Agenda, decisions and 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
No declarations of interests were made.
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 29th November and the extraordinary meeting held on 21st December 2016.
The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 29 November 2016 and 21 December 2016 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
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.
3) To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
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
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.
Demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall to enable the installation of proposed utilities services and future deck; the installation of new piles in the Bank Street; and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club (Use Class Sui Generis) and other associated works incidental to the development.
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club and other associated works incidental to the development.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) presented the application. He reported that the application was originally considered by the Committee on 20 October 2016 where Members were minded not to accept the application due to concerns over:
· The loss of open water space and the lack of exceptional circumstances justifying this;
· The adverse impact on the biodiversity of the dock;
· The adverse impact on heritage assets, notably the Grade I listed banana dock wall;
· Inadequate mitigation to address the harm caused by the application.
Since that the meeting, the application had been amended to address the Concerns. Details of the changes made to the application were as follows:
· Alterations to the building at ground floor level which include setting back the central portion of the building to reveal 110sqm of water space along with views of the Grade I listed banana dock wall.
· A reduction in the number of alterations to isolated areas of the coping of the Grade I listed banana dock wall.
· Replacement of the previously proposed £600,000 financial contribution for improvements and enhancements to the natural environment in the borough with an enhanced £800,000 financial contribution towards water space and heritage features improvements and enhancements in the borough
· An additional non-financial obligation to secure public access to the building for local residents on a bi-annual basis, to view art and cultural exhibitions curated by Canary Wharf Group through its Arts and Events programme.
The Committee were reminded of the site location and the surrounds. They also noted that Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted permission. However, should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, they were directed to consider the suggested reasons for refusal set out in the report.
In response to questions from Members about the proposal to hold bi-annual arts events, it was reported that they would be held on a weekend, free of charge, for the lifetime of the development and this requirement would be written in to the S106 agreement. Save for these events, access to the proposed facilities would generally be restricted as reported at the previous meeting. In response to questions about the biodiversity measures, it was noted that the application included a number of biodiversity enhancements. In addition, the alterations to the application should deliver further benefits in this regard by revealing additional water space. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer had considered the plans and did not consider that the plans, including the proposed lighting of the underside of the building would have a significant impact. Their comments were set out in the update report.
In response to questions ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1
Demolition of the existing building and construction of two new linked buildings of 41 and 16 storeys (over double basement) comprising 216 residential units; two ground floor commercial units (Use Classes A1-A3, B1) totalling 174 sq. m GIA fronting on to Marsh Wall; basement car parking and servicing; and landscaped open space including a new pedestrian route linking Marsh Wall and Byng Street.
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing building and construction of two new linked buildings of 41 and 16 storeys (over double basement) comprising a residential led development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Andrew Wood addressed the Committee. Whilst noting the merits of the application, he considered that the density of the scheme was too excessive for this site given the public transport rating for the site. He also expressed concern about the cumulative impact of the developments in the area on social infrastructure. He also stated that the proposed land use conflicted with policy given that the site now formed part of the Central Activities Zone due to recent policy changes. The policy stated that developments in this area should primarily provide commercial units. He also considered that the height of the application conflicted with the provisions in the South Quay Master Plan in respect of building heights. In response to questions, he expressed concern about the lack of green space in the area to cater for new developments, the cumulative impacts of plans on the infrastructure (already at capacity) and the lack of plans to deal with this. He stressed that it was the cumulative impact of schemes as a whole on the area that was the problem rather than this application in isolation. The plans would also result in the loss of affordable business space in the area
Philip Dunphy (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application.
He drew attention to the merits of the application. The application would deliver good quality new residential units that included a generous amount of affordable units. It would also provide good quality communal and child play space and public realm improvements. The height of the proposal generally followed existing building heights, proving an appropriate transition from Canary Wharf to lower rise developments in the area. Furthermore, given the lack of adverse impacts, it was considered that the density of the application could be accommodated. In response to questions, he reported that the application had been designed to fit in with the nearby Alpha Square development and to ensure that each worked successfully with each other and protect the internal amenity of both. In relation to the child play space, the speaker reported that over a third of the play space would be outdoor play space and the plans had been carefully designed to link the various types of play space and community space and ensure the children were safe and secure. There would be measures to prevent vehicles queuing outside the development. In response to further questions, he also clarified the wheelchair accessible car parking plans.
Kirsty Gilmer (Planning Services) gave a detailed presentation describing the site and it’s context. She described the key features of the application and the changes to overcome the concerns with the previously withdrawn application in terms of the height of the development amongst other matters. The application would deliver a public walkway connecting ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1