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 item 6.4 Hercules Wharf, Castle Wharf and Union Wharf, Orchard Place, London E14 (PA/14/03594, PA/14/03595) as he had received representations from interested parties on the application and as he used to be a Council nominated Member of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 138 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 18th February 2016.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18th February 2016 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.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS No items. Minutes: None |
|
6 to 8 Alie Street, London, E1 8DD (PA/15/02538) PDF 1021 KB Proposal:
Demolition of existing office building on the site and erection of a ground plus seven storey office building (Class B1) with reuse of existing basement together with provision of 4.no ancillary study bedrooms for private use by the college, 40.no cycle spaces, plant equipment and associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of existing office building on the site and erection of a ground plus seven storey office building and associated works. Adam Hussain (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. It was reported that the site was located in a Preferred Office Location and not in the Conservation Area and currently occupied by an office building
The Committee noted images of the existing building and views of the site from the surrounding area.
The Committee noted the key details of the application including the quality of the design (in contrast with the relatively unremarkable existing building), the height of the scheme that Officers felt would sit comfortable within the area. They also noted the scale of the scheme, similar to the extant scheme, the proposed layout and the high level of BRE compliance.
The proposed land use complied with policy and it would have an acceptable impact on amenity.
Given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that it be granted planning permission.
In response to Members about the height of the application, Officers noted that the proposal building would be slightly taller in height than it’s neighbours and that the surrounding area comprised building of various heights. However, it was considered that the proposed set backs in the design at the upper part of the building (that was a common design feature) would help reduce it’s prominence and minimise the moderate height difference between the application and the surrounding buildings. As a result, it should have a reasonable relationship with it’s neighbours.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at 6 to 8 Alie Street, London, E1 8DD for the demolition of existing office building on the site and erection of a ground plus seven storey office building (Class B1) with reuse of existing basement together with provision of 4.no ancillary study bedrooms for private use by the college, 40.no cycle spaces, plant equipment and associated works (PA/15/02538) subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. If by the date nominated in the Planning Performance Agreement the legal has not been completed, the Corporate Director development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
|
|
Jemstock 2, South Quay Square, 1 Marsh Wall, London, E14 (PA/15/02104) PDF 952 KB Proposal:
Erection of building facades to existing structure on site to create a mixed use development comprising 206 serviced apartments (Class C1), 1,844 sqm of office floorspace (Class B1) and 218sqm of cafe floorspace (Class A3).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure 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 for the erection of building facades to existing structure on site to create a mixed use development comprising serviced apartments, office floorspace and cafe floorspace
The Chair invited registered speaker to address the Committee.
Michael Byrne, (Discovery Dock East Residents Association) and Councillor Andrew Wood, local ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. They welcomed the redevelopment of the site given it’s poor condition, and that the proposals complied with the aims in the South Quay Master Plan. In particular, they welcomed the proposed mix of uses (including serviced apartments) given the suitability of the location for such purposes due to it’s proximity to Canary Wharf and local hotels and the shortage of such accommodation in the area. Furthermore, given the nature of the scheme, the speakers considered that it should have less of an impact on local infrastructure than other uses which they welcomed.
Kirsty Flevill (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application describing the site location and surrounds, showing images of the existing site. She also explained to the planning history of the site and that the scheme bore a close resemblance to the previously approved scheme that had been implemented. The main difference being the reduction in height.
Turing to the detail, the Committee noted the proposed floor plans including the layout of the office space, the nature of the serviced apartments, the proposed elevations and the façade detailing. Consultation had been carried out and no representations had been received
Officers considered that the proposed land use complied with policy and that the application would cause no undue harm to amenity given that it was broadly similar to what was there already on site. Furthermore, the impact on the transport network and the highway would be acceptable. Given the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted permission.
In response, the Members asked questions about the level of contributions from the development . In particular, the contributions for carbon offsetting (as set out in the update report) and why no precise figure could be set for this at this stage.
In response, Officers explained that the obligations included a requirement that the applicant look at connecting the development to the Barkantine district heating company. Both the applicant and the Barkantine considered that this was perfectly feasible and this was Officers preferred option. It was also required that an updated energy strategy be submitted to determine the potential for the application to reduce C02 emissions further. Accordingly, it was recommended that the level of contribution for carbon offsetting be based on the updated strategy. It was also reported that that the proposed development would be liable for a London Mayor’s CIL contribution. In response to further questions, Officers explained the location of the servicing and office floors space and that no parking spaces were proposed.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road, London, E1 (PA/15/02527) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road and erection of a ground floor plus 18 upper storey building (75.5m AOD metre) with basement to provide 155sqm (NIA) of flexible use commercial space (B1/A1/A3 Use Class) at ground floor and 42 residential units (C3 Use Class) above with basement, new public realm, cycle parking and all associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road and erection of a ground floor plus 18 upper storey building with basement to provide flexible use commercial space, 42 residential units with basement, new public realm, cycle parking and associated works. He reminded Members that a model of the development had been brought to the meeting by the developers for the Committee to view.
Gareth Gwynne (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the application, drawing attention to the site, situated near the Aldgate Place tall building cluster and the Whitechapel High Street Conservation Area. The Committee noted images of the changing skyline of the area.
The plans would create 42 residential units, with the affordable housing situated on the first three floors above ground floor and the private housing on the upper floors. The housing mix comprised 26 % affordable housing at Borough Framework rent levels inclusive of service charges. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were set out and addressed in the Committee report and outlined at the meeting.
In summary, it was considered that the land use complied with policy and that the siting of a tall building on this site complied with the Council’s Core Strategy. Whilst the plans would have a minor adverse impact on the local heritage assets, overall it was considered that the impact on the setting of the area would be broadly neutral and that it would improve the setting of St George’s brewery warehouse building. In terms of the density, whilst the density exceeded the London Plan guidance, the scheme provided good levels of amenity and showed no signs of overdevelopment. In terms of the play space, the plans meet the minimum policy requirements for under 12 play space given the expected child yield. Whilst Officers did have misgivings about the quantum and quality of child play space proposed given the cumulative pressures on the local parks from other developments, Officers did not consider that this would be a serious issue given the relatively low child yield for the scheme. The impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable and contributions had been secured as set out in the Committee report.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted pemission.
In response, Member questioned the merits of locating a tall tower in this location that served as a ‘buffer zone’ to the Conservation Area and comprised listed buildings and lower rise buildings (similar to those in Brick Lane). It was felt that the tower would be out of keeping with the area. As a result it would spoil the setting of the area, making the existing buildings appear ‘boxed in’ and would impinge on the valuable ‘buffer’ zone. Members also questioned the close relationship between the proposal and 27 Commercial Road.
In responding, Officers noted the pattern of the development in the area. The scheme had been designed to fit in ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|
Proposal:
Full Planning Application – PA/14/03594
Demolition of existing buildings at Hercules Wharf, Union Wharf and Castle Wharf and erection of 16 blocks (A-M) ranging in height from three-storeys up to 30 storeys (100m) (plus basement) providing 804 residential units; 1,912sq.m GIA of Retail / Employment Space (Class A1 – A4, B1, D1); Management Offices (Class B1) and 223sq.m GIA of Education Space (Class D1); car parking spaces; bicycle parking spaces; hard and soft landscaping works including to Orchard Dry Dock and the repair and replacement of the river wall.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment
Listed Building Consent application - PA/14/03595
Works to listed structures including repairs to 19th century river wall in eastern section of Union Wharf; restoration of the caisson and brick piers, and alteration of the surface of the in filled Orchard Dry Dock in connection with the use of the dry docks as part of public landscaping. Works to curtilage structures including landscaping works around bollards; oil tank repaired and remodelled and section of 19th century wall on to Orchard Place to be demolished with bricks salvaged where possible to be reused in detailed landscape design.
Recommendations:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement
That the Committee resolve to GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions
Minutes: Update report tabled
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for thedemolition of existing buildings at Hercules Wharf, Union Wharf and Castle Wharf and erection of 16 blocks providing 804 residential units; Retail / Employment Space , Management Offices, Education Space with associated works
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Eric Reynolds (Trinity Buoy Wharf) addressed the Committee. He stated that he welcomed the development of the site and had taken part in the consultation but had not seen the Committee report until recently. He also welcomed the contributions to enhance public access to the TBW pier but noted that no agreement between the developer and Thames Clipper had been made. Moreover, the Committee report underestimated the extent that the site would be affected by the impacts from the industrial units at TBW and also how the scheme would affect the development potential of that site. Accordingly, he requested that the recently revised plans for the eastern element of the scheme, be reconsidered in view of these issues. In response to questions, he expressed concern that the consultation exercise carried out by the developer was misleading in terms of the plans of the eastern element, and that the scheme would blight the development potential of the units within TBW– i.e. the potential for additional workshops. The information on building heights in the report was inconsistent.
Applicant’s representative spoke in support of the application drawing attention to the benefits of the scheme. Consultation had carried out by the developer and there had been no changes to the plans for the boundary for two years. An Environmental Assessment had been submitted and reviewed taking into account the uses and potential uses of the neighbouring sites and there would be robust measures to mitigate the impact of these site and protect their development potential. Some of the features designed to ensure this were highlighted. The application included measures to link the Thames Clipper service to the site.
In response to Members, he clarified that, in response to the Greater London Authority’s Stage 1 comments, the scheme had been amended and it was felt that their concerns had largely been addressed. He also answered questions about the contribution for the Clipper Service, to provide an additional link to the surrounding area, (in addition to the proposed bridge link). He also responded to questions about the interaction with the Port of London Authority and the extensive nature of the measures to mitigate the impact of the reactivation of the Orchard Wharf Site. As a result of which, the PLA only objected on minor points. He also discussed with the Committee the costs of getting the development land up to standard following it’s long industrial use that has had a bearing on the amount of affordable housing that could be afforded as set out in the viability report.
He also answered questions about the plans for the historic dry dock and for commemorating it’s history, the measures for ... view the full minutes text for item 6.4 |
|
Recommendation:
That the Committee note the contents of the report.
Additional documents: Minutes: Andy Simpson, (S106 and Business and Improvement Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report. He reminded Members that the Section 106 agreements were legally binding agreements usually made between the local planning authority and developer(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. S106 planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. S106 monies are usually paid in instalments at key stages during the construction of a development. The stages at which payments are due are known as 'Trigger Points' .
S106 money was programmed to specific projects in accordance with the terms of the relevant S106 agreement and adopted Council policies.
The Committee noted the process for determining the allocation of contributions. For example, the allocation of a CLC contribution would firstly involve the service identifying priorities for the funding, preparing a project initiation document (“PID”) ensuring the money was spent in accordance with the S106 agreement. All decisions to finally allocate resources were approved through the Council’s Planning Contribution Overview Panel (PCOP). A list of recent s106 projects between April 2010 and March 2015 was set out in the Committee and the update report.
Members questioned how ward Councillors could find out about the PIDs and the projects in their area. Members also stressed the importance of publicising the merits of the projects and the need for greater transparency generally in the process. It was noted that the decisions made by the PCOP were published on the Council website and that there was also publicised in a newsletter. Steps were being taken to make the process even more transparent.
It was also noted that S106 money was allocated in accordance with the priorities relevant at the time. Where possible, Officers would look to allocate the funding on projects as close as possible to the development. In response to further questions, it was noted that a significant amount of the unspent contributions had actually been ring-fenced or reserved for certain projects pending the collection of sufficient funding to deliver the project say a new health care facility
In summary the Members welcomed the decisions and felt that this was a good source of funding. Councillors also requested to receive information on how much S106 income had been received and spent for each of the financial years discussed. It was agreed that this information would be sent to the Committee.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the contents of the report be noted.
|
|