Councillor Kevin Brady declared a Non DPI interest in Agenda Item 5.1. Land bounded by 2-10 Bethnal Green Road, 1-5 Chance Street (Huntingdon Industrial Estate) and 30-32 Redchurch Street, (PA/20/00557) .This was on the grounds of membership of a Members Club, that had objected to the application. He did not consider that this had affected his views on the application.

Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE, declared a Non DPI interest in Agenda Item 5.1, Land bounded by 2-10 Bethnal Green Road, 1-5 Chance Street (Huntingdon Industrial Estate) and 30-32 Redchurch Street, (PA/20/00557). This was because the application was within his ward.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 8^th February 2021.

RESOLVED:

1.             That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 8^th February 2021 be agreed as a correct record

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.

Proposal:

Demolition of the existing buildings, excluding the façade of 30-32 Redchurch Street, and redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development within a single building rising to three, seven and nine storeys maximum AOD height circa 56m comprising office (up to 14,393 sqm of B1(a)) floorspace, up to 1,444 sqm flexible commercial floorspace (B1(a)/B1(c)), and up to 1,181 sqm flexible retail floorspace (Use Class A1 and A3) along with servicing facilities, cycle parking, vehicle parking and associated works.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement

Recommendations:

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Update report published

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing buildings, excluding the façade of 30-32 Redchurch Street, and redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development and associated works. The Committee noted that the update report covered additional clarifications and correctly reproduced the sunlight and daylight report.

Tanveer Rahman presented the report – explaining the character of the surrounding site, including the surrounding tall developments and emerging context. There were also a number of listed buildings nearby and the part of the site was located in the Redchurch Street Conservation Area. 12 letters of objections and on letter of support had been received, as set out on the presentation slides. Some supported elements of the proposal.

The Committee noted the following.

·       The key features of the application.

·       That in land use terms – it raised no land use issues and generally accorded with relevant policies.

·       The high quality design, including the delivery of affordable workspace for the lifetime of the development. This exceeded policy requirements,

·       That the scale, height and massing was considered to be appropriate and be in keeping with tall buildings context, providing a vibrant addition to the area.

·       The site is not in a secondary Preferred Office Location as stated in the Committee Report.

·       The Council’s tall building policy. It was considered that the lapsed appeal decision is a material planning consideration that overrides the conflict with Local Plan’s Tall Building’s policy.

·       Comparisons with the previously consented scheme in terms of the height and the step downs in the design to be in keeping with the area.

·       The Heritage Assessment. The development would only be slightly visible to local buildings. Whilst it was acknowledged that the scheme would add additional height to the area,  it would cause less than substantial harm to heritage assets, at the lower end. It was considered that public benefits would outweigh harm. These public benefits included: the provision of affordable work space, benefits for the local economy, a through route and pedestrian crossing

·       It was noted that neighbouring properties would be affected in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight. Details of the failings in VCS and NSL were noted, including the major adverse impacts. Officers did not consider that these impacts were of undue concern given the specific sitecontext of buildings with close relationships.

·       Officers were mindful of the concerns about overshadowing to the Owl and Pussycat public house’s ‘beer garden’ . Details of the assessment were set out in the report and the update and summarised at the meeting.

·       It was noted that the failures were broadly similar  to the and already existed for 21^st March and 21^st December. The results showed that there will be additional overshadowing over the consented scheme on 21^st June. Given this, and having regard to the consented scheme, Officers did not consider it would result in an unacceptable impacts.

·       In terms of overlooking, the impacts were not considered to be unacceptable. However, conditions were recommended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and non residential uses (Sui Generis), a basement, public realm works, landscaping, access, servicing, parking and associated works.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising residential dwellings and non residential uses with associated works.

­

Aleksandra Milentijevic presented the report, explaining the site location – and existing site layout and the character of the area. Public consultation had been carried out. No responses have been received from the community. A  letter of support was received from the Bellamy Close and Byng Street Residents’ Steering Group. The Isle of Dogs Neighbouring Plan  Forum had raised concerns about the weight given to this Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Plan and this had been addressed in the update report. The applicant had carried out consultation as set out in the statement of community engagement.

Members noted the following:

·       The key features of the application. This included details of the proposed height and design. The benefits of the scheme included a communal area on the roof which would be assessable to all residents of Block C and a new pedestrian link. Door stop play space for children 0-5 would also be provided on site within the enclosed courtyard.

·       Given the lack of space for play space for over 5’s on site, a contribution would be secured for the provision of enhancements and upgrades to the nearby play area.

·       It would deliver good quality affordable housing. In total, the proposed development provides for 61% affordable housing by habitable room, inclusive of the re-provided social rented homes.

·       Without the re-provision, the proposal provides for 51% affordable housing. All would meet the minimum standards and would be provided over an increased floor space. There would be 14 wheelchair accessible dwellings. Details of the housing and tenure mix were noted

·       All of the existing occupants would have the right to accommodation in the development that meets the needs of their households.

·       The proposals had been subject to a successful resident ballot and the vast majority of the existing tenants voted in favour of the proposals.

·       The proposal also included the delivery of affordable workspace.

·       In land use terms, the proposals therefore met policy requirements and estate regeneration principles.

·       The applicant had submitted a viability assessment. This showed that the scheme delivered the maximum level of affordable housing that could viability be delivered taking into account the application for grant funding.

·       Regarding neighbouring amenity, it was noted that a number  or properties would experience sunlight and day light impacts. Details of the assessment were noted. Given the site’s location in an urban area, and the benefits of the application. Officers considered this on balance to be acceptable. 

·       The application would deliver environmental benefits. 

·       It would be liable for CIL contributions as set out in the report.

·       On this basis, the grant of planning permission is recommended.

The Chair invited Councillor Andrew Wood, the Ward Councillor to speak in support of the application. He advised that he was the Secretary of the Isle of Dogs Planning Forum. He welcomed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2