Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Committee Room, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Louise Fleming, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4878, E-mail: louise.fleming@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||
---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Rupert Bawden and Abjol Miah. Councillors Josh Peck and Waiseul Islam deputised respectively.
|
|||
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: Councillor Josh Peck declared a personal interest in item 6 which related to Bonner Primary School, as he had been approached by local residents.
Councillor Rofique Ahmed declared a personal interest in item 6 as the local ward member for Mile End & Globe Town.
Councillor Louise Alexander declared a prejudicial interest in item 8.1 which related to Land bound by Hackney Road and Austin Street, including Mildmay Mission Hospital, Hackney Road, London E2 7NS, as she had submitted an objection to the Council in respect of the application.
Councillor Ahmed Hussain declared a personal interest in item 8.1 as the application involved the NHS and he was employed by a local PCT (Primary Care Trust).
|
|||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14th September 2006. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 14th September 2006 were confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair.
|
|||
RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 To NOTE that the Chair has agreed to the submission of the Update Report of the Head of Development Decisions in accordance with the urgency provisions at Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to ensure Members have before them all the relevant facts and information about the planning applications set out in the agenda.
4.2 To RESOLVE that, in the event of recommendations being amended at the Committee in light of debate, or other representations being made by Members of the public, applicants, or their agents, the task of formalising the wording of any additional condition(s) be delegated to the Head of Development Decisions along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
Minutes: 4.1 The Committee NOTED that the Chair had agreed to the submission of the Update Report of the Head of Development Decisions in accordance with the urgency provisions at Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to ensure Members have before them all relevant facts and information about the planning applications set out in the agenda.
4.2 The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of recommendations being made by the Members of the public, applicants or their agents, the task of formalising the wording of any additional conditions be delegated to the Head of Development Decisions along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
|
|||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee. Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections.
|
|||
BONNER PRIMARY SCHOOL Minutes: Mr Neil Weeks, Interim Senior Planning Lawyer, introduced the report and informed the Committee that two requests for deputations had been received, Mr Tom Ridge on behalf of the Save the Bonner School Campaign and Mr Martin Tune on behalf of Bonner Primary School. He advised the Committee to hear the representations of the two deputations, after which he would give detailed legal advice as to the Committee’s powers in relation to the item.
Members expressed concern that the item had come before the Committee when it related to a decision made by the Cabinet. The view was also expressed that Members should hear the legal advice before deciding whether or not to hear the speakers.
Mr Weeks explained that the report had been generated by a motion passed at the meeting of the Council on 13September 2006 to “refer the demolition of the Old Bonner School to a meeting of the planning committee to enable officers to consult on this decision, and enable a proper debate involving residents and councillors…”. The motion should have been referred to the Cabinet, which had originally made the decision to demolish the school. The Strategic Development Committee did not, therefore, have any discretion to make any recommendations. However, it was felt that the motion should be reported to the Committee for information, due to the level of concern on the issue expressed by full Council.
The Committee resolved that pursuant to Rule 27 of the Council Procedure Rules to suspend Rule 20.1 to enable the deputations to make their representations.
Mr Tom Ridge spoke on behalf of the Save Old Bonner School Campaign in objection to the demolition. His letter of representation had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. In particular, he disagreed with the statement in the report to the Committee which stated that the demolition of unlisted buildings was not a matter which required planning consent and made reference to paragraph 29 of Circular 10/95.
Mr Martin Tune, Headteacher of Bonner Primary School, spoke in support of the demolition of the old school. His letter of representation was tabled for Members at the meeting. He stressed the need for improving external curriculum and outdoor play facilities for the pupils and the newly built school building was preferred by both staff and children at the school.
Mr Weeks provided the Committee with legal advice relating the demolition of buildings. In reference to paragraph 29 of Circular 10/95, other than a dwelling-house or a building adjoining a dwelling-house, the demolition of a building did not constitute development, as stated in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Development) Direction 1995. The demolition of a dwelling-house or a building adjoining a dwelling-house was permitted by virtue of class 31 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) subject to a prior notification procedure and other limitations. Circular 10/95 constituted government guidance on planning controls over the demolition of ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|||
WEIGHT OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION BY COUNCIL Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, presented the report which contained advice relating to the emerging Local Development Framework and the appropriate weight to be attached to it when considering planning applications. Members were reminded that each planning application would have to be determined on its own individual merits.
The Committee RESOLVED that the policies within the Local Development Framework, approved on 13th September 2006, generally be given significant weight as a material consideration when determining planning applications, prior to its adoption and note that the adopted Unitary Development Plan remains the statutory planning instrument until such time.
The Committee NOTED that
(i) the weight of the policies in the Local Development Framework is likely to increase as each successive stage towards adoption is reached. Furthermore, the weight of individual policies may vary depending on the outcome of the consultation on the submission Development Plan Documents; and (ii) the Council may seek to refuse a planning application on the grounds of prematurity. However, it will be required to clearly demonstrate how the granting of that planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the Development Plan Document process.
The Committee adjourned for a short break at 9.00 pm and resumed at 9.10 pm.
|
|||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Louise Alexander left the room and did not return for the duration of the item.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented the report which detailed the reasons for refusal for based on views expressed by Members at the meeting of the Committee held on 14th September 2006. It was proposed that only reasons 1 and 3 as detailed in the agenda report be put forward as the grounds for refusal.
On a vote of 5 for and 2 against, the Committee AGREED that the application for the demolition of existing buildings (excluding community centre) and redevelopment to provide a campus of six buildings comprising:
on land bounded by Hackney Road and Austin Street including Mildmay Mission Hospital, Hackney Road, London E2 7NS be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1) The development would be insensitive to the context of the surrounding area, by reason of design, mass, scale, height and use of materials. As such the proposal is contrary to:
a) Policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998, which require development to take into account and be sensitive to the character of the surrounding area, in terms of design, bulk, scale and the use of materials and the development capabilities of the site; b) Policies 4B.1, 4B.3, 4B.8 and 4B.9 of the London Plan 2004 that provide location and assessment criteria for tall buildings; c) Policy DEV6 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 in that the development does not meet the criteria for high buildings located outside the Central Area Zone; d) Policy UD1 of the Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document 2005, which requires the bulk, height and density of the development to relate to surrounding building plots and blocks and the scale of the street; e) Policy UD2 of the Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document 2005, which requires tall buildings outside identified tall building clusters to satisfy a number of development criteria; f) Policy DEV2 of the Local Development Framework (Submission Document) Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document 2006, which requires development to be designed to the highest design quality standards; and g) CP48 and Policy DEV27 of the Local Development Framework (Submission Document) Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document 2006, which specify ... view the full minutes text for item 8.1 |
|||
Rodwell House, 100-106 Middlesex Street, London E1 (Spitalfields & Banglatown) Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment by the erection of buildings between 5 storeys (26 metres) and 35 storeys (119 metres) high for mixed use purposes comprising 32,458 sq m of student accommodation, 772 sq m of residential, and 8,825 sq m of offices (B1), shop (A1), and gymnasium and 186 sq m of community uses, formation of associated car parking and highway access as well as hard and soft landscaping works at Rodwell House, 100-106 Middlesex Street, London E1.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented the officers report and the update report. He outlined the differences between the current and approved applications in terms of scale and height. He informed the Committee that the applicant had agreed to a number of conditions to address the concerns of the residents. The residents of Brody House had therefore withdrawn their objections. However, two residents of the Wexner Building expressed their disappointment at the withdrawal of the objection and reiterated their original objection.
Members asked questions relating to the Local Development Framework and the response from English Heritage. Mr Irvine informed the Committee that English Heritage had responded to the first, but not the second application.
On a vote of 5 for and 2 against, the Committee AGREED that the application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment by the erection of buildings between 5 storeys (26 metres) and 35 storeys (119 metres) high for mixed use purposes comprising 32,458 sq m of student accommodation, 772 sq m of residential, and 8,825 sq m of offices (B1), shop (A1), and gymnasium and 186 sq m of community uses, formation of associated car parking and highway access as well as hard and soft landscaping works at Rodwell House, 100-106 Middlesex Street, London E1 be GRANTED subject to the conditions outlined below
1.1.1 The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 1006 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and other appropriate powers) to include the matters outlined in Section 1.2 below, and the conditions and informatives outlined in Sections 1.4 and 1.5 below; and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, to include the matters outlined in paragraph 1.3 below. 1.1.2 The application first be referred to the Mayor of London pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, as an application for a new building exceeding 30 metres in height. 1.1.3 The Committee confirm that it had taken the environmental information into account, as required by Regulation 3 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. 1.1.4 A Statement be placed on the Statutory Regulatory confirming that the main reasons and considerations on which the committee’s decision was based, were those set out in the Planning Officer’s report to the Committee (as required by Regulation 21(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.
Legal Agreement
1.2 Section 106 agreement to ... view the full minutes text for item 8.2 |