Development Committee - Thursday, 25th April, 2024 6.30 p.m.
April 25, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
Good evening and welcome to the development committee meeting. My name is Councillor Kamrel Busan and I will be sharing this meeting. I will ask the committee to introduce themselves shortly. Before I do this, I would like to pull back and I am head of development management to briefly confirm the adequate for addressing the meeting including the virtual meeting procedure. Good evening Chair, committee members, members of the public and officers. Chair, I don't know if this is the etiquette but it is certainly the public speaking part. Is that correct part? Yes. Yes. So this on this one sets out the standing advice of determining planning applications including the legal advice and decisions that must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and relevant planning material considerations. So the process for considering reports of recommendations is set out in the agenda but I will just go through this briefly for everybody. So when we come to each item, I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and the summary of the recommendation and then officers will present the report and then normally we would hear from registered speakers however though and no speakers registered this evening. So then the committee can ask any points of clarification of officers and we will deal with any questions that may arise and then the committee will consider the recommendation including any further questions, debate and advice from officers and finally the committee will reach a decision based on the majority vote and I will confirm that back to everybody in the Chamber. And if the committee proposes changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation for example to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations or indeed reasons for refusal, then the task of formalizing those changes is delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration and the event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation they must give their reasons and propose an angry and alternative course of action and the committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task of formalizing the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the corporate director and if the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions of the development plan or could have legal implications then the item may be deferred for further reports from officers dealing with the committee's proposed course of action. There is no update report this evening and sorry, there is no update report and that's it. Thank you very much Chair. Thank you Mr. Beccanam. I will now ask the committee member present to introduce themself, please can you also state any declarations of interest that you may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interest. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Good evening everyone. Good evening everyone. Councillor Farrue-Carmen from Wardshapeel Ward and I have nothing to declare. Councillor Lassie-Bose, saying 'brombissauff' nothing to declare. And I just want to ask to comment on my, I'm not sure if there is interest or no, on agenda item 5.1, I live in the same very world. Yes, that's fine. Now to apologies. Thomas, have we received any apologies for absence? Good evening Chair. We'll have one apology for absence, Councillor Assam and Councillor Hussain is as substitute. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is minute from the previous meeting. Can you approve the minutes of 30 October, 2023? Thank you. Agenda item 3 are the recommendations and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance. I'll now ask Paul Beckham to present the guidance please. Thank you Chair. A little bit confused and Thomas might have to guide me because that's what I read out earlier. Is there a separate note for Attica because normally I think it's rolled into the first item that you just done I feel, it feels like, I don't think there's anything else that we would do now I think. Are you sure? Yes. Fine. I think let's go with that Chair. Thank you. Agenda item 4, deferred items, there are no deferred items for the committee to consider. Agenda item 5 are the planning application for decision. We have one application to consider this evening and one pre-application. Agenda item 5.1 is PA/23/02171 82 Columbia Road London E27 QB. I now invite Paul Beckham to introduce the application. Thank you very much Chair. So as the Chair said this is a planning application effect in number 82 Columbia Road and the planning application proposes a single story rear extension, a new rear garden entrance and/or from Wellington Road and the recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission with conditions. Just as part of my introduction just to mention that this is probably the site for application that as a committee you wouldn't normally be dealing with would be normally dealt with under delegated powers. However, the application did generate more than 20 objections. So as a result the constitution says it must come to committee for a decision. There is a bit of planning history as well so various similar applications have been granted twice in the past but they've never been implemented so they've run out after three years so they come back to apply again. The previous applications for whatever reason didn't seem to generate those objections but this time this one has so we need to bring it to committee. So I think that's all I'll say now. Chair, my way of introduction. Thank you. Thank you. I will now invite David Mason, Planning Officer to present the application. Thank you. Good evening Chair. Good evening members of the committee. Yes, it was great it was, yes, 2014 and 2017. Thank you. I was just checking the planning history. Okay. Good evening Chair and good evening members of the committee. So the site at 82 Columbia Road is you can plan in permission for proposed single-story rear extension and a new guard and entrance door from Wellington Road. So as you can see along Columbia Road the site is highlighted in red. It's typical of a two-story terrace along Columbia Road sitting within the neighbourhood centre and the Jesus hospital state conservation area. This steps down to a single story at the rear with the rear entrance facing onto Wellington Road. At the front of the site as well is where the shop unit is, the shop front but this extends all the way through to the rear entrance at Wellington Road with a residential flat above one bedroom residential unit. So the shop front is typical of the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre with a single-story shop front and then a one-story above residential flat. It's set adjacent to the locally listed bird cage public house and at the rear is the uncharacteristic single-story extension with a roller shutter that previously was an access to a garage but is now the rear access to the classy retail unit that currently is occupied by a vintage shop and cafe which is open on Saturdays and Sundays. You can see here this is the vintage shop which occupies the front portion of the retail unit and currently the cafe space at the rear both uses a covered under the classy use class. So the proposal is a modification to the existing single-story rear extension and as mentioned planning permission was granted in 2017 and 2014 for a scheme that is the same as the proposed. The front ground floor plan is all class E floor space as you can see carrying through the shop unit at the front then there's four small steps down to the rear element which is currently where the cafe space is positioned and the rear roller shutter door with the faces onto Wellington Road is seen here. The proposal seeks to modify this rear single-story extension reducing the overall built form of the building and in creating a courtyard at the back and a new kitchen that would serve the upstairs flat this therefore reduces the size of the retail unit to the traditional form of the terrace but it's still a generous sized unit with a kitchenette and WC provided as well as access to the downstairs basement however there is a loss of classy floor space of 31 square meters but this does create an increased residential unit for the flat above. So in terms of changes to the first floor flats the changes are very minimal and would only be seen from the interior and as you can see the proposal introduces a set of stairs going down to the ground floor so that the flat can access the kitchen single-story rear extension and then where the current kitchen is this is being re-provided on the ground floor and instead of WC is provided but other than that changes are minimal and a new outdoor private courtyard is created to serve the residential unit. In terms of changes to the exterior of the building there no proposed changes to the front elevation as seen from Columbia Road the only visible change would be seen from the rear this consists of the removal of the roller-shutter door and the provision instead of a header arch and timber doors which are more typical of the terraces seen along Wellington Road and inside the courtyard itself you'd see the bifold doors that would be part of the kitchen extension but this would only be seen from within the courtyard itself. So there were 23 objections raised in response to the application and for the key reasons being that the loss of retail and cafe floor space would be detrimental to the vitality of the area the proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area the current shop and cafe are a key part of the community and work closely with local charities the cafe space is a unique space along Columbia Road and a beloved local business is one of the few spaces that you can sit down in on a Sunday when flower markets on and the proposal will make the current tenants business unviable. So the material objections that have been raised through this process have been considered in the assessment of the proposal and so in terms of the assessment of the land use so local plan policy D.TC 2 seeks to protect retail within the boroughs town centres and this proposal sits within the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre so development should contribute to the activity and vitality of the area and any loss of retail floor space most not materially alter the nature of the unit and its future viability. So in assessing this proposal we can see that the proposed ground floor unit would still be one of the largest along Columbia Road at 63 square metres of ground floor space as well as based on access kitchenette and W.C. and considering that both the cafe space and the shop front within the classy use class already numerous changes could be made to the retail unit without planning permission so for considered that the nature of the unit is maintained and its viability as a unit would not be impacted it would not therefore significantly impact the vitality of the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre as similar assessments have been like similar conclusions have been filed in both the 2017 and 2014 concerns. In terms of the objection to the current tenants business becoming unviable this is not a material planning consideration as the planning policy exists to protect the use and not the specific businesses that would be within that use. Other themes have been assessed so heritage and design so the proposal is within the Jesus hospital estate conservation area and the proposed changes are seen positively as responding sensitively to that context and enhancing the overall conservation area setting specifically the reduction in built form and the reduction of the single story rear extension as well as the removal of the uncharacteristic roll of shutter that is currently on Wellington Road are both seen as positive moves the proposal was also shown to our design and conservation colleagues and they were consulted and were supportive of the application it should also be noted the improvements in the residential quality for the upstairs flat with the creation of the new private outdoor amenity space that currently does not exist and the proposal raises no concerns in terms of impacts on neighbours and neighbouring immunity. It is therefore it is the officers recommendation that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions you can see on the screen thank you. Thank you as we have no registered speakers for this application I will now move on to members questions to members have any question for officers. Councillor please. Thank you. So just looking at the history of this planning application when this application came from again did officers ask the applicant why did it even though they had the permission last time they didn't go ahead because I know one of the recommendations is that we grant and then we give them a specific time this time was there any kind of reasoning why they couldn't complete the application last time and it was granted. Well I believe there's a current tenant within the ground floor unit so the current own tenant who is the sort of yeah the vintage shop and cafe they are still under lease and I think the owner was happy that they could stay under lease so didn't implement the consent. They're still lease holders. Okay so they could choose not to go again. Councillor please. I just want to clarify did you say the current lease holders are objecting here as well? Yeah they have done yes. Do you know how long the lease is for? No we don't. I know the lease. I mean it's not necessarily a material planning consideration so we don't know the length of the lease. Yeah I think I mean I guess we could speculate why they didn't carry out the development previously but in reality you know sometimes this does happen the development gets permission but doesn't get implemented for a whole host of different reasons I guess from the owners point of view they obviously just want to have the benefit of being able to do that at some point if they get planning permission this evening and perhaps from their point not from our point of view but from their point of view the relationship with the tenant might be an issue in terms of like you know when they choose to carry out the development they might wait until the lease expires but that wouldn't be something for us to be concerned about that's probably just their sort of you know own commercial relationship with their current tenant. Councillor? Thank you. It's said that the flaws so one of the concerns from the objectors were the ground floor will be out of the character from the local area what do the officers feel? So we looked at some other units along Columbia Road so where you have traditionally a shop front in the front portion of the ground floor and then a rear portion that is traditionally residential and often kitchen space so you can see on the screen the consent from 2018 at 92 Columbia Road just further along the front portion here is a retail unit and at the rear is a residential kitchen extension serving the upstairs flat so and there were similar similar proposals at 94 as well so just obviously slightly further down the street and so we would argue that this is a sort of typical typology and development that is along Columbia Road and it's common to have residential at the rear of the ground floor along Columbia Road. And just to add on the previous slides that David showed you can see the actual the size of the units there so that's 21 square metres and I think the other one was 35 square metres sorry whereas what's being retained here is 63 square metres so it's significantly in excess of those which have previously been found to be acceptable and viable retail units. Yeah so I have a question so do you think this proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area? No so in terms of in the report and our assessment is that the proposal would be a positive enhancement to the conservation area by removing the uncharacteristic roller shutter and reducing the overall dominance of a rear extension that was a later addition to the building so in terms looking at it from a heritage and design perspective the proposal would be seen as an improvement. If planning was to be granted with the landlord be able to go in and make the changes or he will have to wait for the tenants to leave? I suppose I might bring astrid in here but I mean in a way just because planning permission is granted it doesn't override any other terms that might be in the lease for example so it would depend on how the lease was constructed and what that allowed the landlord to do or not do as the case may be so the planning permission is I suppose you have to think I'm applying permission is just that it is it is a permission to do something it doesn't mean that you can then go ahead and do it if there are other things you need to deal with. Councillor CHAVERY. Sorry, so yeah that's fine. Does it impact in terms of our local plan and a London plan? Is it okay? Does it comply with our London plan and London plan as well? It does it does and the main planning consideration has been around what we call sort of the vitality and viability of the shopping centre and a lot of the objections have been a concern that if you reduce the size of the floor space then perhaps you know you run the risk that it won't be let in the future. In reality as colleagues have shown there are actually units along Columbia Road that are much smaller than what's being proposed here and they're still successful. So I think it's it you know we would have no concerns from the policy points of you. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking through the planning history and you know and as you mentioned sometimes there could be we can have discussions on why certain things may someone may have not developed on it especially you know have you know people who have businesses sometimes might be not be able to afford it and other there's other things so on but I can see that he was permitted you know twice prior to that 2014 and 2017 and my question would be did we have people who share the same concerns previously and the people who have objected do they live locally? I think to answer the first question we probably have to do a little bit of research so we might be able to just have a quick look on the file to see if we can see how many objections were received. In terms of the ones that have come in this time round I think we have an idea of where they've come from I think they are or it's fair to say they are all pretty local to the vicinity so is that just check with colleagues that that is correct. Yes so in terms of the previous applications I think the 2017 application had one or two objections but nothing of the known and not of a threshold to be not concluded by delegated decision and in terms of as Paul mentioned the objectives are mostly from either the local area or then slightly further afield but within east London area. Just like the 2014 application didn't receive any objections and lastly just to follow up where all of them residents not all the objectives were residents within the borough and so businesses also that were not happy with it. So I think it would be it was the tenant who isn't a resident in the borough and then so some of the people who would use the cafe or members of the public who also have a affinity to the to the cafe space. Thank you. Yeah to be clear the tenant we think they've seen Norfolk and comes down on the weekends to operate the shop. Sorry if I can answer. Then what's the point if we give the permission to do then it's come again for second look. It's it's perfectly possible I guess because that's just the way the system works and they would be allowed to do that if they didn't implement it. I think it's interesting that it doesn't often take a lot to demonstrate you've started a planning permission and perhaps if the owner did get permission and got some advice they might carry out some very minimal works to demonstrate they'd started within three years so they could keep that planning permission alive that way but that's really really up to them and I think tonight we just have to look at the application it's before us and not worry too much about what they might do in the future. So for example I've done the right to buy application twice but twice run I couldn't afford to actually buy our own. Thank you for giving opportunity looking at the report that already been given permission once before and twice before and therefore they did not do carry out the work it's in time frame applying for third time round and looking at the offices report is for I can't see really there's any major obstacle there apart from the complaint from resident that we shouldn't be granted because we should look at the framework all of us should look at the framework of the council how we should be allowed to look at the books so I think if we concentrate what we allowed to do with the framework and we should move forward on that. Thank you Chair. Two questions actually the proposal will make the current business available and force them to close that's one of the questions what do you think about that and the other one is the sub the submitted plan are inaccurate and do not provide sufficient detail of the proposal could you tell us more about the last question please in details. Yeah so in response to the first question which was an objective from the tenant saying you would make their current business unviable the sort of it was that's yet a valid object well it's not a material planning consideration so the protection the policy protection is for the overall use so the use class as a retail unit and that's what we've assessed and we found that the floor space the proposal of 63 square metres of ground floor space for a retail unit would still be a viable retail unit within the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre so whether or not a specific business would be viable or not is not a material planning consideration yeah and in terms of the second question I don't know if you would just repeat the second question sorry yeah so in dialogue with the applicant during the proposal we got them to provide further details so the plans have been amended since that objection was raised to provide more annotations in details about the proposed detailing and what materials will be used for the proposal and these were shared with us and our design and conservation colleagues and we were satisfied that they provided sufficient detail that we would be happy with the proposal and its impacts yeah so you're saying that it has been submitted with adequate information yeah that's correct yes thank you any other questions yes thank you now we have the opportunity to to have a debate if the member wants to or anybody wants to make any comment on it thank you and I'd like now Paul and Astrid to share any final advice before I move to the vote do you have any final advice obviously I'm not as I go elected this time run but under the previous applications we had experienced members who were elected like councilor chardry and colleagues on my left and I believe you know as it was passed previously and we've got those same councilors here I think we should also take note from why some of them people may have passed off there so you know I think it's the master pastor on good grounds so which is I think you missed it wasn't passed in the development committee because it was passed on delegated power by the officer so this time because we have 20 I'm just sure that's why thank you thank you after the committee Anybody else? Any abstentions? Thank you chair so on an unanimous vote in favor of the officer recommendation the committee is resolved to grand planning commission for a single story real extension the new garden entrance from Wellington row at 82 Columbia Road in accordance with the plans and the application and subject to the planning conditions that have been recommended thank you chair thanks thank you uh now I invite pulled back and I'm to introduce a report concerning the London legacy development cooperation interim delegation scheme sorry to interrupt that of legacy development cooperation also in my ward as well so I'm just declaring that in my agonofiary interest but it's it's sitting in my ward am I allowed to stay here thank you Mr Becken thank you very much chair so yes this is a slightly unusual report so we're not really asking you to determine but we're not asking to determine the planning application at all for this one but this is in connection with some work that we're doing to support the smooth handover of planning powers from the LLDC as it is to tower hamlets um at the end of this year so I've just got a short presentation for you just to give you give you some background because I'm not sure how familiar obviously some councils made more familiar than others with uh with the LLDC um let me just see if I can get that onto doesn't get onto full screen I can get my mouse to go there we go right so yeah so uh as I say you may know that the LLDC was established in 2012 um it's a mayoral development corporation London Maryland corporation and it was established to take forward the regeneration um around the olympic park sort of post the olympics um as well as being a regeneration body the LLDC was given planning power so the same powers that we have and your committee has and that was given under under uh legislation that's there on the screen um however the mayor of London has now confirmed that they would like to hand back the LEDs planning powers to tower hamlets and the and the three other boroughs so new and morph and forest and hackney that covered that area and to do that some what we call secondary legislation is being prepared and that'll be laid before parliament in july so there's a few different things that sort of have to happen to so it had to take place to make the transfer of powers happen um the map on the screen is really just to show you the the boundary of the area is probably not come up terribly well but the sort of the the the big outline around the outside is the whole of the planning area and tower hamlets is the area that sort of I don't know if my curse is coming up on the big screen actually but it's it's the area that sort of sits east of the 812 up to the riverly north of bromley bible um station and up to hackney wick railway line here's a more zoomed in one so the pink area is the alicy planning area and the sort of green line boundary east of the 812 road shows tower hamlets council boundary and it's the area uh that's slither if you like all the way from hackney wick through fishein and down into into bromley bible so to help with the smooth transition of planning powers um at officer level we've been working on um a proposal for what's called an interim delegation scheme so the planning powers will officially hand back on the first of december but there is an opportunity for the lldc to delegate their planning application decisions to ourselves three months earlier than that um on the first of september and the power for them to do that is also sort of there's there's law that allows them to do that so it's it's quite a well established um uh well you know it exists in law they can take advantage of that in fact there is a separate metal development corporation that exists in west London and they have an arrangement with London boroughs over there to do a similar thing what are the advantages of doing a delegation scheme well it provides some certainty and continuity for applicants so for example if you can imagine if you wanted to submit a planning application in that area you know um let's say let's say in september time um and your application is with the lldc first of december comes and then the lldc hasn't made the decision has to give it to the tower hamlets either way you haven't got that continuity of approach um which from a customer service point of view you know it's probably better to have a degree of continuity rather than sort of like a cliff edge when everything sort of stops if you like um it allows the planning teams that work at the lldc to focus on the existing applications they've already got rather than taking in on any new ones um it allows us to start to influence the planning decisions in the Olympic legacy area um the receiving borough also gets the benefit of the planning fee and it also uh creates a situation where if the secondary legislation that's going before parliament in july if for any reason that was delayed so for example there was an early general election and parliamentary business was disrupted then the delegation scheme could continue after the first of december until such time as the lldc stops be stops formally being a planning authority the reason so why why are we bringing this to committee well we've looked into what the governance process around this is and um if the council wants to accept um functions from another authority delegated to it then um the constitution says it's actually full council has to make that decision your committee is a committee of the council and planning application decisions are obviously they're taken by officers and they're taken by your committee and by sdc um so it's possible that during that interim period it's possible that you might be asked to determine an application that's been submitted to the lldc and then given to towerhammon so that's why we're bringing it to to yourselves so just in terms of the key date so we've got the report here this evening we're taking the same report to sdc on the 14th of May the lldc will be doing their own board approval on the 21st of May and then the intention is to finally go to full council on the 31st of July so it sounds like quite a long window process but we've done quite a lot of work with colleagues in legal and democratic services about what's the right way to to approach this so really the recommendation this evening quite straightforward recommendation if we're just asking you as a committee just to note the proposals um it would be helpful if you confirm as a committee that you agree with officers that you think this is a sensible and good approach to smooth transition and that you know as part of that process then in a way your committee and sdc committee would be if they agree as well would be then asking for council to make the final ratification on the 31st of July so that's that's the nature of the recommendation so it's slightly unusual one but it's it's just all about making that hand back and playing powers as smooth as it possibly can be for the future so um so I will leave it there um happy to take any questions um it's been quite an interesting process and I would say that there's been a lot of collaborative work between ourselves the three of the boroughs and the lldc and trying to make sure that this this happens when it's supposed to happen um and happens in the best the best way so thank you thanks um thank you yes thank you um do members have any questions related to this game for all officers uh thank you yes thank you thank you mr. chair just uh a couple of weeks ago I attended one one meeting I think he was there with a new hump and uh new is a new son of fire then welcome story I was there is two hours meeting and then the issue was raised the if we don't able to transition within this period is the first of December 2024 that it will be more complicated than we need another parliamentary legislation is something I can recall yeah that that's correct so um the planning powers were for were given to the LDC using using parliamentary legislation so there has to be like another piece of parliamentary legislation that hands them back if you're right um so what I think was discussed at that meeting that we're both attended um which is more like a steering group meeting was if we if we um have an interim delegation scheme for these three months and if for some reason the parliamentary legislation doesn't go through the advantage is you could actually just extend this so the so the LODC would still technically and more exist as a planning authority but in reality they wouldn't really be doing any planning work and we would be doing it on their behalf so so I think that was the nature of that particular particular discussion at the meeting if I remember correctly and yeah the question okay um then we're moving into vote can I see all those in favor of the recommendation yeah should i let's hold on to tell these well those against are there any abstentions Paul can you please confirm that committee thank you sir that's very helpful thank you committee members so uh the committee uh is agree the recommendation to take forward the work on the interim scheme of delegation and that they'd be content to if they if they are asked to deal with any applications in the future after that goes through um that they would be content to deal with those in the in the usual way so thank you very much chair thank you thank you uh that concludes the business for this meeting uh the next meeting will be held on Tuesday 30th May 2024 thank you Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) [BLANK_AUDIO]
Transcript
Good evening and welcome to the development committee meeting. My name is Councillor Kamrel Busan and I will be sharing this meeting. I will ask the committee to introduce themselves shortly. Before I do this, I would like to pull back and I am head of development management to briefly confirm the adequate for addressing the meeting including the virtual meeting procedure. Good evening Chair, committee members, members of the public and officers. Chair, I don't know if this is the etiquette but it is certainly the public speaking part. Is that correct part? Yes. Yes. So this on this one sets out the standing advice of determining planning applications including the legal advice and decisions that must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and relevant planning material considerations. So the process for considering reports of recommendations is set out in the agenda but I will just go through this briefly for everybody. So when we come to each item, I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and the summary of the recommendation and then officers will present the report and then normally we would hear from registered speakers however though and no speakers registered this evening. So then the committee can ask any points of clarification of officers and we will deal with any questions that may arise and then the committee will consider the recommendation including any further questions, debate and advice from officers and finally the committee will reach a decision based on the majority vote and I will confirm that back to everybody in the Chamber. And if the committee proposes changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation for example to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations or indeed reasons for refusal, then the task of formalizing those changes is delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration and the event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation they must give their reasons and propose an angry and alternative course of action and the committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task of formalizing the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the corporate director and if the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions of the development plan or could have legal implications then the item may be deferred for further reports from officers dealing with the committee's proposed course of action. There is no update report this evening and sorry, there is no update report and that's it. Thank you very much Chair. Thank you Mr. Beccanam. I will now ask the committee member present to introduce themself, please can you also state any declarations of interest that you may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interest. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Good evening everyone. Good evening everyone. Councillor Farrue-Carmen from Wardshapeel Ward and I have nothing to declare. Councillor Lassie-Bose, saying 'brombissauff' nothing to declare. And I just want to ask to comment on my, I'm not sure if there is interest or no, on agenda item 5.1, I live in the same very world. Yes, that's fine. Now to apologies. Thomas, have we received any apologies for absence? Good evening Chair. We'll have one apology for absence, Councillor Assam and Councillor Hussain is as substitute. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is minute from the previous meeting. Can you approve the minutes of 30 October, 2023? Thank you. Agenda item 3 are the recommendations and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance. I'll now ask Paul Beckham to present the guidance please. Thank you Chair. A little bit confused and Thomas might have to guide me because that's what I read out earlier. Is there a separate note for Attica because normally I think it's rolled into the first item that you just done I feel, it feels like, I don't think there's anything else that we would do now I think. Are you sure? Yes. Fine. I think let's go with that Chair. Thank you. Agenda item 4, deferred items, there are no deferred items for the committee to consider. Agenda item 5 are the planning application for decision. We have one application to consider this evening and one pre-application. Agenda item 5.1 is PA/23/02171 82 Columbia Road London E27 QB. I now invite Paul Beckham to introduce the application. Thank you very much Chair. So as the Chair said this is a planning application effect in number 82 Columbia Road and the planning application proposes a single story rear extension, a new rear garden entrance and/or from Wellington Road and the recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission with conditions. Just as part of my introduction just to mention that this is probably the site for application that as a committee you wouldn't normally be dealing with would be normally dealt with under delegated powers. However, the application did generate more than 20 objections. So as a result the constitution says it must come to committee for a decision. There is a bit of planning history as well so various similar applications have been granted twice in the past but they've never been implemented so they've run out after three years so they come back to apply again. The previous applications for whatever reason didn't seem to generate those objections but this time this one has so we need to bring it to committee. So I think that's all I'll say now. Chair, my way of introduction. Thank you. Thank you. I will now invite David Mason, Planning Officer to present the application. Thank you. Good evening Chair. Good evening members of the committee. Yes, it was great it was, yes, 2014 and 2017. Thank you. I was just checking the planning history. Okay. Good evening Chair and good evening members of the committee. So the site at 82 Columbia Road is you can plan in permission for proposed single-story rear extension and a new guard and entrance door from Wellington Road. So as you can see along Columbia Road the site is highlighted in red. It's typical of a two-story terrace along Columbia Road sitting within the neighbourhood centre and the Jesus hospital state conservation area. This steps down to a single story at the rear with the rear entrance facing onto Wellington Road. At the front of the site as well is where the shop unit is, the shop front but this extends all the way through to the rear entrance at Wellington Road with a residential flat above one bedroom residential unit. So the shop front is typical of the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre with a single-story shop front and then a one-story above residential flat. It's set adjacent to the locally listed bird cage public house and at the rear is the uncharacteristic single-story extension with a roller shutter that previously was an access to a garage but is now the rear access to the classy retail unit that currently is occupied by a vintage shop and cafe which is open on Saturdays and Sundays. You can see here this is the vintage shop which occupies the front portion of the retail unit and currently the cafe space at the rear both uses a covered under the classy use class. So the proposal is a modification to the existing single-story rear extension and as mentioned planning permission was granted in 2017 and 2014 for a scheme that is the same as the proposed. The front ground floor plan is all class E floor space as you can see carrying through the shop unit at the front then there's four small steps down to the rear element which is currently where the cafe space is positioned and the rear roller shutter door with the faces onto Wellington Road is seen here. The proposal seeks to modify this rear single-story extension reducing the overall built form of the building and in creating a courtyard at the back and a new kitchen that would serve the upstairs flat this therefore reduces the size of the retail unit to the traditional form of the terrace but it's still a generous sized unit with a kitchenette and WC provided as well as access to the downstairs basement however there is a loss of classy floor space of 31 square meters but this does create an increased residential unit for the flat above. So in terms of changes to the first floor flats the changes are very minimal and would only be seen from the interior and as you can see the proposal introduces a set of stairs going down to the ground floor so that the flat can access the kitchen single-story rear extension and then where the current kitchen is this is being re-provided on the ground floor and instead of WC is provided but other than that changes are minimal and a new outdoor private courtyard is created to serve the residential unit. In terms of changes to the exterior of the building there no proposed changes to the front elevation as seen from Columbia Road the only visible change would be seen from the rear this consists of the removal of the roller-shutter door and the provision instead of a header arch and timber doors which are more typical of the terraces seen along Wellington Road and inside the courtyard itself you'd see the bifold doors that would be part of the kitchen extension but this would only be seen from within the courtyard itself. So there were 23 objections raised in response to the application and for the key reasons being that the loss of retail and cafe floor space would be detrimental to the vitality of the area the proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area the current shop and cafe are a key part of the community and work closely with local charities the cafe space is a unique space along Columbia Road and a beloved local business is one of the few spaces that you can sit down in on a Sunday when flower markets on and the proposal will make the current tenants business unviable. So the material objections that have been raised through this process have been considered in the assessment of the proposal and so in terms of the assessment of the land use so local plan policy D.TC 2 seeks to protect retail within the boroughs town centres and this proposal sits within the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre so development should contribute to the activity and vitality of the area and any loss of retail floor space most not materially alter the nature of the unit and its future viability. So in assessing this proposal we can see that the proposed ground floor unit would still be one of the largest along Columbia Road at 63 square metres of ground floor space as well as based on access kitchenette and W.C. and considering that both the cafe space and the shop front within the classy use class already numerous changes could be made to the retail unit without planning permission so for considered that the nature of the unit is maintained and its viability as a unit would not be impacted it would not therefore significantly impact the vitality of the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre as similar assessments have been like similar conclusions have been filed in both the 2017 and 2014 concerns. In terms of the objection to the current tenants business becoming unviable this is not a material planning consideration as the planning policy exists to protect the use and not the specific businesses that would be within that use. Other themes have been assessed so heritage and design so the proposal is within the Jesus hospital estate conservation area and the proposed changes are seen positively as responding sensitively to that context and enhancing the overall conservation area setting specifically the reduction in built form and the reduction of the single story rear extension as well as the removal of the uncharacteristic roll of shutter that is currently on Wellington Road are both seen as positive moves the proposal was also shown to our design and conservation colleagues and they were consulted and were supportive of the application it should also be noted the improvements in the residential quality for the upstairs flat with the creation of the new private outdoor amenity space that currently does not exist and the proposal raises no concerns in terms of impacts on neighbours and neighbouring immunity. It is therefore it is the officers recommendation that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions you can see on the screen thank you. Thank you as we have no registered speakers for this application I will now move on to members questions to members have any question for officers. Councillor please. Thank you. So just looking at the history of this planning application when this application came from again did officers ask the applicant why did it even though they had the permission last time they didn't go ahead because I know one of the recommendations is that we grant and then we give them a specific time this time was there any kind of reasoning why they couldn't complete the application last time and it was granted. Well I believe there's a current tenant within the ground floor unit so the current own tenant who is the sort of yeah the vintage shop and cafe they are still under lease and I think the owner was happy that they could stay under lease so didn't implement the consent. They're still lease holders. Okay so they could choose not to go again. Councillor please. I just want to clarify did you say the current lease holders are objecting here as well? Yeah they have done yes. Do you know how long the lease is for? No we don't. I know the lease. I mean it's not necessarily a material planning consideration so we don't know the length of the lease. Yeah I think I mean I guess we could speculate why they didn't carry out the development previously but in reality you know sometimes this does happen the development gets permission but doesn't get implemented for a whole host of different reasons I guess from the owners point of view they obviously just want to have the benefit of being able to do that at some point if they get planning permission this evening and perhaps from their point not from our point of view but from their point of view the relationship with the tenant might be an issue in terms of like you know when they choose to carry out the development they might wait until the lease expires but that wouldn't be something for us to be concerned about that's probably just their sort of you know own commercial relationship with their current tenant. Councillor? Thank you. It's said that the flaws so one of the concerns from the objectors were the ground floor will be out of the character from the local area what do the officers feel? So we looked at some other units along Columbia Road so where you have traditionally a shop front in the front portion of the ground floor and then a rear portion that is traditionally residential and often kitchen space so you can see on the screen the consent from 2018 at 92 Columbia Road just further along the front portion here is a retail unit and at the rear is a residential kitchen extension serving the upstairs flat so and there were similar similar proposals at 94 as well so just obviously slightly further down the street and so we would argue that this is a sort of typical typology and development that is along Columbia Road and it's common to have residential at the rear of the ground floor along Columbia Road. And just to add on the previous slides that David showed you can see the actual the size of the units there so that's 21 square metres and I think the other one was 35 square metres sorry whereas what's being retained here is 63 square metres so it's significantly in excess of those which have previously been found to be acceptable and viable retail units. Yeah so I have a question so do you think this proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area? No so in terms of in the report and our assessment is that the proposal would be a positive enhancement to the conservation area by removing the uncharacteristic roller shutter and reducing the overall dominance of a rear extension that was a later addition to the building so in terms looking at it from a heritage and design perspective the proposal would be seen as an improvement. If planning was to be granted with the landlord be able to go in and make the changes or he will have to wait for the tenants to leave? I suppose I might bring astrid in here but I mean in a way just because planning permission is granted it doesn't override any other terms that might be in the lease for example so it would depend on how the lease was constructed and what that allowed the landlord to do or not do as the case may be so the planning permission is I suppose you have to think I'm applying permission is just that it is it is a permission to do something it doesn't mean that you can then go ahead and do it if there are other things you need to deal with. Councillor CHAVERY. Sorry, so yeah that's fine. Does it impact in terms of our local plan and a London plan? Is it okay? Does it comply with our London plan and London plan as well? It does it does and the main planning consideration has been around what we call sort of the vitality and viability of the shopping centre and a lot of the objections have been a concern that if you reduce the size of the floor space then perhaps you know you run the risk that it won't be let in the future. In reality as colleagues have shown there are actually units along Columbia Road that are much smaller than what's being proposed here and they're still successful. So I think it's it you know we would have no concerns from the policy points of you. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking through the planning history and you know and as you mentioned sometimes there could be we can have discussions on why certain things may someone may have not developed on it especially you know have you know people who have businesses sometimes might be not be able to afford it and other there's other things so on but I can see that he was permitted you know twice prior to that 2014 and 2017 and my question would be did we have people who share the same concerns previously and the people who have objected do they live locally? I think to answer the first question we probably have to do a little bit of research so we might be able to just have a quick look on the file to see if we can see how many objections were received. In terms of the ones that have come in this time round I think we have an idea of where they've come from I think they are or it's fair to say they are all pretty local to the vicinity so is that just check with colleagues that that is correct. Yes so in terms of the previous applications I think the 2017 application had one or two objections but nothing of the known and not of a threshold to be not concluded by delegated decision and in terms of as Paul mentioned the objectives are mostly from either the local area or then slightly further afield but within east London area. Just like the 2014 application didn't receive any objections and lastly just to follow up where all of them residents not all the objectives were residents within the borough and so businesses also that were not happy with it. So I think it would be it was the tenant who isn't a resident in the borough and then so some of the people who would use the cafe or members of the public who also have a affinity to the to the cafe space. Thank you. Yeah to be clear the tenant we think they've seen Norfolk and comes down on the weekends to operate the shop. Sorry if I can answer. Then what's the point if we give the permission to do then it's come again for second look. It's it's perfectly possible I guess because that's just the way the system works and they would be allowed to do that if they didn't implement it. I think it's interesting that it doesn't often take a lot to demonstrate you've started a planning permission and perhaps if the owner did get permission and got some advice they might carry out some very minimal works to demonstrate they'd started within three years so they could keep that planning permission alive that way but that's really really up to them and I think tonight we just have to look at the application it's before us and not worry too much about what they might do in the future. So for example I've done the right to buy application twice but twice run I couldn't afford to actually buy our own. Thank you for giving opportunity looking at the report that already been given permission once before and twice before and therefore they did not do carry out the work it's in time frame applying for third time round and looking at the offices report is for I can't see really there's any major obstacle there apart from the complaint from resident that we shouldn't be granted because we should look at the framework all of us should look at the framework of the council how we should be allowed to look at the books so I think if we concentrate what we allowed to do with the framework and we should move forward on that. Thank you Chair. Two questions actually the proposal will make the current business available and force them to close that's one of the questions what do you think about that and the other one is the sub the submitted plan are inaccurate and do not provide sufficient detail of the proposal could you tell us more about the last question please in details. Yeah so in response to the first question which was an objective from the tenant saying you would make their current business unviable the sort of it was that's yet a valid object well it's not a material planning consideration so the protection the policy protection is for the overall use so the use class as a retail unit and that's what we've assessed and we found that the floor space the proposal of 63 square metres of ground floor space for a retail unit would still be a viable retail unit within the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre so whether or not a specific business would be viable or not is not a material planning consideration yeah and in terms of the second question I don't know if you would just repeat the second question sorry yeah so in dialogue with the applicant during the proposal we got them to provide further details so the plans have been amended since that objection was raised to provide more annotations in details about the proposed detailing and what materials will be used for the proposal and these were shared with us and our design and conservation colleagues and we were satisfied that they provided sufficient detail that we would be happy with the proposal and its impacts yeah so you're saying that it has been submitted with adequate information yeah that's correct yes thank you any other questions yes thank you now we have the opportunity to to have a debate if the member wants to or anybody wants to make any comment on it thank you I'd like now Paul and Arstrad to share any final advice before I move to the vote do you have any final advice obviously I'm not as I go elected this time run but under the previous applications we had experienced members who were elected like Councilor Choudry and colleagues on my left and I believe you know as it was passed previously and we've got those same councilors here I think we should also take note from why some of the people may have passed off there so you know I think it's the master pastor on good grounds so which is I think you missed it wasn't passed in the development committee because it was passed on delegated power by the officer so this time because we have 20 projects so that's why it's accurate after the committee anybody else? Any abstentions? Thank you Chair so on a unanimous vote in favor of the officer recommendation the committee is resolved to grand planning commission for the single-story real extension the new garden entrance from Wellington Row at 82 Columbia Road in accordance with the plans and the application and subject to the planning conditions that have been recommended thank you Chair thanks Thank you now I invite Paul back and I'm to introduce a report concerning the London Legacy Development Corporation interim delegations came sorry to interrupt that of the legacy development corporation also in my ward is also I'm just declaring that in my agnostic interest but is sitting in my ward am I allowed to stay here? Thank you. Thank you very much Chair so yes this is a slightly unusual report so we're not really asking you to determine but we're not asking to determine the planning application at all for this one but this is in connection with some work that we're doing to support the smooth handover of planning powers from the LLDC as it is to tower hamlets at the end of this year so I've just got a short presentation for you just to give you some background because I'm not sure how familiar obviously some councils made more familiar than others with the LLDC let me just see if I can get that onto the full screen I can get my mouse to go there we go right so yeah so as I say you may know that the LLDC was established in 2012 it's a mayoral development corporation London Mailed Fund Corporation and it was established to take forward the regeneration around the Olympic Park sort of post the Olympics as well as being a regeneration body the LLDC was given planning power so the same powers that we have and your committee has and that was given under under legislation that's there on the screen however the mayor of London has now confirmed that they would like to hand back the LOD's planning powers to tower hamlets and the three other boroughs so Newham, Wolf and Forest and Hackney that cover that area and to do that some what we call secondary legislation is being prepared and that'll be laid before Parliament in July so there's a few different things that sort of have to happen to sort of have to take place to make the transfer of powers happen the map on the screen is really just to show you the the boundary of the area is probably not come up terribly well but these are the the the big outline around the outside is the whole of the planning area and tower hamlets is the area that sort of I don't know if my curse is coming up on the on the big screen actually but it's it's the area that sort of sits east of the 812 up to the river the north of Bromley Bible station and up to Hackney wick railway line here's a more zoomed in one so the pink area is the LDC planning area and the sort of green line boundary east of the 812 Road shows tower hamlets council boundary and it's the area that's leather if you like all the way from Hackney wick through Fisch Island down into Bromley Bible so to help with the smooth transition of planning powers officer level we've been working on a proposal for what's called an interim delegation scheme so the planning powers will officially hand back on the 1st of December but there is an opportunity for the LLDC to delegate their planning application decisions to ourselves three months earlier than that on the 1st of September and the power for them to do that is also sort of the law that allows them to do that so it's quite a well established well you know it exists in law the consecutive advantage of that in fact there is a separate metal development corporation that exists in west London they have an arrangement with London boroughs over there to do a similar thing what are the advantages of doing a delegation scheme well it provides some certainty and continuity for applicants so for example if you could imagine if you wanted to submit a planning application in that area you know let's say in September time and your application is with the LLDC 1st of December comes and then the LLDC hasn't made the decision has to give it to the tower hamlets either way you haven't got that continuity of approach which from a customer service point of view you know it's probably better to have a degree of continuity rather than sort of like a cliff edge when everything sort of stops if you like it allows the planning teams that work at the LLDC to focus on the existing applications they've already got rather than taking in on any new ones it allows us to start to influence the planning decisions in the Olympic legacy area the receiving borough also gets the benefits of the planning fee and it also creates a situation where if the secondary legislation that's going before Parliament in July if for any reason that was delayed so for example there was an early general election and parliamentary business was disrupted then the delegation scheme could continue after the 1st of December until such time as the LLDC stops being stops formally being a planning authority the reason so why are we bringing this to committee well we've looked into what the governance process around this is and if the council wants to accept functions from another authority delegated to it then the constitution says it's actually full council has to make that decision your committee is a committee of the council and planning application decisions are obviously they're taken by officers and they're taken by your committee and by stc so it's possible that during that interim period it's possible that you might be asked to determine an application that's been submitted to the LLDC and then given to Towerhamon so that's why we're bringing it to yourselves so just in terms of the key dates so we've got the report here this evening we're taking the same report to stc on the 14th of May the LLDC will be doing their own board approval on the 21st of May and then the intention is to finally go to full council on the 31st of July so it sounds like quite a long window process but we've done quite a lot of work with colleagues in legal and democratic services about what's the right way to to approach this so really the recommendation this evening quite straightforward recommendation you were just asking you as a committee just to note the proposals it would be helpful if you confirm as a committee that you agree with officers that you think this is a sensible and good approach to smooth transition and that you know as part of that process then in a way your committee and stc committee would be if they agree as well would be then asking for council to make the final ratification on the 31st of July so that's that's the nature of the recommendation so it's slightly unusual one but it's it's just all about making that hand back and playing powers as smooth as it possibly can be for the future so and so I will leave it there happy to take any questions it's been quite an interesting process and I would say that there's been a lot of collaborative work between ourselves the three of the boroughs and the LLDC and trying to make sure that this this happens when it's supposed to happen and happens in the best the best way thank you thank you thank you and do members have any questions related to this game for all officers thank you yes thank you thank you mr chair just a couple of weeks ago I attended one one meeting I think he was there with a new hamp and he was a member of the ruxana fire then all them so yeah I was there it's two hours meeting and then the issue was raised the if we don't able to transition within this period is the first of December 2024 that it will be more complicated than we need another parliamentary legislation is something I can recall yeah that that's correct so the planning powers were for were given to the LDC using using parliamentary legislation so there has to be like another piece of parliamentary legislation that hands them back if you're right so what I think was discussed at that meeting that we both attended which is more like a steering group meeting was if we if we have an interim delegation scheme for these three months and if for some reason the parliamentary legislation doesn't go through the advantage is you could actually just extend this so the so the LODC would still technically in law exist as a planning authority but in reality they wouldn't really be doing any planning work and we would be doing it on their behalf so so I think that was the nature of that particular particular discussion the meeting if I remember correctly and yeah the question okay um then we are moving into vote can I see all those in favor of the recommendation yeah should i let's hold to tell these what those against are there any abstentions Paul can you please confirm that committee thank you sir that's very helpful thank you committee members so the committee is agree the recommendation to take forward the work on the interim scheme of delegation and that they'd be content to if they were asked to deal with any applications in the future after that goes through um that they would be content to deal with those in the in the usual way so thank you very much chair thank you thank you that concludes the business for this meeting the next meeting will be held on Tuesday 30th May 2024 thank you everyone
Summary
The council meeting focused on a planning application for 82 Columbia Road and discussed an interim delegation scheme related to the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). The committee approved the planning application and supported the proposal for the interim delegation scheme.
Decision on 82 Columbia Road: The committee unanimously approved a planning application for modifications at 82 Columbia Road, which included a single-story rear extension and a new garden entrance. Despite objections concerning the loss of retail and cafe space, officers assured that the reduced space would still be viable and enhance the conservation area. The decision supports local planning policies and maintains the vitality of the Columbia Road neighbourhood centre.
Decision on LLDC Interim Delegation Scheme: The committee agreed to support the interim delegation scheme proposed for the smooth transition of planning powers from the LLDC to Tower Hamlets and other boroughs. This scheme allows the LLDC to delegate planning application decisions to Tower Hamlets starting September 1, ahead of the official transfer on December 1. The decision ensures continuity for applicants and allows the council to influence decisions in the Olympic Legacy area sooner. It also provides a contingency if legislative changes are delayed.
Additional Information: The meeting was procedural and focused on ensuring continuity and adherence to local planning frameworks. The discussions highlighted the council's commitment to maintaining community character while adapting to new developments and responsibilities. The Tower Hamlets development committee meeting discussed the procedure for addressing the meeting, introduced the committee members, and reviewed a planning application for 82 Columbia Road, London E27 QB. The committee also discussed the interim delegation scheme for the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC).
The most significant topic was the planning application for 82 Columbia Road. The application proposed a single-story rear extension, a new rear garden entrance, and other modifications. The recommendation was to grant planning permission with conditions. The application had previously been granted permission in 2014 and 2017 but was not implemented. This time, the application generated over 20 objections, necessitating committee review. The objections centered on the loss of retail and cafe floor space, potential negative impacts on the conservation area, and concerns about the viability of the current tenant's business. The committee discussed these objections and assessed the proposal's compliance with local and London planning policies. Ultimately, the committee decided to grant planning permission, noting that the proposal would not significantly impact the vitality of the Columbia Road neighborhood center and would enhance the conservation area by removing uncharacteristic features like a roller shutter door.
The second significant topic was the interim delegation scheme for the LLDC. The LLDC was established to manage the regeneration around the Olympic Park and has planning powers that are set to be handed back to Tower Hamlets and other boroughs by the end of the year. The committee discussed a proposal for an interim delegation scheme that would allow Tower Hamlets to start handling planning applications from the LLDC area three months earlier, starting on September 1st. This scheme aims to provide continuity and certainty for applicants and ensure a smooth transition of planning powers. The committee agreed with the proposal and recommended it for approval by the full council.
Other topics included the introduction of committee members, declarations of interest, approval of minutes from the previous meeting, and procedural guidance for hearing objections and meeting conduct. There were no deferred items for consideration.
Attendees
Documents
- Agenda frontsheet 25th-Apr-2024 18.30 Development Committee agenda
- Declarations of Interest Note
- Minutes
- Public Information Sheet
- PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION
- 82 Columbia Road - Development comittee report final
- Part 8 Other Planning Matters Master
- LLDC interim delgation scheme
- Decisions 25th-Apr-2024 18.30 Development Committee
- Public reports pack 25th-Apr-2024 18.30 Development Committee reports pack