To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Dr Emma Jones and Helal Uddin, for whom Councillors Peter Golds and Denise Jones deputised respectively.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Dr Emma Jones and Helal Uddin, for whom Councillors Peter Golds and Denise Jones deputised respectively.

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.

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 31^st May 2012.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 31^st May 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 31^st May 2012 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.

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 deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Tuesday 3^rd July 2012.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.

Nil items.

Nil items.

Update Report tabled.

On a vote of 3 for and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to refuse outline planning permission (PA/10/00373) at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW, be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:

(1)   The need to carry out improvements to the existing housing stock on the estate is paramount for the benefit of residents.

(2)   Whilst current market conditions are not ideal to ensure viable education and health provision, the applicant has indicated a willingness to accept the financial risks involved in completing the scheme and the other benefits associated with the scheme outweigh the failure to meet the planning obligation requirements associated with the development.

(3)   The overall gain in social housing provision that will accrue from this particular proposal, taking account of viability considerations, is enough to help address the current housing problems in the Borough.

(4)   The Committee takes the view that weight should be afforded to other non-financial considerations the development can bring as mitigating factors and is prepared to accept the current S106 offer accordingly.

(5)   The Committee accepts that it must be mindful of its responsibilities to ensure that proposed development is sustainable but considers that maintaining current housing conditions associated with this particular estate is not sustainable and neither is it sustainable for existing residents if the site is left undeveloped. 

NOTE:  The Committee further agreed that a condition should be added to the proposed scheme requiring retail units to be retained in the current format of several smaller units, rather than amalgamating them into one large unit.

In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for approval, S106 details and conditions, along with the implications of the decision.

The Chair indicated that the planning applications set out in agenda items 7.1 and 7.2 would be considered concurrently, as they related to the same site, but with a separate vote on each.

Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the Committee reports and update reports regarding planning applications for the redevelopment of Stroudley Walk Market, London, E3 3EW  (PA/10/00373 and PA/10/00374).

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Mr Atta, a local shopkeeper, spoke in objection to the application, expressing the view that the applications showed no consideration for the needs of local residents and contained inadequate space for children to play or the elderly to meet.  Such space should be protected.  More business units were needed, rather than less, and it was unclear if existing businesses would be able to return after works were completed.  People did not want another Manhattan but it would be possible to accommodate everyone if space was used properly.  The present proposal meant that people would be crammed into the area like sardines.  He commented that he was making general criticisms of the scheme but there were many matters of detail that were unsatisfactory, including parking and other issues.  A number of petitions had been raised against the proposals and people were not happy with the scheme.  He stated that he was not against redevelopment of the area but a wise development was needed.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Atta stated that:

• There would be less retail units than at present and the proposals showed no interest in the business sector, just housing.  In addition, his premises were next to a school with 800 pupils but there was nowhere for them to meet.
• Present parking problems included the fact that it was not even possible to load and unload vehicles.  His car could be clamped and towed away after four minutes.  Only Poplar HARCA took such action and more flexibility was needed rather than simply ticketing or towing vehicles.
• More working people were needed in the area, as 70-90% unemployment rates was no good for trade.  If more businesses were allowed to operate, they would generate employment.

Ms Shopna Begum, speaking in support of the applications, stated that she had been a resident in the area for over 15 years and had three children in an overcrowded property.  It was common to see from her home crowds of drunken people on Stroudley Walk.  The area was run down and residents were afraid to walk there after dark because of groups of youths, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.  There needed to be regeneration as people could not continue to live like that. The place was a slum, with dilapidated buildings.  The scheme must go through and a new look to the area would help address anti-social behaviour.  Local residents had lost hope with no action having been taken despite over five years’ discussions.  She asked the Committee to approve the applications accordingly.

In response to questions from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

Update Report tabled.

On a vote of 3 for and 6 against, the Committee RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to refuse full planning permission (PA/10/00374) at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW, be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:

(1)   The need to carry out improvements to the existing housing stock on the estate is paramount for the benefit of residents.

(2)   Whilst current market conditions are not ideal to ensure viable education and health provision, the applicant has indicated a willingness to accept the financial risks involved in completing the scheme and the other benefits associated with the scheme outweigh the failure to meet the planning obligation requirements associated with the development.

(3)   The overall gain in social housing provision that will accrue from this particular proposal, taking account of viability considerations, is enough to help address the current housing problems in the Borough.

(4)   The Committee takes the view that weight should be afforded to other non-financial considerations the development can bring as mitigating factors and is prepared to accept the current S106 offer accordingly.

(5)   The Committee accepts that it must be mindful of its responsibilities to ensure that proposed development is sustainable but considers that maintaining current housing conditions associated with this particular estate is not sustainable and neither is it sustainable for existing residents if the site is left undeveloped. 

In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for approval, S106 details and conditions, along with the implications of the decision.

Adjournment

At this point (10.05 p.m.) the Chair proposed and it was

RESOLVED that the proceedings be adjourned for a five minute break.

(N.B. Councillor Stephanie Eaton left the meeting at this juncture owing to existing commitments.)

For commentary see agenda item 7.1.

On a vote of 3 for and 6 against, the Committee RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to refuse full planning permission (PA/10/00374) at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW, be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:

(1)   The need to carry out improvements to the existing housing stock on the estate is paramount for the benefit of residents.

(2)   Whilst current market conditions are not ideal to ensure viable education and health provision, the applicant has indicated a willingness to accept the financial risks involved in completing the scheme and the other benefits associated with the scheme outweigh the failure to meet the planning obligation requirements associated with the development.

(3)   The overall gain in social housing provision that will accrue from this particular proposal, taking account of viability considerations, is enough to help address the current housing problems in the Borough.

(4)   The Committee takes the view that weight should be afforded to other non-financial considerations the development can bring as mitigating factors and is prepared to accept the current S106 offer accordingly.

(5)   The Committee accepts that it must be mindful of its responsibilities to ensure that proposed development is sustainable but considers that maintaining current housing conditions associated with this particular estate is not sustainable and neither is it sustainable for existing residents if the site is left undeveloped. 

In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for approval, S106 details and conditions, along with the implications of the decision.

Adjournment

At this point (10.05 p.m.) the Chair proposed and it was

RESOLVED that the proceedings be adjourned for a five minute break.

(N.B. Councillor Stephanie Eaton left the meeting at this juncture owing to other commitments.)

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Extension to time

At this stage of the meeting (10.10 p.m.) the Chair proposed and it was

RESOLVED

That, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for up to one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.

The Committee received an update report on the progress of the planning applications that had previously been refused, following the subsequent decision of the Mayor of London to “call in” the applications for his own determination.

Following concerns raised by Members, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, confirmed that he would enquire as to whether individual Members could address the hearing that would be held at City Hall.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Extension to time

At this stage of the meeting (10.10 p.m.) the Chair proposed and it was

RESOLVED

That, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for up to one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Committee received a progress report on the application, which had been refused by Members and deferred in accordance with Development Procedural Rules so that their concerns could be addressed.  Officers had also subsequently submitted an objection to the safeguarding status of Orchard Wharf to the GLA, whose response was awaited.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

NOTE:  The commentary on this item has been amended to take account of comments made by a Member at the Strategic Development Committee held on 16^th August 2012.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Committee received an update report regarding the decision notice issued in connection with the previous refusal of planning permission.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.