To elect a Vice -Chair for the Committee for 2021/22.

It was agreed that this item be deferred until after Council meeting on the 29^th September 2021 which was due to appoint the Chair of the Strategic Development Committee and nominations to vacancies on this Committee had been filled.

 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

No declarations of interests were reported.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 27^th April 2021.

The Committee RESOLVED

1.       That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27th April 2021 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 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

RESOLVED:

1.       To note the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

There are none.

There were none.

Proposal:

Erection of a new six storey building to provide 1,248sqm of Use Class E(g) co-working space, to serve as an extension to the existing co-working space at 68-80 Hanbury Street, including the provision of an on-site servicing yard, cycle parking and refuse storage facilities, together associated with hard and soft landscaping works.

Recommendation:

Approve planning permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement. 

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the erection of a new six storey building to provide 1,248sqm of Use Class E(g) co-working space, to serve as an extension to the existing co-working space at 68-80 Hanbury Street, with associated works.

The update report provided information on the matters that had arisen since main agenda had been published, including the Borough Conservation and Design Advisory Panel’s  (CADAP) comments . It also reported on the receipt of additional representations, and clarifications and corrections in the main report. The Officers recommendation remained the same.

Kathleen Ly presented the application, describing the application site and the key features of the application. The Committee noted the following issues:

·       Results of the consultation. 38 representations had been received comprising of 37 in objection. The reasons were noted about design, scale, height, amenity impacts the overprovision of coworking space and other matters. A letter in support had received and a proforma letter in support with 48 signatures. The issues raised were noted.

·       Land use issues. The principle of this complied with policies. The London Plan directed employment floor spaces to sites located in the City Fringe Opportunity Area.

·       The merits of the scheme. The scheme would include the provision of 11% of the total employment as affordable workspace. This would be provided as individual studio spaces, (particularly suitable for small micro business, and potential social enterprises), with the studio spaces being 1st offered to local individuals or micro business. A local marketing strategy would be secured by condition to help support that outcome.

·       The affordable workspace studios would be provided at 35% discount from the market rate. It would be fully fitted out by the developer and let at (index inked) capped affordable rent rates for a minimum 15 years.

·       The height, massing and design of the proposed development would appropriately respond to the local context, which was noted.

·       The development would be of a highquality modern design, including measures to provide an active frontage, natural surveillance and green spaces. This would contribute to the broader regeneration of the area.

·       The development would preserve the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, as highlighted in the heritage assessment. The scheme preserved the “protected view” along Hanbury Street

·       A sunlight and daylight report had been submitted. 8 out of the 11  surrounding properties effected would satisfy the BRE guidelines for daylight and sunlight and as such, they would experience negligible daylight/sunlight change as a result of the development. Three properties would experience minor adverse impacts in relation to the Vertical Sky Component tests (VSC). The daylight and sunlight results were noted for these properties. On balance these were considered to acceptable. This was in view of number of factors (including the existing restrictions on light exposure, that some were dual aspects, that the windows affected were large and that they will only fall marginal short of the expected levels). The NSL – No Sky Line tests showed that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

There are none.

There were none