Agenda, decisions and draft 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR FOR 2012/13
At the Annual Meeting of the Council held on 16th May 2012, Councillor Helal Abbas was appointed Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2012/2013.
However, it is necessary to elect a Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2012/2013.
Decision:
It was proposed by Councillor Helal Abbas, seconded by Councillor Helal Uddin and RESOLVED
That Councillor Bill Turner be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2012/2013.
Minutes:
It was proposed by Councillor Helal Abbas, seconded by Councillor Helal Uddin and RESOLVED
That Councillor Bill Turner be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2012/2013.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: No apologies for absence were received. Minutes: No apologies for absence were received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 46 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:
Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
Minutes: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 115 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 15th March 2012 and the ordinary meeting held on 12 April 2012. Additional documents: Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Committee held on 15th March 2012 and the ordinary meeting held on 12th April 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Committee held on 15th March 2012 and the ordinary meeting held on 12th April 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS 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 Development and Renewal 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 Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Decision: 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, Development and Renewal 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, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
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, Development and Renewal 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, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Decision: That the Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and dates of meetings of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2012/2013 be noted as set out in the report.
Minutes: That the Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and dates of meetings of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2012/2013 be noted as set out in the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS PDF 42 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
The deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Tuesday 29th May 2012. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents:
Decision: Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221) at London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London is not accepted and subject to any direction by the Mayor the London, the applications be REFUSED.
Councillor Carlo Gibbs moved an amended to the suggested reasons for refusal seconded by Councillor Bill Turner to include the demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange Building itself’ in the second reason for refusal of the planning permission as set out in the report. On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention this was agreed.
Councillor Turner moved a further amendment to remove the White’s Row Car Park from the suggested reasons for refusal for the Conservation area consent as set out in the report. On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention this was agreed.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/02220)& (PA/11/02221) at London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Paragraph 7.2 of the committee report subject to the two amendments agreed by the Committee regarding the inclusion of the demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange Building itself in the second reason for refusal of the planning permission and the removal of the White’s Row Car Park from the reasons for refusal for the Conservation area consent.
(The Members that considered this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Dr Emma Jones, Carlo Gibbs and Denise Jones). Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the Committee report and the update regarding the London Fruit and Wool Exchange(PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221). It was reported that the application was previously considered on 6th March 2012 where the Committee were minded to refuse the application for a number of reasons as set out in the updated Committee report. Mr Smith highlighted the modifications made to the application by the applicant to address the concerns and the representations received since 6th March 2012 as detailed in the report and update.
Paul Buckenham (Deputy Team Leader, Pre- applications Team) gave a presentation of the application explaining the key aspects. In particularly the proposed layout, the design, the views from key points and the plans for the Gun public house.
He explained in more detail the clarifications and modifications offered by the applicant to address Members concerns. He described the increase in SME space, the enhanced employment and training offer, the proposed employment and skills centre and the additional planning contributions.
He addressed the additional representations as set out in the update. He also explained the additional conditions recommended in the update to further address the concerns.
The impact on the Gun public house had been fully assessed by Officers and the applicant. Given the wider public benefits of the scheme, Officers considered that the plans were acceptable and that the proposal complied with policy and the National Planning Policy Framework
The applicant had submitted a viability assessment detailing recent events that increased viability. The study showed that the revised scheme could be afforded without leaving the scheme unviable. The assessment had been independently assessed.
On balance, the Officers recommendation remained unchanged to grant the application. However should Members be minded to refuse the application, suggested reasons for refusal were set out in the Committee reported based on the reasons given by Members on 6th March 2012.
In response to the presentation, the Chair noted the improvements to the scheme and the opportunity presented to redevelop the site. He also noted the many objections and the numerous opportunities for people to express their views during the planning application process.
Members then raised a series of questions and concerns around the following issues:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824) PDF 1 MB Decision: Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendations to grant planning permission (PA/11/03824) at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, 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.
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) presented the application regarding Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Gordon spoke in objection to the proposal. He stated that he was a resident of Virginia Quay that looked over looked the site. He referred to the regeneration of the area as an urban site. The signs indicated that the site would follow this pattern of urban regeneration and this informed his move to the area. This proposal was never presented in any of the plans.
This scheme would hinder its regeneration as a residential area. It would also cause pollution, put at risk the nature reserve and birds as demonstrated by research. It would increase traffic. The Leamouth roundabout would be unduly affected. However, the traffic implications in the report were unclear. The application should be refused.
In reply to Members, Mr Gordon stated that he lived in Pilgrims Mews. The plant would visually dominate the landscape. It would generate lorry movements onto the A road and the roundabout adding to the noise levels in the surrounding that were already very substantial.
Julian Hilton spoke in objection. He owned a property in Orchard Place. He stated that 50 residents had objected to the scheme. He questioned whether this would add value to the community. It would harm the regeneration already underway. The site owner opposed the application. The concrete structure would spoil the area and harm the nature reserve. The application should be rejected.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke in objection. The site was located within close proximity to the residential properties, Virginia Quay and Orchard Wharf and a nature reserve - a point for the proposed FAT walk. Therefore the application was wholly inappropriate for the area especially in view of its potential use. Objections had been received from key groups such as the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority. The site owners opposed the scheme as set out in their letter. Therefore, he urged the Committee to oppose the scheme.
Ms Vilna Walsh spoke in support of the application. The site had been designed as a safeguarding wharf since the 1990s and the recent 2012 review recommended that it be retained as such. The scheme would bring the site back into use and restore it back to its historic use in accordance with national and local policy. This with a high quality sustainable form of development given the use of river transport that made best use of the site. The Applicant had undertaken extensive public consultation and pre application discussions with the Council and had sought to address the concerns. There were a host of measures to mitigate the impact on the East India Dock Basin and ecology. In relation to noise and dust, all activities would be enclosed to prevent any adverse impacts. The Highways assessment had been approved by Officers as having no impact. It would create employment with opportunities for local people. The plant would ... view the full minutes text for item 9.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Millwall Park, Manchester Road, London, E14 (PA/12/00252) PDF 1012 KB Decision: On a vote of 6 for and 0 against with 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00252) be GRANTED at Millwall Park, Manchester Road, London, E14
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) presented the application Millwall Park, Manchester Road, London, E14 (PA/12/00252)
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Lyon spoke in objection to the application. He considered that the plans were an intrusion to residents and the park. The park was well used especially during this time in question as it was the school holiday period. As stated by the applicant, there was a risk that the mast might be subjected to sabotage or demonstration. This was clearly unacceptable. Furthermore key groups such as the Millwall Park and Island Gardens Users Groups had not been consulted. The aims could be achieved by locating the mast in Greenwich park. The site was in a designated area. Helicopters could fly into the camera cable and bring the cable and helicopters down.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke in objection to the application. Residents didn’t understand the need for this application. The report says this was only acceptable on a temporary basis. However why should the park have to suffer the impacts for any length of time? The Millwall Park Island Gardens Users Group had not been consulted.
Councilor Archer questioned whether the time length was necessary. The alternatives needed to be looked at. He expressed concern at the impact and damage to the park grounds. He sought assurances that it would be fully reinstated. He sought assurances about the impact on the football pitches. He doubted that that the helicopter activity would be restricted. He urged that the application be rejected. In response to Members about the impact on football pitches, he considered that they would be affected as they would be in use during the period. This was at a time when the Council should be encouraging full use of the park during the Olympic period.
Neil Smith spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He explained the need for the time period to allow time for the construction and dismantling. It would affect five areas of the park - a relatively small area of the park. He explained the proposed techniques to protect the grass. There were conditions to ensure the park was fully reinstated as per a similar scheme successfully ran by the applicant in Greenwich. In response to Members questions about the consultation, Mr Smith replied that the applicant did consult with user groups and the school. The exact timescale for the reinstatement was dependant on the weather but would be done quickly as possible. In response to Members about use of the camera and privacy, Mr Smith assured Members that the scope of cameras did not cover residential properties. Capturing them was not the intention of the broadcasters.
Jeremy Edwards also spoke in support of the application. He emphasized the intention of the broadcasters to protect privacy. However the cameras would capture favorable views of areas in the Borough therefore showcase the Borough. The naval helicopter operators for the Thames had been in contact and it was ... view the full minutes text for item 9.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Simon Ryan Planning Officer - Last meeting of the Committee PDF 77 KB Minutes: The Chair reported that this would be the last meeting of the Committee Simon Ryan, Planning Officer would be attending. He thanked Mr Ryan for all his hard work in supporting and presenting to the Committee. Members wished him well for the future. |