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 |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 64 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.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
Councillors Sirajul Islam, Md Maium Miah, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Helal Uddin, Suluk Ahmed and Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim declared an interest in agenda item 6.1, 100 Whitechapel Road and land rear at Fieldgate Street (PA/13/3049). This was on the basis that the Councillors worshiped at the East London Mosque.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 115 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 6th November 2014. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6th November 2014 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.
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 AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 94 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|
Minutes: No Items. |
|
100 Whitechapel Road and land rear at Fieldgate Street (PA/13/3049) PDF 3 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 185 dwellings (comprising 10 studios; 65 x 1 bed; 71 x 2 bed; 27 x 3 bed; 12 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail, office and restaurant spaces (Class A1, A2 and A3), café (A3); 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works.
Recommendation:
To REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the Committee Report. Additional documents:
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Officers reported that the application had been moved from the deferred items part of the agenda (Part 5) to the Planning Applications for Decision section (Part 6) due to the substantial changes made to the application since last considered by the Committee in July 2014. The application would be considered in its entirety afresh. The application had been subject to consultation (as per the standard process) and the public and applicant had been notified of their right to speak at this meeting.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update and the Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mohamed Zabadne and Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support of the scheme highlighting the following points:
· The strength of local support for the scheme including a petition with thousands of signatures. · The merits of the scheme including: new affordable units with family sized housing, a new access route, wheelchair accessible housing and disabled parking spaces in accordance with requirements, local investment, many new jobs, the creation of an active frontage at ground floor given the new commercial units and the extension of the Mosque that could only be provided at that point due to the site constraints. · That the Greater London Authority (GLA) were happy with the changes to the scheme to reduce the impacts which included: the creation of the access link, setting back the buildings to improve permeability, the introduction of commercial units at ground floor level, increasing the number of family sized accommodation, a reduction in single aspect units and improving the internal layout of the buildings. · Only three reasons for refusal remained as set out in the Officers report. Turning to these, it was commented that the height and design of the scheme would be sympathetic to the area. The height had previously been reduced. The GLA were satisfied with the height. Comments about this were subjective. The density of this scheme was within the accepted parameters in policy unlike many other consented schemes. · Other developments, notable the City Pride development approved by this Committee, were taller than this scheme, had a higher density, included off site affordable housing and had a greater impact on sunlight and daylight. So the scheme compared favourably with this and it was surprising that Officers were still recommending refusal. · Welcomed the s106 agreement and the level of affordable housing which despite the changes, the developer had worked hard to maintain to their credit.
In response to Members questions about the GLA’s response, it was considered that the applicant had complied with their requests. The scheme had been substantially amended to mitigate the concerns. Councillor Shahed Ali reported that he had discussed the application with local residents and they welcomed the scheme. He had not received any objections personally about the scheme from the local community and in total, very few people had objected. None of the immediate neighbours had objected.
Officers clarified that they had no objection to the density ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Meridian Gate, 199-207 Marsh Wall, London, E14 (PA/14/01428) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground floor plus 53 storeys comprising of 423 residential apartments (use class C3) and circa 415sqm office (use class B1), 30 basement car parking spaces; the ground floor uses comprises an electricity sub-station, entrances for the office, affordable and private housing, basement access via car lift and cycle lifts, and circa 43sqm retail/cafe (use class A1/A3); public open space; and a single storey enclosure providing a secondary basement access.
Recommendation:
To GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update and the Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillors Andrew Wood and Candida Ronald spoke in opposition to the application. They objected to the impact of the scheme in terms of design height, density, lack of public space, the impact on amenity, the level of affordable housing and loss of employment. On such grounds the scheme was even worse that the Skylines Village scheme refused by this Committee in 2012. They also objected to the impact of the scheme on the water infrastructure. Thames Water had requested a further assessment of this to ensure the water infrastructure could cope. The speakers also objected to the cumulative impact on the Docklands Light Railway from the density of new schemes in the area that was already at a capacity. The infrastructure should be in place first. The LUC report to the South Quay Masterplan showed adverse effects for developments at this density.
It was also considered that the design was unsympathetic to the iconic Canary Wharf skyline contrary to the emerging master plan. Schemes should be master plan lead
Hugh Sowerby, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in support of the scheme explaining that the plans would create new jobs and the differences with the Skylines scheme. Thames Water had raised no objections subject to the completion of a water impact study to be secured by condition. UKPN had been engaged and were aware that a substation was required. He highlighted the policy support for the scheme on the site, the lack of demand for the existing use, the proposed new housing, (including a large proportion of family housing) open space and that the feedback from the consultation had been mostly positive. English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation Team had raised no objections about the impact on views and heritage assets. The scheme was supported by the GLA.
In response to questions, Mr Sowerby confirmed that there would be contributions for open space in view of the short fall on site. He outlined the nature of the commercial units primarily for small and medium sized units. The private and affordable housing would be of a similar standard. The only difference related to ceiling heights, which were higher in the affordable housing. In response to further questions, Alison Thomas, (Private Sector and Affordable Housing Manager, Development and Renewal) confirmed the need for the separate entrances for these units to ensure the services charges were reasonable for the occupants. However, the entrances for the affordable units would be in a prominent location.
Mr Sowerby stated that the developers were willing to give consideration to reviewing the landscaping around the entrance of the affordable housing to ensure it was suitable. Mr Sowerby also answered questions about the proposed local employment opportunities as set out in the legal agreement and the discussions with the GLA. He confirmed that the development complied with the principles of the South Quay Master ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
South East block Of Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street, London (PA/14/2817) PDF 4 MB Proposal:
Development of the South East block comprising a podium block between 6-12 storeys and three towers of 21 storeys, 22 storeys and 23storeys to provide 415 residential units (use class C3), 3,398sqm (GEA) of flexible commercial space including a health centre ( use class A1, A2, A3, B1A and D1), public open space and associated landscaping, surface car parking, cycle parking and related infrastructure and associated works.
Recommendation:
To GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
Beth Eite (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the application regarding the SE Block of Goodmans Feilds to increase the level of commercial floor space and residential units approved under the outline consent. This included the addition of an additional residential tower. She explained the height, scale, proposed density, layout, the design and the impact of the scheme on amenity. Consultation had been carried out and the results were addressed in the report
The development would provide a suitable mix of housing. The impact on the local and strategic views would be acceptable with no objections from the statutory consultees.
The amenity of the units, level of child play space, amenity space and public open was also explained. Planning contributions had been secured in line with policy, which reflected the increased unit numbers and floor space in the scheme.
Overall, given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
In response to Members questions, Officers confirmed the policy on separation distances between buildings mostly for residential buildings. For uses where the occupancy was more temporary in nature, (student accommodation) a more flexible approach could be taken to this.
Whilst there would be some loss of light to properties at Gowers Walk, it was considered that given the layout of the houses on Gowers Walk with the main outlook to the rear and increased separation distances from the extant permission, that mitigated against this and the small number of failings overall, that this could be accommodated.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/2817 at South East block Of Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street, London be GRANTED for the Development of the South East block comprising a podium block between 6-12 storeys and three towers of 21 storeys, 22 storeys and 23storeys to provide 415 residential units (use class C3), 3,398sqm (GEA) of flexible commercial space including a health centre ( use class A1, A2, A3, B1A and D1), public open space and associated landscaping, surface car parking, cycle parking and related infrastructure 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 in the Committee report.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure matters set out in the Committee report.
6. Any other conditions(s)/informatives considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal
7. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Time Extension:
The Committee agreed a time extension to extend the meeting for another hour or until the conclusion ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|
1 Bank Street (Heron Quays West 2) Heron Quay, London, E14 (PA/14/02617) PDF 5 MB Proposal:
Erection of a 27 storey building comprising offices (Use Class B1) and retail (Use Class A1-A5) including three basement levels, partial infilling of South Dock, ancillary parking and servicing, access and highways works, landscaping and other works incidental to the application.
Recommendation:
To GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report. Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and update report tabled.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the scheme explaining the site, the outline scheme that established the principle of the scheme and the main changes from the outline scheme proposed under the current application as detailed below:
· Extension further into the dock by 3.5 (further than previously approved). · Positioning of part of the building being positioned closer to West Ferry Road.
He explained the height, shape and layout of the proposal and the outcome of the local consultation as set out in the Committee report. There would no significant harm to the setting of the surrounding heritage assets or to neighbouring amenity given the generous separation distances. Planning contribution had been secured in line with policy.
Given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
In response to questions, Officers explained in further detail the economic benefits of the scheme (including the café/restaurant space) and the biodiversity measures. On balance, it was felt that such benefits outweighed the impact on the dock, (which would be less than the previous consentin area) and justified the changes. Officers also advised that there was a condition requiring impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure.
Officers also answered questions about the provision of electric charge points off site and the reasons why this could not be included as a condition at this stage in view of policy.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/02617 at 1 Bank Street (Heron Quays West 2) Heron Quay, London, E14 be GRANTED for the erection of a 27 storey building comprising offices (Use Class B1) and retail (Use Class A1-A5) including three basement levels, partial infilling of South Dock, ancillary parking and servicing, access and highways works, landscaping and other works incidental to the application SUBJECT to:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report and as amended in the update report.
6. That in the event that the section 106 is not signed prior to 1st April 2015 the Local Planning Authority reserves the right to determine the application under delegated authority.
|
|