Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 52 KBVenue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Amanda Thompson, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4651, E-mail: amanda.thompson@towerhamlets.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lutfa Begum. Councillor Rania Khan deputised in her place.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lutfa Begum. Councillor Rania Khan deputised in her place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 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 Chief Executive.
Decision: The following declarations of interest were made:
Minutes: The following declarations of interest were made:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 10th July 2008. Decision: The minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2008 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment to Councillor Ann Jackson’s declaration of interest (in italics):
Site adjacent to Councillors ward.
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2008 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment to Councillor Ann Jackson’s declaration of interest (in italics):
Site adjacent to Councillors ward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of any 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 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, in the event of any 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 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 To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2 Gladstone Place, London Additional documents:
Decision:
On a vote of 5 for and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings occupying the site and its redevelopment to provide five buildings of between four and ten storeys in height accommodating 2,687 sqm retail floorspace (Class A1) and 208 residential units (comprising 2 x studio, 81 x 1 bed; 76 x 2 bed; 39 x 3 bed; 4 x4 bed; and 6 x 5 bed), 104 parking spaces and landscaped public, communal and private amenity space at 2 Gladstone Place, London be GRANTED subject to:
Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed update report on the application, which had been considered at the last meeting. Members had raised a number of concerns in relation to a taxi pick-up/drop off area, the affordable housing tenure mix, lack of child play space provision and noise issues, and responses to these concerns were addressed within the report.
In response to questions Mr Irvine advised that consideration was given to the GLA’s view as it had the right to direct refusal, however the Council could still take a different view based on its consideration of local circumstances. With regard to the taxi pickup/drop off, taxis were permitted to do so on double yellow lines if they did not impede flow of traffic and this was considered to be a better option than removing a residential parking space.
Members noted that consultation with residents had taken place at the pre-application stage, and the design of the supermarket took on board safety concerns and the views of the police.
On a vote of 5 for and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings occupying the site and its redevelopment to provide five buildings of between four and ten storeys in height accommodating 2,687 sqm retail floorspace (Class A1) and 208 residential units (comprising 2 x studio, 81 x 1 bed; 76 x 2 bed; 39 x 3 bed; 4 x4 bed; and 6 x 5 bed), 104 parking spaces and landscaped public, communal and private amenity space at 2 Gladstone Place, London be GRANTED subject to:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
St George's Estate, Cable Street, London E1 Decision: On a vote of 5 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the refurbishment of existing buildings and erection of nine buildings ranging from 6 to 9 storeys in height to provide 193 dwellings (13 x studios; 67 x 1 bed; 79 x 2 bed; 22 x 3 bed; 7 x 4 bed and 5 x 5 bed) and the erection of four townhouses and a community centre of 510 sqm and landscaping at St Georges Estate, Cable Street, London be GRANTED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:
Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed update report on the application which had been deferred from the last meeting in order to enable further negotiation in respect of increasing the amount of affordable housing and the mix of social rented accommodation.
The Committee was advised that on the basis that grant funding was now likely to be secured to deliver the scheme, the applicant now wished to pursue ‘Option 1’ which would make provision for 35% affordable housing.
Alison Thomas, Manager, Social Housing Group, reported that although previously the housing Corporation had only provided for new housing, given the current economic climate and the slowing down of the construction of new homes, there had been a positive indication that funding would be forthcoming.
In response to Members’ concerns about the reduction of car parking provision in the estate and the impact on the safety of pupils attending Shapla Primary School, Mr Irvine advised that the provision of an additional exit was intended to reduce congestion, and the applicant would be required to provide visibility splays. Also the Council’s Highways department was satisfied that the scheme did not present a road safety risk.
With regard to Transport for London’s objection and the highway trees, Members noted that these were not subject to a tree preservation order nor were they located in a Conservation area. Also a condition could be imposed concerning pruning.
On a vote of 5 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the refurbishment of existing buildings and erection of nine buildings ranging from 6 to 9 storeys in height to provide 193 dwellings (13 x studios; 67 x 1 bed; 79 x 2 bed; 22 x 3 bed; 7 x 4 bed and 5 x 5 bed) and the erection of four townhouses and a community centre of 510 sqm and landscaping at St Georges Estate, Cable Street, London be GRANTED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Newfoundland, Canary Wharf Decision: On a vote of 7 for and 0 against , the Committee RESOLVED to DEFER consideration of the application for planning permission for the erection of a 37 storey tower and a part 4/5 storey podium comprising a 150 bedroom Hotel (Class C1) and 78 serviced apartments (Sui Generis), together with ancillary restaurant facilities and servicing and parking areas including a drop off facility; provision of 1,300sqm of retail units (Class A1 to A4) at ground and basement level, a 1,580sqm restaurant (Class A3) at first floor level and 2,310sqm of education and training use (Class D1) at second and part third floor level; construction of basement for retail units (Class A1 to A4) and plant; construction of subterranean pedestrian link to the Jubilee Place retail mall and the Jubilee Line Station; provision of a new publicly accessible open space, dockside walkway and landscaping together with other works incidental to the application in order to take Counsel's legal advice on the level of s106 funding contained in the application and if appropriate to undertake further negotiation of the level of Section 106 funding contained in the application.
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for planning permission for the erection of a 37 storey tower and a part 4/5 storey podium comprising a 150 bedroom Hotel (Class C1) and 78 serviced apartments (Sui Generis), together with ancillary restaurant facilities and servicing and parking areas including a drop off facility; provision of 1,300sqm of retail units (Class A1 to A4) at ground and basement level, a 1,580sqm restaurant (Class A3) at first floor level and 2,310sqm of education and training use (Class D1) at second and part third floor level; construction of basement for retail units (Class A1 to A4) and plant; construction of subterranean pedestrian link to the Jubilee Place retail mall and the Jubilee Line Station; provision of a new publicly accessible open space, dockside walkway and landscaping together with other works incidental to the application.
Mr Terry Natt, Strategic Applications Manager, presented a detailed report on the application and answered Member’s questions on the level of Section 106 funding. He advised that as the application was not just for business/retail development, there was no justification to ask for more. Although the serviced apartments were aimed at the business market, they were limited to a ninety day stay and therefore the occupants would not impact on the local schools and health services.
On a vote of 7 for and 0 against , the Committee RESOLVED to DEFER consideration of the application for planning permission for the erection of a 37 storey tower and a part 4/5 storey podium comprising a 150 bedroom Hotel (Class C1) and 78 serviced apartments (Sui Generis), together with ancillary restaurant facilities and servicing and parking areas including a drop off facility; provision of 1,300sqm of retail units (Class A1 to A4) at ground and basement level, a 1,580sqm restaurant (Class A3) at first floor level and 2,310sqm of education and training use (Class D1) at second and part third floor level; construction of basement for retail units (Class A1 to A4) and plant; construction of subterranean pedestrian link to the Jubilee Place retail mall and the Jubilee Line Station; provision of a new publicly accessible open space, dockside walkway and landscaping together with other works incidental to the application in order to take Counsel's legal advice on the level of s106 funding contained in the application and if appropriate to undertake further negotiation of the level of Section 106 funding contained in the application.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Second Floor, 18-22 Damien Street, London, E1 2HX Decision: On a vote of 6 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that it was minded to GRANT planning permission for the change of use of the second floor from a music studio complex (Use Class B1) to educational facilities (Use Class D1) but because that decision was against the recommendation any further consideration of the application was DEFERRED to enable a further report to be presented to the committee to advise them on the decision they have indicated that they are minded to take.
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for planning permission for the change of use of the second floor from a music studio complex (Use Class B1) to educational facilities (Use Class D1) together with internal alterations.
Mr Kent Brainerd spoke in objection on the grounds that the applicant was claiming that increased capacity of the school was greatly needed, however the students of the existing school created noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour which would be exacerbated by the expansion of the school.
Ms Bishi Bhattacharya spoke in objection as a musician who regularly used Jamestown Studios, a very industrious facility which provided diversity to the neighbourhood, the closure of which would be disastrous for the numerous musicians, composers and producers who depended on it. The musicians also provided music tuition in several local schools.
Mr David Black and Mr Alan Wipperman spoke on behalf of the applicant, both in support of the scheme. Mr Black outlined the benefits of the scheme which would allow additional educational and community facilities to be provided, including language classes for women. Mr Wipperman advised that allowing the school’s capacity to increase would also enable the employment of an additional13 full-time staff.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed report on the application, and advised that UDP policies supported both uses and therefore Members would need to balance the benefits of both. Officers were recommending refusal as the proposal would lead to the loss of a valuable resource which was not available elsewhere in the Borough, and also the loss of numerous specialist employment opportunities.
In response to a question concerning the applicant’s previous application which had been withdrawn following judicial review, Mr Irvine advised that new information on the benefits of the proposal had been provided by the applicant. However officers were still of the view that the existing use provided a unique facility for which there was no comparable provision.
Members of the Committee also asked questions in relation to the options for relocating Jamestown Studios, the views of the local community, and the implications of the loss of the facility. Mr Irvine advised that no alternative sites had been offered by the applicant, the loss of which would result in the loss of a locally significant music facility which provided valuable facilities for musicians and businesses in the Borough. The opinion of the local community had been mixed with a significant level of support and opposition.
Following the debate by the committee, Councillor Alibor Choudhury moved a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Cllr Mohammed Shahid Ali and accepted by the Chair. Because that motion would be against the recommendation in the report, the usual procedure of the committee on the advice of the officers is to defer the vote on the new motion to grant permission so that officers could bring a further report to the committee advising upon the new proposal.
On a vote of 6 for and ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 Park Place, London, E14 4HJ Decision: On a vote of 6 for and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and structures on the site and erection of a new building (196.67m high) providing 122,615 sq.m of floorspace (office & retail), underground parking, services and plant and provision of a new publicly accessible walkway to dockside be GRANTED subject to
Minutes: Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and structures on the site and erection of a new building (196.67m high) providing 122,615 sq.m of floorspace (office & retail), underground parking, services and plant and provision of a new publicly accessible walkway to dockside at 1 Park Place, London.
Mr Simon Slatford spoke in objection on the grounds of overdevelopment and expressed his concern that the issues of overshadowing and the impact on neighbouring properties had not been assessed. The proposed building would also obscure the view of the pyramid building.
Mr Dara Miah spoke in support of the application stating that the proposal would benefit the local community.
Mr Julian Carter spoke on behalf of the applicant and detailed the benefits of the scheme. He advised that an impact assessment had addressed the issues raised in objection and that officers had found these acceptable.
Mr Terry Natt, Strategic Applications Manager, presented a detailed report on the application and responded to questions concerning the benefits for young people and the local community, and the design of the building.
On a vote of 6 for and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and structures on the site and erection of a new building (196.67m high) providing 122,615 sq.m of floorspace (office & retail), underground parking, services and plant and provision of a new publicly accessible walkway to dockside be GRANTED subject to
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||