The Area Planning Manager (East), introduced the application which concerned proposals for the redevelopment of the site of the former Stepney Library.  The Planning Case Officer presented the report which concerned a proposal to demolish the disused Stepney Library building and construct 5 x 3-bedroom houses 2 of which were wheelchair accessible.  Members were informed that

• 100% of these proposed units were to be affordable. 
• Statutory planning consultation had been undertaken and 10 letters of objection and a petition had been received raising concerns about design, amenity and loss of the community facility. 
• The planning issues for consideration were land use, loss of accommodation of a community facility, design and transport. 
• The loss of the facility had been assessed and was considered acceptable since the building had not been occupied for 15 years and the community facilities had been re-provided at the nearby Idea Store.

Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:

• Concerning whether the concept of re-provision of a community facility had been appropriately applied, the Committee was informed that the application had been appropriate since Idea Stores had replaced all libraries in the Borough.
• There were no community facilities presently operating from the building.
• It was intended that the proposed properties would be provided in the form of 3 social rents and 2 LBTH Housing rents.  The provision would be private housing at social rent.
• Concerning the misleading information alleged in the report around the consultation process, the Committee was informed that this consultation referred to community meetings which had taken place, however the content of these was not known.

The Committee then heard from objectors who raised the following concerns:

• Very few in the community had been involved in the consultation.
• There had been no equality assessment.
• The proposed design was out of keeping with that of the surrounding estate.
• There would be overlooking at Jarman House and Colverson House; Members were asked to consider a site visit to asses this concern.
• There had been issues around antisocial behaviour on the estate in the past 4 years.
• 10 years ago, there had been an alternative consultation on uses of for the existing building but this had not been undertaken well.
• The estate was already overcrowded; this concern was a subject of the petition and the proposed development would exacerbate the sense of overcrowding in the locality.
• Residents supported the reinstatement of the building as a community centre since Idea Stores did not engage residents in a broad way.  Additionally a community facility would provide facilities for teenagers.
• The proposed development was not sympathetic to the heritage style of the estate
• The site was not appropriate for the proposed development since the estate required community facilities rather than additional housing.

Responding to Members’ questions, objectors provided the following additional information:

·         The Idea Store was too distant and its provision differed from that which a community centre could provide.

·         The local TRA would consider a match funding arrangement for a community facility if reinstatement could be offered; however removal of the building would be an irrevocable loss.

·         The facility would give a heart to the community

The Committee then heard from Councillor Rachel Blake who spoke on behalf of the Council - the applicant.  She informed the Committee that the proposal contributed to the Council’s targets for social housing and disabled housing.  The properties were affordable comprising 3 social rents at £167.67 per week and 2 Tower Hamlets rents at £230.28 per week.  The proposal had been equality assessed and this indicated that it would deliver a positive impact.  There had been 3 pre-application consultations with the local TRA in addition to the statutory consultation by Planning; additionally a newsletter had been circulated.

In the context of the relocation of the library function to the Idea Store the Councillor agreed it was appropriate that the demand for a community use facility should be explored.  To this end premises were available at Flat 2 Jarman House and at the Stifford Centre.  The Council did not have a large land bank, therefore careful assessment of the proposal and search for a suitable site had been undertaken.  In regard to concerns around antisocial behaviour, she advised that there was evidence that new developments led to reduction in antisocial behaviour due to natural surveillance and the elimination of dead areas.

Responding to Members’ questions Councillor Blake provided the following additional information:

• The proposal would address the need for larger family homes as all of the properties to be delivered were three-bedroom units and the site had been assessed as appropriate for this.
• Concerning rental percentages, the proportion of social rent was slightly higher (at 60% social rented properties) than that of living rents.
• Concerning the loss of council housing on the Estate, the Committee was informed that the loss was at 50% however this was not a material planning consideration.
• The provision of D1 space at Jarman House had not been attached to the application because the provision (the Community Flat) was already operational.
• The proposal had not offered 100% social housing because this did not meet the requirements of a sustainable model of development.

The Committee then moved to vote on the officer recommendation.  Councillor Bustin proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded, and on a vote of 5 in favour and 1against, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application to demolish the Former Library/community centre (D1) and general landscaping including parking and construction of 3 x three storey three bedroom houses and 2 x two storey three bedroom wheelchair accessible houses and revised parking/landscaping be GRANTED subject to conditions and informatives