Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

Councillor Sufia Alam declared a Non - DPI interest in agenda item 140, 146 Brick Lane and 25 Woodseer Street, London, E1 6RU.This was on the basis that she lived in the ward. She advised that this had not influenced her in anyway in relation to the consideration of the application.

Councillor Leema Qureshi declared a Non - DPI interest in agenda item140, 146 Brick Lane and 25 Woodseer Street, London, E1 6RU. This was because  the application was located in her ward.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 8^th April 2021.

The Committee RESOLVED

1.                 That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 8^th April 2021 be agreed as a correct record

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 Place 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 Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

3)   To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1.            The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.            In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

3.            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, Place be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

There were none.

There were none.

Proposal:

Redevelopment to include erection of a part five storey office building (Class B1) plus rooftop plant with ground floor and first floor commercial units (Class A1/A3) and two storey basement for provision of plant, servicing, storage and a gym (Class D2) (140 Brick Lane - Plot S1), linked to the reconfigured ground floor of the adjacent building and provision for commercial units (Class A1) (146 Brick Lane - Plot H),  refurbishment and two storey extension of the adjacent building (25 Woodseer Street - Plot S2) for office use (Class B1) with ground floor commercial unit (Class A3), plus rooftop plant and external landscaping.

Recommendation

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and legal agreement

Update report was published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the proposed development  to provide an office-led, mixed use development, including retail units, restaurants and a basement gym, with associated works. It was also reported that the update report included additional representations (in objections and support) and a corrected list of documents as well as clarifications. It also proposed two additional conditions to further safeguard residential amenity.

Patrick Harmsworth presented the report, providing an overview of the site and the key features of the application. The following issues were noted:

·       An overview of the consultation process. There had been two rounds of public consultation. Many objections had been received from residents, businesses and local amenity groups both from within Tower Hamlets and  outside London. These related to a range of issues. A number of letters of support had also been received. A summary of the key issues raised was noted.

·       In land use terms, the proposal was consistent with the development plan policies for the site location. Given the land uses and benefits proposed, officers considered overall that the proposal  would have a positive impact on the Brick Lane District Centre, in view of the provision of flexibly-designed  employment floor space, retail and restaurant space, as well as the provision of affordable workspace and independent retail units as planning obligations

·       In design terms, the scheme had been designed to provide an appropriate response to the site context. Details of the design features to ensure this were noted including the setting back of upper floors; setting back of the building line along Woodseer Street; the warehouse-aesthetic of the new building taking cues from nearby brewery buildings; and various changes made to the scheme to reduce mass in response to feedback and comments received

·       The development would provide new public realm in and around the site; as well as new local connections through the site to enhance the permeability of the wider area. A s106 obligation safeguarding wider connectivity improvements would be secured, including to the site to the north in the event this site comes forward for development in the future. In addition, as noted above, it was proposed that the pavement along the north side of Woodseer Street would be widened and improved with new materials, street trees and lampposts. . A new public square would also be provided in the eastern part of the site

·       In heritage terms, officers considered that the proposal will protect and enhance the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area; and would preserve the setting of the nearby listed buildings, given the poor condition of the existing site and quality of the proposals. The development would only be visible to a minor extent from nearby listed buildings.

·       The amenity assessment including details of the sunlight and daylight impacts on neighbouring properties. Whilst some nearby properties would experience a moderately adverse impact to daylight, such impacts were comparable with existing urban conditions and unavoidable, taking into account that that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of existing modular buildings and construction of a part-one and part-seven storey building comprising community use (Class E (e-f) and Class F1) at ground floor level and 15 x residential dwellings (Class C3) above together with associated amenity areas, cycle and car parking (in the form of 1 x accessible parking bay), refuse/recycling stores and landscaping, including refurbishment of existing play and amenity space adjoining Trinidad Street and provision of replacement MUGA

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission, subject to conditions

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing modular buildings and construction of a building -  comprising community use and residential dwellings with associated works.

Adam Garcia presented the report advising that:

·       In land use terms, the proposed development would re-provide and enhance community facilities. It would provide much needed affordable housing, which is appropriate for the site’s location.

·       All of the housing would be affordable accommodation, and the Housing mix, (whilst it slightly deviated from the policy targets in terms of the bedroom mix) was broadly in line with policy and was considered acceptable due to the public benefits . All of the units would be of a high quality standard.

·       The development would positively respond to the local context.

·       The development would result in the loss of 7 trees. 5 of which were of low quality. 7 replacement trees would be planted.

·       It was noted that a number of properties would experience daylight and sunlight impacts, at Padstow House and West Point. Overall the residual levels were in line with BRE guidance.

·       Open space would be provided, resulting in an increase in readily accessible space compared to PA/15/03148.

·       The scheme would provide contributions to local employment and training.

·       Officers were recommending that the scheme was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the committee

Alno Lesch and Volha Leech (local residents), expressed concerns regarding the following issues:

·       That the development would put increased pressure on infrastructure and services.  It would worsen existing problems on the estate including estate management issues. The area was already overpopulated. THH needs to resolve these existing issues.

·       The development was higher than surrounding buildings.

·       Suitability of this site for the development given the site constraints.

·       Other sites were more suited to providing housing.

·       The loss of green space and trees was not justified for a small amount of housing, and a hotel. Concerns over the quality of replacement trees.

·       Quality of the proposed open space due to poor location and security issues.

·       Harmful impacts on residential amenity

·       Overdevelopment of area.

Councillor James King, the Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee.

He reported on the following issues :

·       The use of the portacabin by the TRA, SPLASH as well as Limehouse Bangladeshi Cultural Association. It has been stated they were interested in leasing this facility. Clarification was sought on this

·       Whilst he supported the proposal, he sought clarification on the use of the E/F1 portion and its suitability for use as a prayer room for the Muslim community.

·       He sought assurances from THH regarding outstanding estate management issues.

·       He also requested further details on the proposed green space at the site.

·       His points of clarification were set out in the Committee update report.

The applicant’s representative Tim Waters and Anthony Jones addressed the Committee.

They highlighted the key features of the scheme and the main benefits including:

·       The regeneration of the site to provide good quality affordable housing (100% of the accommodation), whilst providing a community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

There were none.