There were no declarations of interest.

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

There are none

There were no items

Proposal:

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 1 to 26 storeys in height comprising 648 residential units, commercial floorspace, 32 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works.

Officer Recommendation:

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

Update report tabled

The Committee received and noted a report together that outlined a proposal to demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 1 to 26 storeys in height comprising 648 residential units, commercial floorspace, 32 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works. With the permission of the Chair (i) Amanda Day to spoke in opposition to the application; and (ii) David Roach spoke in support of the application. The Chair also exercised his discretion to allow a representative of the Applicant to speak during the consideration of this report on aspects of the proposal.

It was noted that the officer recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions and obligations and GLA Stage II approval

The Committee asked a number of questions about the proposals and the points raised are summarised as follows:

The Committee noted:

·         That with regard to the impact on the Accident and Emergency Department at the Royal London that the Hospital was satisfied with this proposal. Whilst the Applicant feels that there is very little difference in what they already have the permission to build and what they now wish to build;

·         With regard to parking spaces referenced in the proposals whilst the aim is to have zero parking there is an issue regarding the viability of the scheme should the number of spaces are reduced;

·         That although when a housing developer gets planning permission they are normally required by the Council to make a number of the homes that they build officially “affordable”. This number in Tower Hamlets being 35 per cent and developers are aware of the requirement before they begin drawing up plans;

·         Also developers can as the scheme progresses through a viability assessment evidence that the amount of affordable housing they originally agreed is no longer viable;

·         That with regard to money the GLA has secured from Government to tackle London’s housing crisis. The developer has already accessed the maximum it can from such a funding stream;

·         That with regards to the play and informal recreation provision within the scheme that can be accessed safely from the street by children independently. There would be a share amenity space on ground floor and on certain levels within the blocks and that space which forms an integral part of the surrounding neighbourhood.

·         Noted that a percentage of the play and informal recreation provision space has been moved from ground to first floor which will be protected against pollution by the buildings in the proposed development.

·         Developer contributions secured as part of planning permission for such new developments have in the past provided significant funding for any new healthcare infrastructure needed to support growth. However, with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) there is a change from an up-front negotiation of developer contributions (section 106 payments) on a site by site basis around a planning application. Now health professionals (including CCGs) now need to provide costed evidence of infrastructure needs to the local planning authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Proposal:

Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing Travelodge Hotel (Use Class C1) and erection of a data centre (Use Class B8).

Officer Recommendation:

Grant outline planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled.

The Committee received and noted a report that set out a proposal for an outline application (with all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing Travelodge Hotel (Use Class C1) and erection of a data centre (Use Class B8).

It was also noted that the officer recommendation was to grant outline planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

The Committee asked a number of questions about the proposals and the points raised are summarised as follows:

The Committee noted;

·         The application assessed within this report (planning reference PA/18/03088) was linked to an application for the erection of a new 19 storey hotel northwest of Leamouth Road roundabout (under planning reference PA/18/03089). The two sites being approximately 235m apart and within the same estate.

·         The linking of the applications stems from the desire of the applicants to facilitate the re-development of the Coriander Avenue site for the data centre and to ensure a nearby site could accommodate a new hotel. The Section 106 agreement for both applications will ensure that there will never be two hotels in operation at the same time to ensure acceptability of the land use.

·         The proposal will create jobs and provide training and support the role and function of Canary Wharf and the City of London.

As a result of discussions on the report on a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.         That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, conditional Planning permission is GRANTED at London Docklands Travelodge Hotel, Coriander Avenue, London, E14 2AA for Outline application (with all matters reserved) for the demolition of existing Travelodge Hotel (Use Class C1) and erection of a data centre (Use Class B8), SUBJECT TO:

2.         The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report:

3.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

4.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters set out in the report SUBJECT TO the addition of the an informative agreed at the Committee meeting addressing the following matter

•           design quality of the development.in the context of the setting of the Grade II* listed building East India Dock House.

Proposal:

Erection of 19 storey building (up to maximum height of 64.250 metres AOD) to provide a new 350 room hotel (Use Class C1) together with ancillary restaurant and bar, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

Officer Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled

The Committee received and noted a report regarding the erection of 19 storey building (up to maximum height of 64.250 metres AOD) to provide a new 350 room hotel (Use Class C1) together with ancillary restaurant and bar, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping. The development of this site would facilitate a new data centre nearby (approx. 200m) and the demolition of the existing Travelodge Docklands Hotel.

It was noted that the officer recommendation was to grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations.

The Committee asked a number of questions about the proposals and the points raised are summarised as follows:

·         The application proposes a 350 room hotel that measures 19 storeys in height. The building would be positioned on the north-west corner of the site and comprise of (i) Ground floor - Reception and Back of House; (ii) First floor - Restaurant/Bar; and (iii) Second to Eighteenth floor - Hotel rooms.

·         The total Gross Internal Area (GIA) would measure 11,759sqm and the maximum height of the building would measure 64.25m. Access and egress to the site would take place from Sorrel Lane and Saffron Avenue.

·         A total of 35 car parking spaces are proposed, 5 of which would be blue badge spaces. Of the 35 spaces 40% would provide active electric charging points. The site would provide a pocket park and access across the southern landscaped area. The perimeter of the site would be lined with planting and there would be a refuse store located on the north-east corner.

·         The application assessed within this report is linked to an application for the demolition of an existing hotel and erection of a new data centre at Coriander Avenue (under planning reference PA/18/03088). This is because there is an existing Travelodge hotel at Coriander Avenue and this site will cease to operate once the new hotel - proposed north-west of Leamouth roundabout - is in operation.

·         Any whilst a S106 can identify and highlight the requirements for planning contributions e.g. provide increased employment; education, and training the Council cannot be legally compel them hire local residents although they can influence.

·         The Section 106 agreement for both applications will ensure that there will not be two hotels in operation at the same time. This is to ensure acceptability of the land use. The two sites are approximately 235m apart and are within the same estate.

·         The ‘land swap’ is largely driven by the fact the application site has the East India Dock Tunnel running directly beneath it, which severely restricts the developable area and intern the building typology that can be constructed. A hotel use can be delivered on a much smaller footprint than that required to house a data centre (such are their functional requirements) and henceforth the two sites are being proposed in this way.

·         The height, massing, and design of the scheme would result in a striking building that frames the wider estate. The impact to neighbouring occupiers would be limited and acceptable for an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.3

Update report tabled

The Committee received a report that is seeking the authority of the officers to defend an appeal which has been submitted to the Secretary of State by the developer. In addition, the Committee received and considered representations from Councillor Mufeedah Bustin; Councillor Peter Golds; Councillor Andrew Wood and Mr Dave Chesterton.

The Committee asked a number of questions about the proposals and the points raised are summarised as follows:

The Committee

·         Was advised that the Secretary of State had imposed a timetable which required that this report is considered by the Committee on 14th May 2019 in time for the Council to submit a Statement of Case by 22nd May 2019 in order to avoid breaching the imposed timetable and making the authority liable for costs for unreasonable behaviour. However, as the report had not been written when the timetable had been imposed, the Council asked Secretary of State to review the timetable and he has declined. These it was noted are the special circumstances justifying the need to consider this as a matter of urgency;

·         Noted that on 4th August 2016, the Mayor of London had granted full planning permission for the demolition of Westferry Printworks followed by comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of 118,738 m2 including buildings ranging from 2-30 storeys (tallest 110 m AOD) comprising: a secondary school, 722 residential units, retail use, restaurant and cafe and drinking establishment uses, office and financial and professional services uses, community uses, car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping and new public realm (the ‘Permitted Scheme’). The planning permission has been implemented by the demolition of the print works and works to construct the new basement.

·         Noted that a new application has now been made for full planning permission to redevelop the Westferry Printworks site by alternative proposals. This proposal excludes the school from the development site. Following amendments to the application on 4th March 2019, reducing the height of the tallest building by two storeys, the residential accommodation has been increased to 1,524 units, building heights have increased to a maximum of 44-storeys (Tower 4 height 155.3 m AOD), and a 5th tower introduced (Tower 5 – 32 floors tall - height 112.35 m AOD) with a consequential reduction in publicly accessible open space.

·         Noted that an appeal had now been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory timescale. Therefore, a public inquiry will examine material planning considerations associated with the planning application. Following the Inspector’s report, the Secretary of State has directed that he shall determine the appeal himself. The reason for this direction is because: “The appeal involves proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on sites of over 5 hectares, which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.” Accordingly, the Council is consequently unable to determine the application and the Committee’s instructions are therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1