To elect a Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2019/20.

It was proposed by Councillor Kevin Brady and seconded by Councillor Tarik Khan and RESOLVED

That Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2019/2020

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the:

·         Meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 9^th May 2019

·         The extraordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14th May 2019.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 9^th May 2019 and the extraordinary meeting held on 14^th May 2019 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 Strategic Development Committee.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)            In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, 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 the meeting guidance.

Recommendation:

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

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) presented the report drawing attention to the proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the Committee report. The revised terms of reference would be presented to Full Council for adoption.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.         That the Strategic Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report be noted.

There are no reports.

There are no items.

Proposal

Demolition of existing substation and construction of a part 8/16/24 storey building with basement, including 913 rooms of purpose built student accommodation (sui generis); 430sqm of exhibition space (Use Class D1); 120sqm of incubator floorspace and 1380sqm of office space (Use Class B1) at ground, first, second and third floor levels; together with cycle parking; landscaping and public realm improvements.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and obligations and GLA Stage II approval

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing substation and construction of a part 8/16/24 storey building to primarily accommodate student accommodation with associated communal space including: incubator space and exhibition space, cycle parking and public realm works.

Max Smith (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site location and the key features of the application, in particular the layout, the views of the proposal, the incubator space and the exhibition centre. There had been two rounds of consultations (the first on the original application and the second on the revised application). The issues raised around the height and scale of the development, the proposed land use, the amenity issues amongst other issues were noted.

The Committee were advised that:

·         In land use terms the proposal complied with policy given the site’s location in the Central Activities Zone and was scheduled to fall within the Preferred Office Location in the emerging Local Plan. The proposals would deliver a number of affordable student accommodation and commercial units. Details of this were noted, as set out in the Committee report.

·         Overall, the plans were considered to deliver a reasonable offer in terms of the student accommodation and would not lead to an oversupply of student accommodation in the area.

·         The site had an excellent PTAL rating and contributions had been secured for up to two on – street disabled parking bays. The proposal also included cycle parking space.

·         In design and heritage terms, it was considered that the revised design, would be more in keeping with the surrounding area and provided a appropriate response to the area. 

·         There would be no harmful impacts on amenity.

·         There would be clauses in the s106 agreement to preserve the archaeology on site in situ.

·         Other benefits of the proposal included the delivery of public realm works to facilitate permeability. 

In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.

Committee’s Questions

·         Members sought clarity in respect  of the sunlight and daylight assessment of the Relay Building  In response, Officers provided assurances that the assessment was sound. Given that the properties at the lower floor would experience very low impacts, it followed that those on the upper floors would experience even less of an impact.

·         Regarding the affordability of the student accommodation and the allocation process, Officers outlined the eligibility criteria in the London Plan SPG, and provided assurances about their affordability. Details of the nomination agreement would be set out in the s106 agreement. It was also confirmed that this would include a requirement for a late stage review of the affordable housing. However it was expected that the proposal should be built out quickly, so it was unlikely this could yield any additional accommodation.

·         The Committee also asked questions about use of the incubator space and it’s affordability to small businesses. Officers confirmed that, despite the reductions in it’s size, it should provide good quality work space, at peppercorn rent,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1