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 |
---|---|
Agenda Order During the meeting the Committee agreed to vary the order of business. To aid clarity, the Minutes are presented in the order that the items originally appeared on the agenda. The order the business was taken in at the meeting was as follows:
· Item 1 – Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Item 2 – Minutes of the Previous Meeting. · Item 3 – Recommendations. · Items 4 – Procedure for Hearing objections and meeting guidance · Item 5.1 Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/00641) · Item 6.4 Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London, E1 8NN (PA/15/01141) · Item 6.1 47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF and 55 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF (PA/15/01337- PA/15/01832) · Item 6.2 47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF (PA/15/01337) · Item 6.3 55 Brierly Gardens, Location E2 0TF (PA/15/01832)
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 63 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 interest were made.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 124 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 8th October 2015
Minutes: That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 October 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 and meeting guidance.
|
|
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced and presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new primarily residential buildings ranging in height.
It was noted that the application was previously considered at the last Committee meeting on 8th October 2015 where Members resolved to defer the application for a site visit.
At that visit, Members requested further information about two issues: the height of the application buildings in relation to that of the surrounding buildings and the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight. Accordingly, the report now before Members clarified these issues.
Before presenting these findings, the Committee were reminded of the key features of the scheme including the site location and surrounds, the layout of the proposal, the access arrangements, the proximity to Bartlett Park, Craig Court and Werner Tower. The Committee also noted views of the proposal from the surrounding area.
In relation to the comparative height, it was reported that given the modest height difference between the tallest element of the proposal and the neighbouring buildings, that this was considered acceptable. The scheme would be in in keeping with the surrounding area. In terms of sunlight and daylight, it was reported that most of the windows within Werner Court and Craig Tower met the requirements in policy save for some exceptions. Details of the findings were set out in the report and reported to the Committee.
In conclusion, the additional information had been carefully considered and the Officer recommendation remained to grant the scheme.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about:
· the quality of the social housing (in view of the recent scrutiny review). · the impact on the canal tow path at the front of the proposal given the width of the tow path. · the possibility of imposing a condition regarding the cleaning and maintenance of the tow path. · the wind mitigations measures in respect of the children’s play area. · the public transport rating for the site given the density of the scheme. · the bulk scale and massing of the scheme. · overdevelopment of the site given the sunlight and daylight impact · conflict with the Council’s Core Strategy that supported medium to lower rise developments in this particular area. · the cycle storage plans · the lack of lifts given the proposed number of storeys within the scheme.
In response, Officers explained that it would be possible to review the landscaping condition to include details of the wind mitigation measures in the child play space. It was also possible that a protocol is prepared and agreed between the applicant and the Canal and Rivers Trust concerning the cleaning and maintenance of the canal tow path. In relation to this point, the Committee received legal advice on what this could and could not cover in view of land ownership issues. The Committee then moved and unanimously agreed that, if granted, a condition should be added to the permission that no development take place until a protocol is ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
The Committee is recommended to:
(i) Accept that the decisions of the Development Committee of 3 September 2015 in respect of applications PA/15/01337 and PA/15/01832 were procedurally flawed and invalid; and
(ii) Consider the applications afresh.
Minutes: Councillor Dave Chesterton (Chair) for items – 6.1- 6.3
Graham White (Deputy Monitoring Officer and Interim Service Head Legal Services) presented the report. He advised that at its meeting on 3 September 2015, the Development Committee considered and granted the above applications submitted by Tower Hamlets Homes. Since that meeting, a Judicial Review pre-action protocol letter had been received about an alleged conflict of interest by two of the Committee Members that participated and determined the item given they were Directors of Tower Hamlets Homes. The letter asserts that due to this, there was a procedural irregularity and the decision was unlawful.
It was reported that whilst their actions satisfied the requirements of the Members’ Code of Conduct (only requiring the disclosure of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in accordance with law), the Members were still required to follow the Council’s own Planning Code of Conduct. This Code defines a personal and prejudicial interest as one where:
‘a member of the public who knows the relevant facts would reasonably think that the personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest when taking a decision and it is a decision that effects the financial interest of a body with which the Member is associated with or relates to a regulatory matter such as determining a planning application’
The effect of having such an interest is that the Member must leave the meeting room and not try to influence the debate. It is arguable whether the Councillors’ interests were a personal and prejudicial interest as defined above. However to test this matter in court would be a high risk approach. The Council would incur significant costs in the event of not being successful.
The situation could be remedied without incurring costs by this application being considered and determined afresh at this Committee and for those Members’ affected to step aside.
The terms of reference of the Strategic Development Committee provides that it may consider any matter listed in the terms of reference of the Development Committee where legal proceedings in relation to the matter are in existence or in contemplation.
On a unanimous, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That it be accepted that the decisions of the Development Committee of 3 September 2015 in respect of applications PA/15/01337 and PA/15/01832 were procedurally flawed and invalid; and
2. That the applications be considered afresh.
|
|
47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF (PA/15/01337) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
The proposed works are for a new 4.6m x 4.1m single storey rear extension which facilitates the provision of two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the item for a new single storey rear extension which facilitates the provision of two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Stephen Smillie and Mary Smillie (local residents) spoke in objection. They objected to the impact of the extension on their property with regard to:
· Loss of amenity in terms of outlook and privacy due to the scale of the proposal, design, position of the roof light and proximity to neighbours. · Safety and security issues given the position of the handrail in relation to the extension allowing easy access to their property. This conflicted with planning policy promoting safe and secure schemes. It was considered that the measures suggested at the last meeting (anti climb spikes and anti - climb paint) would be ineffective and unsightly. · Out of character with the appearance of the neighbouring properties and the wider estate. · Lack of consultation with neighbours as stated by the ward Councillor. · Insufficient consideration to the objectors petition.
Overall, they considered that scheme would adversely affect their quality of life.
At the request of the speakers and agreement of the Chair, Officers circulated the representations submitted by the local residents from the planning file to Committee Members.
The speakers then replied to questions of clarification from Members on the above points. In terms of the consultation, Officers drew attention to the statutory consultation carried out by the Council. However they could not comment on the scope of the applicant’s consultation.
Muhammad Shahid, (Tower Hamlets Homes) and Mr Abdul Kadir Mohamoud (occupant) spoke in support. The stressed the need for the extension to alleviate overcrowding at the property in view of the occupants medical needs. They also described the proposed layout, the impact on the garden and the stepped back design to reduce the impact of the scheme. The speakers considered that incidents of anti - social behaviour in the area were relatively few and far between.
In response to Members’ questions, they referred to the problems with overcrowding at the property. They considered that the site could accommodate the additional rooms, avoiding the need for the occupants to find alternative accommodation. They also referred to the reasons why the property met the criteria for improvements under the THH extensions programme and the consultation carried out by the Council. In response to further questions, Officers informed Members that rent issues were not a material planning issue in this case since the scheme did not trigger the Council’s affordability policy. Members must consider the material planning issues only.
Esha Banwait (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update.
She explained the application site and the surrounding area including listed buildings and Conservation Areas.
She also explained the flat roof design providing the shortest possible height for the scheme, the dimensions of the proposed extension that would be subservient to the main building (whilst slightly visible at street level). She also explained the proposed internal ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
55 Brierly Gardens, Location E2 0TF (PA/15/01832) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informative as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the item for erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Alison Russell and Geoff Browning (local residents) spoke in objection about the impact of the proposal in terms of:
· Poor design out of keeping with the well planned existing development. · Lack of consultation with residents by the applicant. · Impact on the green space. · Harm to neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure (together with the extension at 47) · Increased crime risk from the scheme due to the flat roof and the loss of surveillance.
In response to questions from Members, the speakers referred to recent incidents of anti social behaviour in the area, successfully addressed according to the speakers by neighbourhood surveillance. The application would prevent such action in the future.
At the request of the speakers and agreement of the Chair, Officers circulated the representations submitted by the local residents from the planning file to Committee Members.
Mariola Viegas (Applicant’s agent)and Muhammad Shahid (Tower Hamlets Homes) spoke in support. They stressed the need for the extension to alleviate overcrowding at the property in view of the occupants medical needs. No suitable alternative property for the occupants could be found under the THH scheme. The occupant was currently on the housing waiting list. They also referred to the planned internal changes to provide wheelchair accessible accommodation, the stepped back design minimising the impact of the scheme and to potential ant-climb measures. If approved, further consultation would be carried with residents about the details of the scheme.
In response to questions, they outlined the criteria for selecting properties for this scheme and why this property was considered suitable. They also answered questions about the consultation including the applicant’s own consultation and the wider consultation carried out by planning.
Officers reminded Members that the application must be determined on the planning merits rather than the occupants individual circumstances.
Esha Banwait (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update.
She explained the application site and surrounds including listed buildings and Conservations Areas.
She also described the proposed scale of the extension, the flat roof design, the internal layout, the replacement ramp enabling access to the garden and the amount of green space to be retained. It was considered that a sufficient level of amenity space would be retained for residents.
The Committee also noted the position of the new windows and door, the proposed materials in keeping with the area and the separation distances with the Conservations Areas. The results of the consultation was also noted.
Overall given the above, it was considered that the extension would be an appropriate form of development that would be subservient to the main building and preserve the setting of the area.
In terms of amenity, no adverse impacts were expected in terms of overlooking, privacy, overshadowing, daylight and sunlight. The measures ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|
Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London, E1 8NN (PA/15/01141) PDF 4 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing 6 storey office building and erection of a ground plus 17 storey mixed use building (AOD 74.7m to parapet ) comprising 1,185sq.m of office space (B1 Use Class) and 106 (C1 Use Class) serviced apartments (2,985sq.m) together with ancillary facilities and associated cycle parking.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report subject to any Direction by the London Mayor.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the item for the demolition of existing 6 storey office building and erection of a ground plus 17 storey mixed use building.
The Chair then invited registered speaker to address the Committee.
Roland Jeffery Director (Historic Chapels Trust) spoke in objection to the application. He objected to the impact on the area especially the nearby historic German school and church, given the height of the scheme and proximity to the boundary line. He also expressed concern about the appearance of the proposal and the impact on use of the church yard given the risk of objects falling from the proposed balconies above. Many of the historic societies objected to the application. The speaker then responded to questions of clarification from Members regarding the above.
Justin Kenworthy (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support drawing attention to the site location. He highlighted the merits of the scheme in terms of delivering offices, hotel floor space, jobs and other improvements with ‘breathing space’ around the development. The plans would protect the setting of the listed buildings and the principle of taller developments in the immediate area had already been established. The church would form a focal point of the proposed arrangements of the buildings. Compared to other schemes, the impact on daylight and sunlight would be relatively minor in nature. In response to questions, the speaker clarified the proposed use.
Gareth Gwynne (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation on the application explaining the site location, (where the principle of tall buildings had not been established) showing views of the site from the surrounding area. Consultation had been carried out and the results and the issues raised were noted. He described the height, layout, design of the scheme and the measures to protect privacy. In terms of the land use, the proposal was acceptable.
The scheme was recommended for refusal for a number of reasons relating to the impact on the surrounding area, the serious harm to the nearby cluster of listed buildings, the impact on residential amenity due to the scheme’s overbearing nature amongst other matters. It was considered the negative aspects of the application outweighed the limited public benefits.
In response to questions from Members, Officers listed the proposed public benefits of the scheme including the financial contributions.
On a unanimous, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London, E1 8NN for the demolition of existing 6 storey office building and erection of a ground plus 17 storey mixed use building (AOD 74.7m to parapet ) comprising 1,185sq.m of office space (B1 Use Class) and 106 (C1 Use Class) serviced apartments (2,985sq.m) together with ancillary facilities and associated cycle parking (PA/15/01141) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report subject to any Direction by the London Mayor:
1) The proposed development would cause substantial harm to the amenities and living conditions of occupiers of adjoining and adjacent residential ... view the full minutes text for item 6.4 |
|