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.
All Members present (Councillors Sirajul Islam, Maium Miah, Danny Hassell, John Pierce, Helal Uddin and Julia Dockerill) declared an interest in item 6.1 Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London (PA/14/03195)as they had received correspondence on the application.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 98 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 23rd April 2015. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23rd April 2015 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.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None. Minutes: There were no items. |
|
Proposal:
The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement , conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update Report Tabled
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Janet Viola (Lanterns Centre of Arts, Care & Education) spoke in objection to the proposal. She sought clarification as to whether the facility would be provided to Lanterns in the D1 community space in the development in accordance with the original plans. The developer had originally agreed to this and this was part of the public consultation. However, the developer has since stated that this was dependant on whether Lanterns could raise the funds. If not, they would need to make alternative plans. The application should be deferred until this issue had been clarified. She stressed the need for the facility in view of the community benefits and that its relocation into the D1 space would comply with policy. She also referred to the inclusion of the facilities in the Lanterns Court development in 2008 to ensure its survival secured via the legal agreement.
In response to questions, she explained that the facility catered for everyone in the community. It included a commercial nursery and a theatre. She was under the impression that all of the businesses were to be relocated.
She also answered questions about: the level of engagement with the developer and Officers over the plans; the nature of the previous s106 agreement, the shortage of nursery places in the area in view of the new developments and clarified the capacity of the proposed nursery. She also explained the design of the theatre highlighting the many unique aspects.
Richard Horwood (Pan Peninsula Leaseholders and Residents Association) and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) also spoke in objection to the scheme. They objected to the density of the scheme. The scheme would add a further 3000 residents to the area adding to the huge increase in population already guaranteed from the recently approved schemes in South Quay. There would be a fourfold increase in population from these developments, unprecedented in the UK, without any plan in place for dealing with the infrastructure requirements. The area would have the largest density in the UK and the impact on services would be ‘endless’. Whilst the new school and parks were welcomed, demand would still greatly outstrip supply. For example the child yield from the Wood Wharf scheme alone would fill the school. There would also be a lack of child play space for the whole area. The suggested reasons for refusing item 6.2 of the agenda, 50 Marsh Wall also applied to this scheme given the similarities in the schemes
The speakers also questioned whether two large vehicles could pass along the route at Millharbour East. They also expressed concern about the impact from vehicles trips from the development and shared Ms Viola’s concerns about the future of Lanterns in the development.
In view of these issues, the speakers considered that the application should be deferred for a site visit to explore these issues.
David West (Applicant’s Architect) ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 And 68-70 Manilla Street London, E14 9TP (PA/14/03281) PDF 10 MB Proposal:
Application for demolition of all buildings on site to enable redevelopment to provide three buildings of 63, 20 and 32 storeys above ground comprising 685 residential units (Class C3), 273 hotel rooms (Class C1), provision of ancillary amenity space, a new health centre (Class D1), a new school (Class D1), ground floor retail uses (Class A3), re-provision of open space, provision of a new landscaped piazza and vehicular access, car parking, cycle storage and plant (as amended).
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Committee report. Minutes: Application withdrawn at the request of the Applicant
|
|