Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: M71, 7th Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Brian Bell, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4878, E-mail: brian.bell@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||
---|---|---|---|
Apologies for absence To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Abdul Asad. |
|||
Declarations of interest 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.
Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|||
Minutes of 3.11.5 meeting To confirm a correct record of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 3rd November 2005. Minutes: The minutes of the Strategic Development Committee held on 3rd November 2005 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.
The Clerk advised that in relation to the issue arising at the last meeting, it was a requirement that members be present throughout the hearing of any case. This did include any officer introduction, and did apply regardless of whether the application had been appealed. The member concerned had therefore acted correctly in declining to take part in the debate or decision. |
|||
Deputations Members may agree to receive deputations. Minutes: It was agreed to accept Mr Jason Binns, speaking on behalf of the applicant for item 5.1.
In respect of items 5.2 and 5.3, officers advised that the reports needed to be deferred to allow for further consideration of the GLA’s views, clarification of the amount of family-sized accommodation, and the allocation of amounts to be secured via the Section 106 agreement. |
|||
Iceland Wharf, Iceland Road, London E3 2JP (Report number SDC007/056) Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report, which assessed an application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 blocks of up to 9 storeys to provide 205 residential units and 2 offices. The report detailed twelve grounds on which it was recommended for refusal. The principal one of these was that the site had been included within the Lower Lea Valley Strategic Employment Location, by the Mayor of London in the latest sub-regional framework of the London Plan. It should therefore in most circumstances, be safeguarded for employment generating or industrial uses.
In addition, the density proposed, at 1004 hrph, was over twice as much as the upper level indicated by current policies. The proposal provided insufficient affordable housing, and the wrong mix both of unit sizes and of tenures. The internal dimensions of some flats were unacceptable, there was insufficient amenity space and it was not clear that any were wheelchair accessible. The design was considered insensitive, particularly in the way it overshadowed the River Lea, and the flood risk assessment had been deemed inadequate. The area suffered from poor infrastructure, especially access to public transport, and servicing facilities from Iceland Road were unsatisfactory. Finally, the site fell within the OLY4 area, which had outline consent as a car and coach parking facility serving the Olympic Games.
Addressing the committee on behalf of the applicant, Mr Jason Binns argued that the issues were not as black and white as they had been portrayed. The applicant believed they had addressed some of the objections outlined in submitting revised plans and could have resolved others in further meetings with planning officers. The amount of social housing and the unit mix had been improved, and access and servicing resolved. They contended that the London Development Agency were not objecting to the proposal but expressing their own interests in respect of the site.
In relation to the employment issues, the applicant had commissioned and submitted their own study from a recognised consultant, which had concluded that the loss of industrial and employment uses was justified in this case. He pointed out that the units to be provided on the Wick Lane frontage could be used for other employment or industrial uses, and should not be restricted to offices. It was their view that the application was not contrary to Unitary Development Plan or Local Development Framework policies, and that mixed use was better than leaving the site in its current condition and usage. He concluded by drawing attention to other similar schemes nearby, which the applicant believed had set a precedent.
In response to members’ queries, he stated that fewer than 10 people were currently employed on the site but believed that this would rise to between 25 and 50 if redevelopment proceeded. The density had been reduced to 940 hrph in the revised plans submitted on November 7th, and the British Waterways and Environment Agency’s concerns would be addressed during a further redesign.
In reply, Mr Irvine ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|||
Suttons Wharf, Palmers Road, London E2 0SF - PA/04/01666 (Report number SDC008/056) Minutes: Deferred. |
|||
Suttons Wharf, Palmers Road, London E2 0SF - PA/05/01727 (Report number SDC009/056) Minutes: Deferred.
Close of Meeting
The meeting ended at 8.40 pm. __________________ ___/___/06 Councillor Rofique Uddin Ahmed Chair, Strategic Development |