Issue - meetings

Outline planning application for demolition of existing structures and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed-use development, comprising between 950 to 1,080 residential units (C3); with 460sqm to 700sqm of office uses (B1); 370sqm to 700sqm of retail/financial and professional services uses (A1/A2); 190sqm to 550sqm of restaurant/café/drinking establishment uses (A3/A4); 325sqm to 550 sqm of community/assembly/leisure uses (D1/D2); new landscaping, public and private open space, and energy centre, two utility compounds, up to 251 car parking spaces, cycle parking, access and other associated infrastructure works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Chair invited Cllr Monica Whyte to make a preliminary request in respect of the application. Cllr Whyte questioned whether the application should be heard at this meeting, in light of the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation that a revised consultation on the Core Strategy be undertaken, looking at significant changes to the Strategy, including changes in land designation. A revised consultation period of 6 weeks was scheduled to start from 23^rd September 2011, and Cllr Whyte stated that it would be nonsensical to make a decision before the revised consultation period was completed, and would leave the decision open to legal challenge. Cllr Whyte requested that a decision on the application be delayed until the revised consultation period was completed.

Allan Ledden, Legal Services, advised the Committee that the revised Core Strategy consultation exercise related specifically to 11 sites, which did not include the current application site, therefore any decision taken on this application could not prejudice the consultation exercise. In addition, Government circular advice was that, even were the preceding statement not correct, the Committee should be reluctant to defer an application on the grounds that a policy was under consultation, and would need to be completely satisfied that the application would prejudice the consultation. Mr Ledden reminded the Committee that the proposals were in accordance with the emerging Core Strategy, subject to Examination in Public, and that this was a material consideration which must be given due regard as part of the Committee’s consideration of the application.

The Chair sought views from the Committee on this matter and then moved to a vote on whether the meeting should proceed, further to the points raised. On a vote of 5 in favour and 4 against it was:

RESOLVED

That the meeting should continue.

The Planning Officer, Paul Smith, introduced the report, and advised that a further 12 pieces of correspondence had been received, copies of which had been tabled for the Committee’s information at the meeting. Mr Smith explained the contents of the report to the Committee, and, under the heading ‘Predetermination’ at paragraph 6.24.1 of the report, advised that the first sentence of this paragraph should be deleted, as no development agreement was in place. Mr Smith reported that the decision was subject to final consultation with the Mayor of London, who could either allow the decision to proceed unchanged, direct the refusal of the application or take responsibility for determining the application away from the Council and assume the role of the local planning authority in respect of this application himself. It was reported that significant progress had been made since the first letter from the GLA in respect of the application.

In respect of the draft Heads of Terms for the Section 106 agreement, set out in appendix 7 of the report, reference needed to be added to contributions under section 278 of the Highways Act. Mr Smith outlined some proposed amendments to the conditions as set out in the report, as well as an additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55