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: Councillor David Edgar declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1 Ailsa Wharf, Ailsa Street, London (PA/16/02692). This on the grounds that as Cabinet Member for Resources he was the Lead Cabinet Member for a Cabinet report relating to the sale of the land determined by the Mayor in Cabinet earlier in the week. He stated that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of this application.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 111 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 26th October 2017 Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26th 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.
|
|
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), 2,034sqm (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.
Officer recommendation to the Committee:
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: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) 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. He explained that the application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 26th October 2017. The application was recommended for approval, however members voted to refuse planning permission due to concerns over:
· The height of the proposal and its failure to step down; · The overdevelopment of the site; · The bulk and massing of the proposal.
Following negotiations with Council officers, the applicant had made a number of amendments to the scheme to increase the level of affordable housing and to provide a health unit within the development.
Chris Stacey (Planning Services) presented the report reminding the Committee of the site location and the key features of the application. In terms of the changes, it was noted that the applicant had converted 18 of the private units to affordable units taking the overall affordable housing offer within the scheme up to 40% (from 35%). The tables in the Committee report showed the revised offer compared to the previous offer as presented to the October Committee. The applicant had also replaced A1 floor space with D1 floor space to be used as a doctor’s surgery (subject to the health trust agreeing to take on the facility) or another community facility.
Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted permission. However, should Members still wish to refuse the application, one reason for refusal was proposed (incorporating the Committees three suggested reasons for refusal) as set out in the report as well as a further standard reason relating to the absence of a legal agreement, set out in the update report. The Committee were also advised of the implications of a refusal and that the emerging Local Plan and the London Plan might be given more weight at any appeal
Members asked questions about the status of the emerging plans at any appeal. It was confirmed that whilst at this stage in the process, the Committee were not required to take into account these plans, they would carry more weight in the future and the Planning Inspector at any appeal would need to take into account any policies in place at the time. This advice would apply to any applications.
Members also asked questions about the height of the proposal and the failure to step down given the policy requirements. Confirmation was sought that the suggested reasons covered this issue. In response, Officers provided assurance about this. In response to further questions, officers clarified the plans to provide an additional community facility in addition to a nursery (D1) and also the quantum of commercial space still proposed.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
Councillor Marc Francis moved that the ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
Ailsa Wharf, Ailsa Street, London (PA/16/02692) PDF 10 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use scheme providing 785 residential units (C3) and 2,954 sqm GIA commercial floorspace (A1/A3/B1/D2) within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys (Maximum AOD height of 59.5m); the creation of a new access road and the realignment of Ailsa Street; the provision of safeguarded land for a bridge landing; the provision of cycle and car parking spaces; and associated site-wide landscaping and public realm works.
Officer recommendation to the Committee
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives; Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use residential led scheme with commercial floorspace within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys and associated works.
Kate Harrison (Planning Services) presented the application describing the nature of the site and surrounds including the plans for the Bromley Hall School, and the pedestrian and cycle links through the site. The Committee were also advised of the height of the proposed buildings, their position in the development and noted images of the proposal from key points. Members also noted the outcome of the consultation and the issues raised.
In terms of the land use, the proposal would deliver employment space and a significant amount of housing, open space, a riverside walkway and also a landing area for a new bridge amongst other things. Therefore, it accorded with policy in land use terms. Whilst the density of the proposal exceeded the guidance in the London Plan, the proposal displayed no symptoms of overdevelopment and met the criteria for schemes exceeding this guidance. In terms of the housing, the application would provide a suitable level of affordable housing - 35 % of the housing mix. This would be split 65%35% in favour of affordable rent with a 50/50 split between Tower Hamlets Living rent and London Affordable rent. The viability of the application had been reviewed and whilst the offer exceeded what the application could afford, the applicant had taken a commercial decision to provide this level of housing. There would also be a review mechanism to increase the number of affordable units if possible to be secured through the legal agreement.
It was considered that the proposal would be of a good quality design. The future occupants would have a good standard of amenity and there would be generous levels of open space and child play space for all age groups. The child play space strategy was noted. The impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable and there were measures to mitigate any impact from the waste transfer station. The proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the local highway and public transport network and a range of contributions would be secured. In view of the merits of the application, Officers considered that it should be granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the measures to improve air quality and minimise pollution levels for the future occupants given the proximity of units to the A12. The Committee also questioned whether pollution from the highway could affect the appearance of the proposal and whether the materials would protect its appearance. Members also asked questions about the discussions regarding the layout of the scheme in view of these issues and the social housing mix given the level of 3 and 4 bed affordable units.
In response, Officers confirmed that the plans included measures to minimise any impact from the highway, including tree planting ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Proposal:
Temporary permission (3 years) for the erection of a 3 storey building comprising of a B1(a) (site office) in conjunction with the construction of the London City Island development, along with various enhancements to East India Dock Basin.
Officer Recommendation to the Committee:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement conditions and informatives Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for temporary permission (3 years) for the erection of a 3 storey building comprising of a B1(a) (site office) in conjunction with the construction of the London City Island development, along with various enhancements to East India Dock Basin. The application was being brought to the Committee as it affected Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).
Chris Stacey (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the nature of the site and surrounds, the existing use of the site and the key features of the application. He reported that in addition to the provision of the temporary structure, the plans would provide a range of permanent enhancements to the East India Dock Basin, that would be secured as part of the legal agreement. He also explained the outcome of the consultation and the issues raised.
It was noted that the development would result in the temporary loss of a small area of MOL. However, given the requirement to reinstate the site at the end of the permission and the range of permanent enhancements to the East India Dock Basin, Officers considered that exception circumstances existed to justify this temporary loss of MOL. The proposed design of the temporary structure was considered to be acceptable. The proposal did not raise any undue amenity issues given the distance between it and the nearest residential properties and the proposed hours of operation. A range of contributions would be secured as set out in the committee report. Officers were recommending that the proposal should be granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the choice of location and the consultation responses relating to: the height of the development, parking and vehicle entry and the loss of the temporary education facility on the site. Confirmation was also sought that the comments from the LBTH Biodiversity Officer had been addressed. In response, Officers explained that due a lack of space within the London City Island site, the proposed accommodation could not be provided on the site. Therefore an alternative site needed to be found to facilitate the next phase of the development. The applicant considered that this site would provide the most suitable location. Officers were mindful of the concerns about the loss of the education facility. However, Officers considered that the merits of the scheme would outweigh this in terms of the impact on the MOL given the proposed enhancements and the temporary nature of the structure.
It was also considered that the scale and height of the development would be appropriate and that it would accommodate less of the site than a two storey building. This would require more floor space to accommodate the proposed use. Steps would be taken to secure a travel plan for the development to manage the access arrangements. It was required that details of the proposed enhancements be submitted before the works within the EIDB could commence. Such plans would need to be agreed by the Council’s biodiversity officer.
The Committee also ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
Other Planning Matters None. Minutes: None |
|