Councillor Tarik Khan declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the following agenda items on the grounds that he was employed by Braeburn Estates (Canary Wharf Group)

·         Item 5,2 - Fiftieth Floor, 1 Canada Square, London, E14 5AA (PA/19/02217)

·         Item 6.1 North Quay, Canary Wharf - pre-application presentation (PF/19/00247)

He left the meeting room for the consideration of these items.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20^th November 2019

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20th November 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.

There are none.

There are none.

Proposal:

Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development comprising a hotel (Class C1) and serviced apartments (Class C1) with ancillary gym, retail, parking, landscaping and public realm works.

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

 Update report was tabled.

Paul Buckenham, (Development Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of existing building to deliver a single 40 storey building, consisting of a 400 bed hotel and separate 279 bed serviced apartment use with an ancillary restaurant at ground floor level.

Kevin Crilly (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site location and surrounding area, including the good transport accessibility level and the planning history.  An application for planning permission was refused by this Committee in 2014 due to concerns around: the quality of the public realm, the southern façade, the relationship with the southern dock and child play space issues.

He explained the key features of this application and the outcome of the public consultation.  The consultation had resulted in the receipt of 4 representations in objection, 58  in support and a  Petition in objection with 88 signatures that did not raise any new material issues.

In land use terms, the planning policy supported the proposed hotel and serviced apartments use. The height and massing of the development was considered to be an appropriate response to the local context and would make a positive contribution to the area.  The building would be of a high quality design. This, together with the positive aspects of the development

(including landscaping improvements, the activation of  the DLR ‘Underline’ and the pedestrian access improvements) would be welcomed additions to the area. 

A sunlight and daylight report had been submitted, detailing that there would be some negative impacts to neighbouring properties, particularly to the Wardian East development, as detailed in the report. The Committee report also described the contributing factors to this, relating to the position of the balconies at the Wardian development and its proximity to the application site. It was also noted that amendments had been made to the proposal at the pre – application stage to minimize the impacts in this regard. Overall in light of the benefits of the proposal – (in terms of optimising the development potential of the site, and the public benefits set out in the report), the impacts were considered to be acceptable.  In highway terms, the proposal was also considered to be acceptable.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Sean Woolley, Amo Chohan and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) expressed concerns about the application in respect of the following matters:

• The failure to comply with the South Quay Master Plan.
• The assessment regarding  the deficiencies of  the Wardian development. Concern was expressed about the ‘bad neighbour description’.
• Loss of sunlight and daylight to the Wardian East development.  The proposal would result in significant breaches of the BRE guidelines and VSC levels.
• Overshadowing and loss of privacy.
• Highway impacts.
• That there had been a lack of consultation with residents.
• That residents opposed the development. A Petition  had  been submitted with a large number of objections.
• Concerns over the 20 metre separation distances between the proposal and neighbouring buildings.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Proposal:

Change of use from Office (Class B1) to Non-Residential Institution (Class D1)- Higher education facility.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the change of use from Office (Class B1) to Non-Residential Institution (Class D1)- Higher education facility. He advised that this application was reported to the Strategic Development Committee as the loss of office space within a ‘Primary Preferred Office Location’ (PPOL), is a departure from the Development Plan and the change of use is to floor space in excess of 2,500 sq. metres.

Gareth Owens (Planning Services) presented the report, highlighting the proposed plans and the outcome of the consultation.  The Greater London Authority had raised no objections and no responses had been received from neighbouring occupiers.

It was considered that the proposal was acceptable and would not undermine the Canary Wharfs function as a PPOL. This is because:

·         The proposal would result in a minimal loss of office space

·         It would introduce a use which would support the function to the Canary Wharf PPOL which would be a main Town Centre use within the (emerging) Canary Wharf Metropolitan Town Centre.

·         The specific University use would also be beneficial to surrounding businesses and the PPOL as a whole.

·         That the Wood Wharf development would provide a large amount of office space

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.   That Planning permission is GRANTED at Fiftieth Floor, 1 Canada Square, London, E14 5AA for

•     Change of use from Office (Class B1) to Non-Residential Institution (Class D1)- Higher education facility. (PA/19/02217)

2.   That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters listed in the Committee report and to add any other conditions and informatives as necessary.

Proposal:

Outline planning permission for construction of a mixed-use, high-density, high-rise, employment-led development with up to 8 new buildings of up to 225m AOD in height.

Recommendation:

The Committee notes the contents of the report and pre-application presentation.

The Committee identifies any other planning and design issues or material considerations that the developer should take into account at the pre-application stage, prior to submitting a planning application.

The Committee noted the contents of the report and pre-application presentation