To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M. Shahid Ali.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M. Shahid Ali.

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.

The following declarations of interest were made:

The following declarations of interest were made:

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 28^th August 2008.

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record, subject to the addition of the following resolution regarding agenda item 6.2 – St. George’s Estate, Cable Street, London, E1 (Section 106 agreement):

“That, if by 28^th November 2008, being three months from the date of this Committee, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.”

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record, subject to the addition of the following resolution regarding agenda item 6.2 – St. George’s Estate, Cable Street, London, E1 (Section 106 agreement):

“That, if by 28^th November 2008, being three months from the date of this Committee, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.”

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.

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.

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.

To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.

The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.

NOTE: At this point, changes were made to the order of business of the meeting but agenda items are shown in their original order for ease of reference.

The Committee noted the procedure and those who had registered to speak.

NOTE: At the request of the Chair, Mr Alan Ingram, Democratic Services Officer, read out an announcement indicating that changes were to be made to the order of business of the meeting, as follows, to ensure that all representations could be heard: Items 6.1; 6.2; 8.1; 7.4; 7.5; 7.3; 7.1 and 7.2. However, agenda items are set out below in their original order, for ease of reference.

Mr Tim Porter, Major Projects Development Officer, presented a detailed update report on the application, which had been considered at the last meeting and deferred.  The matter had been deferred pending further information on the proposed level of Section 106 funding having regard to the size and location of the development.  Counsel’s advice had been obtained and, as summarised in the report, had confirmed that there was no justification for additional funding to be sought.

In response to queries from Members, Mr Jerry Bell, Applications Manager, commented that a supplementary planning document dealing with Section 106 was in an advanced stage of preparation and would help strengthen the Council’s position in dealing with such issues.

The Chair expressed the opinion that the financial contributions should not be applied only to the Canary Wharf Estate or the Isle of Dogs.  Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, confirmed that this would not be the case.

On a vote of 3 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the change of use of second floor from music studios (Use Class B1) to educational facilities (Use Class D10 together with internal alterations be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

Conditions

1)                 Time limit – 3 years

2)                 Hours of construction (08.00 – 18.00 hours Mon – Fri and 08.00 – 13.00 on Sat)

3)                 Full details of refuse storage to be submitted and approved

4)                 Full details of proposed ventilation and extraction systems to be submitted and approved

5)                 The applicant to submit a Green Travel Plan.

6)                 Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

Informatives

1)                 Contact Building Control

2)                 Contact Environmental Health regarding food safety and Health & Safety

3)                 Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, presented a detailed update report on the application, which had been considered at the last meeting and deferred.  Members had raised a number of concerns regarding the benefits of both the expansion of the London Islamic School and associated cultural centre and also the retention of the existing studio complex.  Mr Kiely referred to reasons set out in the report indicating why planning permission should be granted and added that, following discussions with the applicant’s agent, it was considered that existing conditions 5 and 6 could be removed and replaced by a new condition requiring the applicant to submit a Green Travel Plan.

Mr Kiely responded to further queries from Members on the planning policies relevant to the application.

On a vote of 3 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the change of use of second floor from music studios (Use Class B1) to educational facilities (Use Class D10 together with internal alterations be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

Conditions

1)                 Time limit – 3 years

2)                 Hours of construction (08.00 – 18.00 hours Mon – Fri and 08.00 – 13.00 on Sat)

3)                 Full details of refuse storage to be submitted and approved

4)                 Full details of proposed ventilation and extraction systems to be submitted and approved

5)                 The applicant to submit a Green Travel Plan.

6)                 Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

Informatives

1)                 Contact Building Control

2)                 Contact Environmental Health regarding food safety and Health & Safety

3)                 Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal

On a vote of 7 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED that outline application for demolition of the existing hospital buildings and construction of a development up to 27 storeys high building plus basement (Block D), 18 Storeys high building (Block E) and between 4 – 13 storeys high buildings (Blocks A – C) to provide 964 dwellings (97 x studios, 300 x 1bed, 278 x 2 bed, 248 x 3 bed, 27 x 4bed, 14 x 5bed); up to 303sqm of shopping, food and drink or professional services floorspace (Use Classes A1,A2, A3 and A4), up to 897sqm of community, health, education and cultural uses floorspace (Use Class D1) and/or assembly and leisure uses (Class D2); and a 2004sqm Primary Care Trust (PCT) facility (Class D1),  together with the provision of open space, landscaping, parking and ancillary works be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

The Chair indicated that the application would be considered in conjunction with agenda item 7.2, as both applications related to the same site.

Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, introduced both reports (PA/08/1161 and PA/08/1162) with regard to proposals for the St Andrew’s Hospital site, Devas Street, London, E3 3NT.

In response to queries from Members, Mr Kiely indicated that:

• Section 106 funding had been prioritised mainly towards improving Bromley-By-Bow Station rather than any A12 improvements, as a masterplan for that route was being developed with London Thames Gateway.
• The design of the building had been the subject of much consultation to arrive at the current stage of development.

At 10.20 p.m. Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer moved and the Committee RESOLVED: 

That the closing time of the meeting be extended for a maximum of 30 minutes to allow the business on the agenda to be concluded.

Mr Kiely continued to address questions put by Members and stated that:

• There had been wide public consultation concerning the community facilities aspects of both applications.
• 151 car parking spaces had been set as a reserved matter, which complied with current standards, and Section 106 funding was also being sought for a car free scheme.

On a vote of 7 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED that outline application for demolition of the existing hospital buildings and construction of a development up to 27 storeys high building plus basement (Block D), 18 Storeys high building (Block E) and between 4 – 13 storeys high buildings (Blocks A – C) to provide 964 dwellings (97 x studios, 300 x 1bed, 278 x 2 bed, 248 x 3 bed, 27 x 4bed, 14 x 5bed); up to 303sqm of shopping, food and drink or professional services floorspace (Use Classes A1,A2, A3 and A4), up to 897sqm of community, health, education and cultural uses floorspace (Use Class D1) and/or assembly and leisure uses (Class D2); and a 2004sqm Primary Care Trust (PCT) facility (Class D1),  together with the provision of open space, landscaping, parking and ancillary works be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

On a vote of 5 for and 1 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for development up to 10 storeys in height to provide 194 dwellings (85 x 1bed, 65 x 2bed, 38 x 3bed, 3 x 4bed, 3 x 5bed); 80sqm shopping, drink and professional service uses (Use Classes A1,A2, and A4), 2004sqm of  community, health, education and cultural uses (Use Class D1) and/or assembly and leisure uses (Class D2) together with provision of open space and landscaping; cycle ways and pedestrian routes; vehicle , motor cycle and cycle parking; and ancillary works be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

For commentary, please refer to the previous minute 7.1 above, as both applications (PA/08/1161 and PA/08/1162) were dealt with simultaneously as both related to the St. Andrew’s Hospital site, Devas Street, London, E3 3NT.

On a vote of 5 for and 1 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for development up to 10 storeys in height to provide 194 dwellings (85 x 1bed, 65 x 2bed, 38 x 3bed, 3 x 4bed, 3 x 5bed); 80sqm shopping, drink and professional service uses (Use Classes A1,A2, and A4), 2004sqm of  community, health, education and cultural uses (Use Class D1) and/or assembly and leisure uses (Class D2) together with provision of open space and landscaping; cycle ways and pedestrian routes; vehicle , motor cycle and cycle parking; and ancillary works be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

On a vote of 4 against and two for, with one abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission for redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led, mixed use scheme comprising 355 units, 48 serviced apartments, re-provision of a drive-through restaurant (Class A5), retail or financial and professional service units (Class A1/A2), crèche, gymnasium, associated amenity space and car parking.

On a vote of 7 for and 0 against, the Committee indicated that it was minded to refuse planning permission, and that final consideration be deferred to enable a further report to be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee to address concerns expressed by Members.

Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, introduced the report seeking planning permission for redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led, mixed use scheme comprising 355 units, 48 serviced apartments, re-provision of a drive-through restaurant (Class A5), retail or financial and professional service units (Class A1/A2), crèche, gymnasium, associated amenity space and car parking.

Mr Julian Carter was in attendance for the applicants but did not address the meeting as no objectors were present.

Mr Jason Traves, Planning Officer, presented a detailed explanation of the application, which had been revised with a reduced density of housing units and retention of a MacDonald’s outlet, although the current outlet would be demolished, more landscape planting and more noise mitigation.

Following queries by Members, Mr Kiely indicated that:

• The application had been withdrawn after being refused on 2 July 2008.
• With regard to environmental impacts on the residents, an environmental assessment meant that residents would be located higher in the development, above the main air pollution.
• Accessibility was still being addressed for improvement but the site was near a DLR station and underpass.  It was not felt that the site was isolated or cut off from the surrounding area.
• Car parking was limited as attempts were being made to reduce car use in favour of public transport.
• Affordable housing was split 70:30 between social rent and shared ownership tenures.

Members expressed strong concerns about the suitability of the site for residential, family accommodation and felt that the site was essentially on a traffic island and the current application would mean that a large volume of people would have to cross a very busy road every day.  

On a vote of 4 against and two for, with one abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the Officer’s recommendation to grant  planning permission for redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led, mixed use scheme comprising 355 units, 48 serviced apartments, re-provision of a drive-through restaurant (Class A5), retail or financial and professional service units (Class A1/A2), crèche, gymnasium, associated amenity space and car parking.

Ms Megan Crowe, Legal Services Team Leader Planning, advised that, given the allocation of the site for housing, the Committee must carefully consider its course of action.

Accordingly, on a vote of 7 for and 0 against, the Committee indicated that it was minded to refuse planning permission, and that final consideration be deferred to enable a further report to be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee to address concerns expressed by Members.

On a vote of 7 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission and listed building consent be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report for:

PA/08/1215 and PA/08/1217(Duplicate Application)

Hybrid application for comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment of Wood Wharf comprising:

1) Outline Application (all matters reserved, save for access & layout)

·        Demolition of dwellings at Lovegrove Walk;

·        Commercial floorspace (B1), up to 1668 residential units (C3), and hotel (C1) contained in fourteen buildings;

·        Retail (A1), financial services (A2), restaurants & cafes (A3), drinking establishments (A4) and takeaway establishments (A5);

·        Leisure & community uses (D1 & D2);

·        Associated infrastructure, including the creation of structures in Blackwall Basin and South Dock;

·        Principles of landscaping and public realm;

·        Means of access;

·        Bridge links;

·        Car, motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces, servicing; and

·        Electricity substation.

2) Full Application

·        Creation of canal and other engineering infrastructure and;

PA/08/1218 and PA/08/1238 (Duplicate Application LBA)

Partial demolition of a small section of the southern dock wall to Blackwall Basin, for the creation of a new canal between South Dock and Blackwall Basin, and the introduction of piled foundations to anchor structures within the Basin, and other associated works as part of a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of Wood Wharf.  The planning permissions to be subject to:

Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, introduced the report setting out the proposed Hybrid application (PA/08/1215 & PA/08/1217) for comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment of Wood Wharf; and (PA/08/1218 & PA/08/1238) the partial demolition of a small section of the southern dock wall to Blackwall Basin, for the creation of a new canal between South Dock and Blackwall Basin, and the introduction of piled foundations to anchor structures within the Basin, and other associated works as part of a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of Wood Wharf.

Mr Michael Osman, Planning Consultant representing Hammersons, spoke in connection with his client’s concerns on issues relating to land ownerships, particularly with building W05; the applicant to maximise Section 106 funding towards site development; possible compromising of views from building W05 by building W07; the possible deletion of proposed building W07D; the revision of proposed height guidelines.

Mr Steven Brown, for the applicant, referred to his tabled brochure and pointed out that the developers had been working with the local authority since 2000 and the current design represented the best use of the site.  45% of family accommodation would be affordable housing, including 95 3-bed, 28 4-bed and 20 5-bed homes.  The many new facilities would include 100% public access to the dockside and works would start on the western edge of the site, moving eastwards.

Mr Tim Porter, Major Projects Development Officer, made a detailed presentation as set out in the committee report pointing out that historical features would be preserved and outlining the £53.2m of financial benefits that would be provided.  There would also be a £100m contribution towards Crossrail.  The development period would be 10 years overall.  He added that extensive public consultations had been undertaken by the applicant and also by the Borough, with only 18 objections having been received in connection with the application.

Mr Kiely commented that this was a very major and important scheme that was driven by the established policies and masterplan.  Affordable housing was well delivered and it was important that Members were satisfied that the right place was being made.  The plan comprised a natural extension to the Canary Wharf Estate and would be bringing people much closer to the waterside.  The site was very appropriate for a modern mix of commercial/ financial/residential communities and 3,500-4,000 people would live there.  The development would bring major benefits to the locality and the Borough.

Mr Kiely replied to Members’ queries relating to:

·        Continuing access to Canary Wharf during the phased works by residents living on the south east side of the Isle of Dogs.

·        The level of connectivity with the canals to ensure they were not a barrier between affordable housing and the rest of the estate.

·        Temporary facilities should be fit for purpose and last the duration of the development period.

·        Some loss of shape of the current dock-line.

·        Changes made to the original scheme following public consultation, which would continue.

·        Section 106 funding had been based on the maximum floor areas, therefore,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.4

On a vote of 3 for and 3 against, with the Chair’s casting vote in favour of the application, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the permanent mooring of a vessel for a hotel with ancillary mixed uses including a business function room, restaurants, bars, health spa and retail units, new pontoons and new vehicular access from Marsh Wall and a new pedestrian swing bridge across Millwall Cutting be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the committee report, subject to:

Mr Jerry Bell, Applications Manager, introduced the report on the application for planning permission for the permanent mooring of a vessel for a hotel with ancillary mixed uses including a business function room, restaurants, bars, health spa and retail units, new pontoons and new vehicular access from Marsh Wall and a new pedestrian swing bridge across Millwall Cutting.

Dr Richard Wheal spoke against the application due to the proximity of the proposed mooring to Meridian Place and the likelihood of residents being disturbed by parties at night.  Pedestrian access near the flats also meant that they would be overlooked.  It was likely there would be noise and air pollution and there was insufficient provision for sewage disposal.  A 170 metre length of dock would be lost, comprising a hectare of open space.  The proposal was likely to result in a decrease in living standards and was not a sustainable proposition.

Rebecca Stockley, for the applicant, stated that the proposal had an extensive history. There had been three previous approvals for moorings at the dock  and extensive public consultation had been carried out, so residents’ concerns were known and would be addressed.  The main access to the site would be 170 metres from the nearest residential unit.  The rear decks of the ship would be 23 metres from the nearest residence and they would be used as private decks and managed appropriately.  Water quality and renewables had been discussed with the GLA and the Borough, who were satisfied in this respect.

Councillor Philip Briscoe, speaking against the application, queried the demand for additional hotel accommodation as there were several thousand rooms already on the Isle of Dogs, with more to be provided in Wood Wharf.  He felt there would be a direct impact on and loss of amenity to local residents with a direct visual impact also.  He queried the impact on the local environment of a potential 500 extra taxis to the mooring and valet parking.  In addition, the future use of the structure needed consideration and how it would arrive/if it would have an engine.  He felt that consideration should be given to deferring the application to address these issues.

Ms Amy Cooper, Planning Officer, made a detailed presentation and indicated that the ship was not engine-powered.  It would be built off-site, towed in and attached to a pontoon.  The vessel would be five star accommodation and the GLA supported its contemporary design.  To the eastern end of the vessel the first five decks would be accessible to the public.  With regard to the relationship with Meridian Place, the closest deck was about 22 metres and the design meant that it raked away and was higher to the bar area.  The top bar was about 80 metres away from housing.

Mr Michael Kiely replied to queries from Members regarding:

·        The size of the vessel and the main entry/egress points for vehicular access: this would be mainly from the west along Marsh Wall or by water taxi and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.5

Councillor Eaton declared a personal, prejudicial interest in the item as she had spoken on behalf of the residents of Bethnal Green North Ward concerning the issue at a previous meeting of the Committee.  She withdrew from the Chamber and took no part in the debate regarding the business nor voted thereon.

On a vote of 4 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED that, pursuant to its powers under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the planning permission be REVOKED on the grounds that:

The development would be in close proximity to a major hazard (the Bethnal Green Gas Holder Station) and the nature and extent of the uses proposed would represent an unacceptable level of risk for future residents and is contrary to the advice of the HSE and to Saved Unitary Development Plan policy DEV 54.

Councillor Eaton declared a personal, prejudicial interest in the item as she had spoken on behalf of the residents of Bethnal Green North Ward concerning the issue at a previous meeting of the Committee.  She withdrew from the Chamber and took no part in the debate regarding the business nor voted thereon.

Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, introduced the report seeking a decision as to whether or not planning permission number PA/05/00421 should be revoked. 

He made a detailed presentation on past decisions made with regard to the site of 33-37 The Oval, London, E2 which had been granted planning permission on 15 December 2005. However, proper consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, which was required as the site was near the Bethnal Green Gas Holder Station, had not been undertaken.  The HSE had subsequently objected strongly to the development, which meant that the planning permission was unsafe and vulnerable to challenge.  On 8 November 2007, the Committee had considered the situation further and had been minded to revoke the planning permission.  The matter had then been deferred to enable the preparation of a report outlining the options available to the Council, with the relevant legal implications.  The developer had since suspended the development because of the uncertainty over the position of the HSE and the site had effectively been blighted.

Mr Kiely referred to the comparative risk assessments of the HSE and Atkins Oil and Gas Assessment, as included in the report, and answered questions put by Members on the acceptability of risk levels.    

On a vote of 4 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED that, pursuant to its powers under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the planning permission be REVOKED on the grounds that:

The development would be in close proximity to a major hazard (the Bethnal Green Gas Holder Station) and the nature and extent of the uses proposed would represent an unacceptable level of risk for future residents and is contrary to the advice of the HSE and to Saved Unitary Development Plan policy DEV 54.