Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 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. Decision: Apologies were received from Councillor Sirajul Islam.
Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Sirajul Islam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 16 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 Chief Executive.
Decision: Councillors made declarations of interest in the items included on the agenda as follows:
Minutes: Councillors made declarations of interest in the items included on the agenda as follows:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 86 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 8th November and 20th December 2007.
Additional documents: Decision: The unrestricted minutes of the meetings held on 8th November and 20th December 2007 were agreed as a correct record.
Minutes: The unrestricted minutes of the meetings held on 8th November and 20th December 2007 were agreed as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS To RESOLVE that, in the event of amendments to recommendations being made by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of amendments to recommendations being made, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal, along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of amendments to recommendations being made, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal, along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS PDF 22 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 Wapping Lane, London E1W 2RH PDF 310 KB Additional documents: Decision: On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of five buildings ranging in height from 3 to 19 storeys plus plant (to maximum height of 70.15m AOD) for mixed use purposes to provide 380 residential units (Class C3), 240 sqm of retail space (A1, A2 and A3), 201 sqm of concierge/management space plus 195 sqm of ancillary leisure and 247 sqm of meeting room/function space for the occupiers of the development, car parking, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access points and other ancillary work (amended scheme) at 21 Wapping Lane, London E1W 2RH be GRANTED subject to
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of five buildings ranging in height from 3 to 19 storeys plus plant (to maximum height of 70.15m AOD) for mixed use purposes to provide 380 residential units (Class C3), 240 sqm of retail space (A1, A2 and A3), 201 sqm of concierge/management space plus 195 sqm of ancillary leisure and 247 sqm of meeting room/function space for the occupiers of the development, car parking, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access points and other ancillary work (amended scheme) at 21 Wapping Lane, London E1W 2RH.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed update report, outlining the reasons why the application had been deferred by Members at the previous meeting. He advised that discussion had taken place between the applicant and the officers to address the concerns of the Committee and certain changes had been made to the application. The retail element had been reduced and changes had been made to the affordable housing mix. Mr Irvine also advised the rationale behind the contribution to healthcare provision as part of the S106 legal agreement. He advised that planning appeals had been lost on the basis of healthcare contributions which did not relate directly to the development, and therefore the provision was considered acceptable. Officers felt that Members’ concerns had been addressed through the amendments to the scheme and that the application was therefore recommended for approval.
Members asked a number of questions relating to the affordable housing, the capped healthcare provision and local employment initiatives. Members proposed an amendment to the S106 agreement to secure the lighting of the canal footpath and an additional condition to prevent the use of gating in the development.
On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of five buildings ranging in height from 3 to 19 storeys plus plant (to maximum height of 70.15m AOD) for mixed use purposes to provide 380 residential units (Class C3), 240 sqm of retail space (A1, A2 and A3), 201 sqm of concierge/management space plus 195 sqm of ancillary leisure and 247 sqm of meeting room/function space for the occupiers of the development, car parking, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access points and other ancillary work (amended scheme) at 21 Wapping Lane, London E1W 2RH be GRANTED subject to
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Site at Caspian Works and Lewis House, Violet Road PDF 201 KB Additional documents:
Decision: On a vote of 0 for, 2 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the redevelopment to provide buildings of between four and eleven storeys (38.95 metres AOD) for mixed use purposes including 143 residential units, Class A1, A2, A3 and B1 (shops, financial and professional services, restaurants/cafes and business) uses with associated works including car parking and cycle parking, roof terraces, landscaping and servicing (amended proposal) at Caspian Works and Lewis House, Violet Road, London on the grounds that the gated element was not in accordance with policy. It was therefore proposed and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to allow officers to negotiate further with the applicant on the gated element.
(Councillors Helal Abbas and Louise Alexander could not vote on the application as they had not been present at the previous meeting when the item was first considered.)
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the redevelopment to provide buildings of between four and eleven storeys (38.95 metres AOD) for mixed use purposes including 143 residential units, Class A1, A2, A3 and B1 (shops, financial and professional services, restaurants/cafes and business) uses with associated works including car parking and cycle parking, roof terraces, landscaping and servicing (amended proposal) at Caspian Works and Lewis House, Violet Road, London.
Mr Terry Natt, Strategic Applications Manager, presented a detailed update report and explained the reasons why the application had been deferred at the previous meeting and the further objections recieved. He advised that the gated access to the site had been part of a previous Committee approval in May 2007 and therefore a refusal on those grounds could not be sustained.
Members expressed their concern at the way the application had been handles in terms of the consultation and whether there had been sufficient time to consider the objections received.
Mr Kiely advised the Committee that the Council had a duty to consider all applications in a timely manner and that the consultation which had been carried out was in accordance with statutory requirements.
A motion was proposed by Councillor Rouse, and seconded by Councillor Shahed Ali, to defer the application again to allow sufficient consideration of objections received. On a vote of 2 for and 3 against, the motion was lost.
Members asked questions relating to the gated access, whether it was in line with policy, and the affordable housing provision.
On a vote of 0 for, 2 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the redevelopment to provide buildings of between four and eleven storeys (38.95 metres AOD) for mixed use purposes including 143 residential units, Class A1, A2, A3 and B1 (shops, financial and professional services, restaurants/cafes and business) uses with associated works including car parking and cycle parking, roof terraces, landscaping and servicing (amended proposal) at Caspian Works and Lewis House, Violet Road, London on the grounds that the gated element was not in accordance with policy. It was therefore proposed and agreed that the application be DEFERRED to allow officers to negotiate further with the applicant on the gated element.
(Councillors Helal Abbas and Louise Alexander could not vote on the application as they had not been present at the previous meeting when the item was first considered.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 250 KB Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Building C, New Providence Wharf, Blackwall Way, London PDF 347 KB Decision: On a vote of 4 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a part 12, part 44 storey building to provide 486 flats, a 323 sqm retail unit (Use Class A1) and concierge, a 948 sqm Health and Fitness club (Use Class D2) together with associated landscaping, car parking, servicing and plant at Building C, New Providence Wharf, Blackwall Way, London be GRANTED subject to
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the erection of a part 12, part 44 storey building to provide 486 flats, a 323 sqm retail unit (Use Class A1) and concierge, a 948 sqm Health and Fitness club (Use Class D2) together with associated landscaping, car parking, servicing and plant at Building C, New Providence Wharf, Blackwall Way, London.
Councillor Phil Briscoe addressed the Committee in relation to the development. He felt that there was a benefit to the redevelopment of the site as the current underpass had been a site of violent attacks and local residents did not feel safe using it. The development would bring much needed improvements to the crossings on the Preston’s Road roundabout.
Mr Steve Brown addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He agreed that the improvements to the roundabout were a priority and outlined the three options for financial contributions which were contained in the update report, highlighting that the first option would provide a £4,000,000 contribution towards the roundabout, but a lower percentage of affordable housing.
Mr Aktar Hussain addressed the Committee in support of the application on behalf of the Robin Hood Gardens TRA. He reiterated the concerns over the safety of the underpass.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed report on the application. He outlined the proposals and advised that the application was considered acceptable in terms of land use, amenity space, density and height. He outlined the three options which had been presented by the applicant in respect of the financial contributions towards roundabout improvements, affordable housing and healthcare, and the implications of those options. He advised that the Council’s policy aspiration was the provision of affordable housing and transport improvements. Therefore, the applicant’s third option, which included a lower contribution towards the roundabout improvement, but a higher percentage of affordable housing, should be approved.
Members expressed concern that the interruption of the speaker, Mr Brown, had been discourteous. They asked a number of questions relating to the affordable housing provision, the contributions towards the roundabout improvements and healthcare provision, the amenity space and children’s play space. Concern was also expressed over the height of the building and the unsecured TfL land. Members asked for clarification on matters relating to separate entrances, which were required by Registered Social Landlords, and the responsibility of Canary Wharf Ltd for the maintenance of the surrounding area.
The Committee was advised that the contribution towards the roundabout improvement would be sufficient to implement a reduced number of the overall crossings plan and that it was anticipated that contributions from other developments in the surrounding area would enable its completion.
On a vote of 4 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of a part 12, part 44 storey building to provide 486 flats, a 323 sqm retail unit (Use Class A1) and concierge, a 948 sqm Health and Fitness club (Use Class D2) together ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London PDF 353 KB Decision: On a vote of 2 for, 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of some of the existing commercial buildings, erection of a side roof extension plus atrium to the existing Greenheath Business Centre in connection with its use as class B1 business space (10,275 sqm), the erection of new 9 and 16 storey buildings in connection with the use of the premises as 101 units (253 beds) of student accommodation and 572 sqm of commercial floorspace (Class B1) at the Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London and RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:
1) Loss of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties; 2) The height of the building being out of character with the surrounding area; and 3) The over concentration of student accommodation in an area divorced from the universities.
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the demolition of some of the existing commercial buildings, erection of a side roof extension plus atrium to the existing Greenheath Business Centre in connection with its use as class B1 business space (10,275 sqm), the erection of new 9 and 16 storey buildings in connection with the use of the premises as 101 units (253 beds) of student accommodation and 572 sqm of commercial floorspace (Class B1) at the Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London.
Mr Jeremy Taylor spoke in objection on behalf of the residents of Sunlight Square, on the grounds that the proposal would create a transient student population and would destroy the character of the East End. He felt that the design was ugly and that the development would create an unacceptable level of noise for surrounding residents.
Ms Petra Salva spoke in objection on the grounds that the Borough had a greater need for affordable housing and that Tower Hamlets should not provide student housing for the rest of London. She felt that the development was too high and would overshadow residents, causing a loss of daylight and sunlight.
Mr Angus Boag spoke on behalf of the applicant for the development. The building in its current form was not fit for purpose and the cost of renovating would be unviable without the addition of the student housing. He informed the Committee that it was intended to create a centre of excellence of small fashion businesses; and read out a statement of support from London Metropolitan University.
Councillor Phil Briscoe spoke on behalf of the residents. He outlined the concerns over the provision of student housing instead of much needed affordable housing; the open space and roof terrace provision which would create a noise nuisance; and the height which would impact on the daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed report on the application. He outlined the reasons why the application had been recommended for approval and addressed the points raised by the speakers. The proposal was in line with policies for the provision of student housing; it would generate employment and improve a run down industrial area; and it was acceptable in terms of traffic and sustainable energy. Tests had been carried out on daylight and sunlight and although there was a loss, it was considered, on balance, to be a small loss and would not therefore justify a refusal on those grounds.
Members expressed considerable concern over the concentration of students in the area, taking into account the other student housing approvals in the vicinity. It was felt that Tower Hamlets should not shoulder the responsibility for housing all London’s students. Concern was also expressed over the need for affordable housing provision in the Borough and the environmental and social impact of the development.
Mr Irvine advised of the location of both the residential ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||