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 |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Helal Uddin.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Helal Uddin. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 56 KB Decision: Councillor Stephanie Eaton declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 7.1 (Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London (PA/11/3617)) The declaration was made on the basis that she had a beneficial interest in land close to the application site. She reported that this had been recorded in the register of Member Interests. She indicated that she would leave the meeting room for the consideration of this item.
Minutes: Councillor Stephanie Eaton declared a disclosable pecuniary interests in agenda item 7.1 (Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London (PA/11/3617)) The declaration was made on the basis that she had a beneficial interest in land close to the application site that had been recorded in the register of Members interests. She indicated that she would leave the meeting room for the consideration of this item.
|
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 92 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 13th December 2012. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13th December 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the inclusion of Councillor Peter Golds name in the list of other Councillors in attendance.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13th December 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the inclusion of Councillor Peter Golds in the list of other Councillors in attendance.
|
|
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
|
|
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 22nd January 2013. 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: On a vote of 3 in favour, 3 against with the Chair casting a second vote in support, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the suggested reasons for refusal (paragraph 5.19-21 of the report) be NOT ACCEPTED and that planning permission (PA/12/02107) at Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road London be GRANTED for the erection of two buildings of 7 & 26 storeys comprising 190 residential units (78 x 1 bed; 58 x 2 bed; 50 x 3 bed; 2 x 4 bed; 2 x 5 beds), 134sq.m of gym space at upper ground level, 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level, communal open space and associated works SUBJECT TO:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor;
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out of the report;
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority;
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report;
6. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
(Councillors Bill Turner and Judith Gardiner did not vote on this item as they were no present when the item was previously considered and deferred at the 13th December 2012 committee meeting)
Minutes: Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road, London.
Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) made a further brief presentation on the details of the application. At the last meeting on 13th December 2012, Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over: the child play space, density, impact on infrastructure and the adequacy of the s106 funding. Since that time, the applicant had amended the scheme to increase the level of community and child play space. This had been achieved through a slight reduction in private amenity space. However, the latter still complied with policy.
Overall, the scheme continued to comply with policy and the Officer recommendation remained to grant. Officers also explained the implications of a refusal including the possibility that the application may be called in by the Mayor of London.
In reply to questions, Officers confirmed that the POD rent levels in the report would be transferred into the legal agreement. The nearest parks were a short walking distance away from the site (East India Dock Basin was less than a mile away). Therefore, the proposal complied with policy in terms of off site child play space.
Councillor Zara Davies proposed an amendment to the suggested reasons for refusal to include the impact on health. This amendment fell.
On a vote of 3 in favour, 3 against with the Chair casting a second vote in support, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the suggested reasons for refusal (paragraph 5.19-21 of the report) be NOT ACCEPTED and that planning permission (PA/12/02107) at Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road London be GRANTED for the erection of two buildings of 7 & 26 storeys comprising 190 residential units (78 x 1 bed; 58 x 2 bed; 50 x 3 bed; 2 x 4 bed; 2 x 5 beds), 134sq.m of gym space at upper ground level, 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level, communal open space and associated works SUBJECT TO:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor;
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out of the report;
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority;
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report;
6. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
(Councillors Bill Turner and Judith Gardiner did not vote on this item as they were no present when the item was previously considered and deferred at the 13th December 2012 committee meeting)
|
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 57 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.
|
|
Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London (PA/11/3617) PDF 4 MB Decision: Update report tabled.
Councillor Stephanie Eaton left the meeting room for the duration of this item only.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/11/3617) at Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London BE NOT ACCEPTED for proposed demolition of all existing buildings within Skylines Village and the erection of buildings with heights varying from 2 to 50 storeys. The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to 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, along with the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Shahed Ali, Zara Davis, Judith Gardiner, Carlo Gibbs, Dr Emma Jones)
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Councillor Stephanie Eaton left the meeting room for the duration of this item only.
Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, stated that he was representing the Blackwall and Cubitt Town Ward. He was also representing the views of the St John’s Tenants and Residents Association (St John’s TRA) and other such associations in the area that were opposed to the scheme. He objected to the height and scale of the scheme; the cumulative impact with the consented ASDA and the Angel House plans. He objected to the impact on local services, i.e. schools, health services and transport. They were already at full capacity. He objected to the poor success of the car free agreements in the area given the amount of vehicles on the streets. The application should be referred back to the applicant for further consideration.
In response to Members, Councillor Golds objected to the impact on the businesses on site. He highlighted the benefits of the site (in terms of proximity to Canary Wharf, DLR stations). However there was nothing in the application to support displaced businesses or compensate. He expressed concern at the displacement of the drugs service on site given the drug related problems in the area. The nearest GP surgeries were some distance away.
Jan Donovan, speaking in support of the application, stated that the scheme would deliver 764 units with 228 affordable houses with 154 social rents at Council levels. The applicant had met with residents, Councillor Golds, Officers TfL and the Police amongst other agencies to consider the issues and mitigate the impact. Ms Donovan listed the benefits of the scheme including: the high quality design, new community facilities, child play space, potential new health and education facilities; new employment space; a full s106 package that would contribute to infrastructure, The existing employment units were tired and out of date. The tenants were on a short lease and were fully aware of this.
In response to Members, Ms Donavan reported that the applicant had not spoken specifically to the drugs and alcohol services about the impact on the drugs services on site and crime levels should it be removed. She saw no conflict in locating such facilities with residential properties. There would be a community floor space for such facilities. There were proposals to provide a support package to help the businesses relocate. There would be opportunities for all existing tenants to come back with discounted rent levels for the first two years. The applicant had met with the Police and there were conditions to address their comments, (for example CCTV monitoring, gates to public space be locked at night). The scheme would help community cohesion with no segregation between private and affordable tenants. All units would look the same, were all close together and ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|
Decision: Update report tabled
Councillor Stephanie Eaton rejoined the meeting for the rest of the agenda.
Councillor Bill Turner proposed an amendment to the construction hours for Saturday that they be amended from 0.800 to 13:00 to 09.00 to 13:00. This was agreed by the committee.
On a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission (PA/12/02856) at Site at Land to the south of 52 Stainsby Road to the north of 88 Stainsby Road and at the western end of Cotall Street E14 be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing single storey temporary shower rooms south of 52 Stainsby Road and the erection of two buildings of 5, 6 and 10 storeys, one on the corner of Stainsby Road/Cotall Street and the other on the corner of Stainsby Road/Lindfield Street comprising 150 new residential dwellings (43 x 1 bed, 64 x 2 bed, 37 x 3 bed, 4 x 4 bed and 2 x 5 bed), together with a 794 sq.m waterside centre (including associated boat storage) (Use Class D1) and café (Use Class A3), cycle parking, private amenity space and other associated works SUBJECT to.
· Condition 8 (Compliance) Hours of construction for Saturday be amended to 09.00 to 13:00.
AND:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor;
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) within three months of the date of this resolution, to secure the planning obligations set out in the report;
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the report subject to the changes to the triggers for the discharge of conditions in the update.
Minutes: Councillor Stephanie Eaton rejoined the meeting for the rest of the agenda.
Update report tabled
Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Land to the south of 52 Stainsby Road to the north of 88 Stainsby Road and at the western end of Cotall Street E14 (PA/12/02856)
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Simon Rayner spoke in objection to the application, on behalf of the Abbots and Vickery WharfResidents Association. The proposal was contrary to policy and contradicted the conservation area. In particular, the plans conflicted with the LBTH Service Head of Planning’s letter of 16th July 2010 that in summary stated that no large buildings should be located very close to Bartlett Park. The proposed buildings would dominate the park, was of excessive height adding to the cumulative impact of the other new developments such as the New Festival Hall. It would cast shadows on the park and create parking stress. There was a lack of affordable units. No residents supported the scheme.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Rayner indicated that he was aware of the outline plans for the park when he moved into his property but was under the impression that any plans would comply with the Service Head’s letter. The scheme was right on the parameters of the park. There would be overlooking to Abbots Wharf as the windows were glass fronted. It would be overpowering.
Leah Massouras spoke in support of the application as a local resident. She welcomed the enhanced facilities for residents and children such as the waterside centre and café. It would increase the size of the park; improve the dangerous road and provide affordable homes. There a need for something on Bartlett Park as the children have nothing to do.
Paul Buckenham (Planning Officer) made a detailed presentation of the committee report and tabled update. He described the site location. He explained the principles agreed by the Cabinet in 2008 and 2011 regarding the delivery of new homes at the site and improvements to Bartlett Park. The proposal sought to provide 150 new homes with 52 affordable housing at or below POD rent levels. It would also provide new recreational facilities for Bartlett Park and a land swap to increase the size of the park with a link to the canal.
He explained the outcome of the local consultation. He also explained the design, height, amenity space and the full s106 contributions. The scheme would generally be car free. The site was within a reasonable distance to transport facilities. There was adequate on street parking to accommodate the scheme as shown by the parking survey.
He also explained the changes to the timing of conditions as set out in the update report.
Following questions from Members, Officers’ reported the following points:
|
|