layout, scale and appearance. Therefore, officers were recommending that the proposal was granted planning permission and listed building consent.
Members asked about the measures to guarantee public safety and it was noted that the vessel would only be viewable from the outside during daylight hours and there would also be on site management.
The Committee welcomed the proposal and thought that it would be a valuable addition to the borough’s heritage.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission and listed building consent be GRANTED at East India Dock Basin, Lower Lea Crossing to relocate the Historic vessel SS Robin from the Royal Victoria Docks to the East India Dock Basin subject to:
2. That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and listed building consents and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the Committee report
3. Any other conditions and informatives considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Place.
|
|