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: Councillor Marc Francis declared a personal interest in agenda items 5.1 Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/00641), 6.1. 25-28 Dalgleish Street, London, E14 (PA/15/02674), 6.2 Hertsmere House, 2 Hertsmere Road, London (PA/15/02675, PA/15/02748) and 6.3 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 And 68-70 Manilla Street London, E14 9TP (PA/15/02671). This was on the basis that he had received representation from interested parties on the applications. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 128 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19th November 2015and the extraordinary meeting held on 10th December 2015. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19th November 2015 and the extraordinary meeting held on 10th December 2015 be agreed as a correct record
|
|
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, Development and Renewal) introduced and presented this application for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings ranging in height to provide a residential led development. He advised of the site location near the Canal and Bartlett Park, comprising buildings of varying heights. Turning to the proposal, the Committee were advised of the key features of the application and noted images of the elevations and the surrounding area.
In terms of the history at Committee, Members resolved to defer the application at the 8 October 2015 meeting for a site visit where Members requested further information on the comparative heights and the daylight/sunlight impacts. The application was then brought back to the Committee with the requested information on 19 November 2015. The Committee were minded to refuse the application for the following reasons:
· Overdevelopment of the site. · Height, build and massing. · Impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight, particularly the properties at the north of the site. · Impact on the towpath. · Conflict with the Council’s Core Strategy’s Vision in respect of the area.
Officers had since assessed the Committee’s suggested reasons, as set out in the new committee report. Officers considered that the development showed few physical signs of overdevelopment and that the height and massing would be appropriate in its context. However, it was recognised that there would be some conflict with policy.
The Officers recommendation remained to grant the application, but mindful of the Committee views, Officers had drafted suggested reasons for refusal for use by the Committee should they refuse the scheme.
In response, the Chair noted the reduction in height of the scheme to reduce the impact but did not feel that the changes went far enough to address the concerns.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 4 against and 0 abstentions the Committee did not agree the recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a motion that the planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 18th February 2016) and on a, vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions it was RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be REFUSED at Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/01601) for the 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 for the following reasons set out in paragraph 5.2 the Committee report dated 18th February 2016(PA/15/00641)
2. Overdevelopment The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site, evidenced by the residential density which would substantially exceed the range set out in table 3.2 of the London Plan, without having demonstrated exceptional circumstances and in a location outside of the nearest town centre, not supported by Local ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
25-28 Dalgleish Street, London, E14 (PA/15/02674) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
Construction of a part four storey, part seven storey building to provide 60 flats with refuse and recycling facilities together with laying out of a ‘Homezone’ in Dalgleish Street.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement and conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced this application for theconstruction of a part four storey, part seven storey building to provide 60 flats with refuse and recycling facilities together with a ‘Homezone’ in Dalgleish Street. It was reported that whilst this application and item 6.2 (Hertsmere House, 2 Hertsmere Road, London (PA/15/02675, PA/15/02748))were linked by virtue of the planning obligations, they should be considered on their own merits.
Piotr Lanoszka, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report referring to the site and surrounds and thenearby new build developments, the Conservation Areas and listed buildings. The site itself carried no designations and had very good public transport connections. Consultation had been carried out and one objection had been received and the issues raised were noted.
It was considered that the site was suitable for new housing. The housing mix comprised 100% affordable housing and given the housing mix in the surrounding area, it was not considered that the application would result in an over concentration of one housing type in the area. The application could come forward as a donor site for the application at Hertsmere House or could be delivered as part of another market led application or possible by a Housing Association.
The site was within easy reach of local schools, parks and local facilities. The scheme ranged in height and included sets back to fit in with the area. Furthermore, it was of good quality design including a court yard and a roof terrace. Although there would be a high proportion of single aspect units, it was considered that this was largely unavoidable given the site constraints. The impact on the main school building would be minimal while the impact on neighbouring amenity would be minor. There were conditions to mitigate the construction impact. Planning contribution had been secured.
In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it be granted.
In response to questions, Officers highlighted the similarities and differences between this scheme and the extant scheme (in terms of the housing tenure, density, massing and location). This scheme was better designed than the previous scheme. The previous scheme could still be implemented so should be given some weight. It was noted that there were a number of scenarios for delivering the application in terms of the funding (as set out in the report) and that the condition requested by Thames Water was a standard condition and would be secured.
Officers also answered questions about the sunlight/daylight assessment for Iona Tower showing that there would be some reductions in daylight at the lower floors. Overall, given the character of the area and the constraints posed by the Tower, it was considered that this was acceptable. It was also confirmed that there would be no direct overlooking or loss of privacy due to the separation distances and orientation of the buildings.
Officers also answered questions about the services charges and rents for the units.
|
|
Hertsmere House, 2 Hertsmere Road, London (PA/15/02675, PA/15/02748) PDF 9 MB Proposal:
Planning Permission.
Demolition of remaining buildings and structures and erection of a 67 storey building (240.545m AOD) with two basement levels, comprising 861 residential units (Use Class C3), 942sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class A1-A3 and D2), ancillary circulation space and plant, as well as associated infrastructure, public realm and parking. Accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement.
Listed building consent
Temporary dismantling of Grade II "Former West Entrance gate to West India Docks with Curved Walling" and re-instalment in conjunction with redevelopment proposals.
Recommendations:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
That the Committee resolve to GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of remaining buildings and structures and erection of a 67 storey building comprising predominately a residential scheme.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Jocelyne Van Den Bossche and Ian Ritchie (local residents), and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the application. They drew attention to the main differences between this application and the consented scheme. They then expressed concerns about the following issues in relation to the application:
· The impact on highway safety from unauthorised parking from the scheme. Should the application be approved, it would require the strict enforcement of the parking regulations to prevent this. · Overshadowing from the development of the area. · Undue pressure on local infrastructure given the number of other new developments in the area and the lack of a plan for the delivery of this. · Height of the buildings in relation to the area. · That the scheme would be a ‘standalone monster’ given the lack of tall building cluster in the area. · Adverse impact on the nearby heritage assets. · Suitability of the development for family sized accommodation, in particular, for older children given the distance to the nearest parks · That the aviation light would be a health hazard · Disturbance from the plant in terms of noise. · Interference with TV reception.
In response to Members, the speakers clarified their concerns about parking pressure from the scheme, the pressure on local infrastructure, the design, height and massing of the scheme that was unsympathetic to the area. The speakers also clarified their concerns about the lack of any proper plans for allocating the contributions and overshadowing from the scheme.
Setareh Neshati and Julian Carter (Applicant’s agents) spoke in support of the application drawing attention to Historic England’s comments who felt the scheme was an improvement on the previous application and did not object to the current application. The development was of a similar scale to the previous scheme. However this new application (in contrast with the previous scheme) was predominately a residential scheme. They explained the qualities of the scheme generally (i.e. in terms of the affordable housing, public realm improvements, new jobs and financial contributions). There had been extensive public consultation including engagement with Registered Social Landlords regarding the affordable housing and the statutory bodies. The Greater London Authority considered that the proposal complied with the London Plan’s tall building policy. The scheme had been amended to reduce the impact on amenity. Overall, it was a high quality scheme that bore no symptoms of overdevelopment.
In responding to questions about the comments of the Conservation and Design Panel, the speakers explained that the existing permission was for a tall building at the site. So although it would be a stand alone building, the principle of a tall building at the site had already been established. Care had been taken to ensure the scheme reflected the surrounding area and the relevant experts considered that the scheme would have a ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 And 68-70 Manilla Street London, E14 9TP (PA/15/02671) PDF 10 MB Proposal:
Application for demolition of all buildings on site at 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 and 68-70 Manilla Street to enable redevelopment to provide three buildings of 65 (217.5m AOD), 20 (79.63m AOD) and 34 (124.15m AOD) storeys above ground comprising 634 residential units (Class C3), 231 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), provision of a new landscaped piazza, public open space and vehicular access, car parking, cycle storage and plant. Retention of 74 Manilla Street as North Pole public house (Class A4).
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of all buildings on site at 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 and 68-70 Manilla Street to enable redevelopment to provide a mixed used development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Dave Chesterton spoke in objection to the application expressing concern about the height of the scheme, contrary the aspiration in policy to lower heights moving away from Canary Wharf. He also expressed concern about the quality of the affordable units and the child play space given the expected child yield from the scheme and the dual use arrangements with the school in terms of the play ground. This may restrict access at certain times to the play space. The scheme also would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to the surrounding properties and due to these issues, bore signs of overdevelopment and would be a ‘bad neighbour’
John Connolly (Applicant’s agent) and Councillor Andrew Wood, ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. The scheme would deliver a much needed new medical centre, a school, affordable units, local jobs, a new public square, whilst retaining the North Pole public house. The applicants had listened carefully to the views of local people and the plans were very much informed by what they wanted and what was needed in the community. It was a tribute to the good consultation that no objections were received.
In response to questions, it was noted that the developer had engaged with the Barkentine Clinic (that was oversubscribed) and visited their residents forum about the plans to expand their services. They had also liaised with the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group who felt that, due to the layout and the configuration of the proposed health space, it would be unsuitable for their services. The applicant had also worked hard with the LBTH Education staff and all the issues regarding the use of play space had now by and large been resolved. A local college had also expressed an interest in the new school site.
They also answered questions about the heritage assessment, the local consultation including consultation with the residents of Bellamy Close and the measures to preserve the occupants amenity. The height and density of the scheme was very much influenced by the need to generate enough profit for the social infrastructure.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report, describing the site location and surrounds. A similar scheme was previously submitted to the Committee but withdrawn two days before the meeting. The application was then amended following consultation with Officers and the revised proposal was before Members. He explained the key features of the scheme including the housing mix and the social infrastructure and the outcome of the consultation. In terms of the assessment, the proposed land use was considered acceptable. Officers also considered that the housing mix was broadly acceptable in the context of policy. The child play space exceeded the ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|