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 Kevin Brady declared a non - Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Site at the former Bishopsgate Goods Yard, Braithwaite Street E1 (PA/14/02011 and PA/14/02096). This was on the basis of membership of a club that had objected to the previous application for the site. He stated that he had no involvement in this objection and considered that this had not affected his judgement on the application.

Councillor Tarik Khan declared a non- Disclosable Pecuniary Interest  in this application. This was on the basis of his involvement with the Spitalfields Community Group and Planning Forum, that had objected to the previous application for the site

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14^th October 2020

RESOLVED:

1.       That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14th October 2020 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.

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.

There are none

There were none.

There are none

There were none.

Proposal:

An OUTLINE application (PA/14/02011) for the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site comprising (floorspace in Gross Internal Area):

Recommendation:

Tower Hamlets raises no objection to the granting of planning permission subject to the completion of a S.106 legal agreement and recommended planning conditions.

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Planning Services, Place) introduced the application for an outline application for the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site comprising , as well as the listed building application.

He provided the background to the application, highlighting the  Mayor of London’s decision to determine the application. In 2015, The Council and Hackney Council considered the application and recommended that the application should be refused for a number of reasons. The GLA planning report recommended that the application was refused.  Following the cancellation of the stage 3 hearing, substantial negotiations had taken place. Formal amendments had been made to the application, as detailed in the Committee report.  Two rounds of consultation had been carried out on the revised application. The application site crosses the boundary of Hackney and Tower Hamlets. The Committee were advised to apply the Council’s policy to the part of the scheme within the Borough. The Committee recommendations will form the basis of the Council’s representations at the Mayor of London’s hearing.

Max Smith (case officer) presented the report advising of the key features of the site location including the site constraints  and the aspirations of the site allocation in the TH Local Plan. He also provided a comparison with the previous application. In response to the consultation, 360 representations were received as well as objections from local groups. The main issues related to the lack of housing, design, scale, too many retail units, and amenity impacts as detailed in the Committee report. The update report also highlighted a number of further late representations.

The Committee were advised of the key elements of the application. The scheme would deliver a range of benefits and would broadly comply with the site allocation. These included:

·       Creation of new affordable office and retail space across the site. At least 10% of the retail floorspace would be secured for independent retailers.

·       The provision of new routes and pubic open space in compliance with the policy.

·       Community/cultural spaces and visitor/educational space.

·       The restoration of historic buildings and non- designated heritage assets – including the Grade II listed Braithwaite Viaduct and Oriel Gateway.

·       The provision of Affordable housing at 50% of habitable rooms. This meant that a viability assessment is not required. The mix of unit sizes for both intermediate and affordable rent housing would be in line with policy, with an emphasis on family sized housing. Officers were mindful of the of lack of family sized units in the market housing tenure. The applicant had expressed a willingness to review the level at the reserved matters stage with a view to increasing this.

The scheme includes a 150 bed hotel. Whilst Officers had raised concerns about this, it was considered that a reason for refusal based on this would be difficult to sustain in policy terms.

Regarding the design – Concerns remained about the bulk and scale of Plot 1, 2 and 3 in terms of the buildings impact on the surrounding area and the setting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Proposal:

Redevelopment of the site to provide a residential building up to 53-storey.

Recommendation:

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

The Committee is invited to comment on the issues identified and to raise 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.

Deferred to a future meeting