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 Val Whitehead declared a Non - Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 5.1 Bow Common Gasworks PA/19/02379. This was on the basis: that the Councillor had seen a letter signed by Councillors about the height of the development. Whilst the initial letter contained a number of Councillors names, the final signed version did not contain Councillor Whitehead’s name.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19^th November 2020

The minutes of the meeting were agreed and approved as a correct record. 

RESOLVED:

1.       That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19 November 2020 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 were no items.

Proposal:

In Outline, with all matters reserved, for a comprehensive phased mixed-use development comprising demolition of existing buildings and structures, for the uses set out in the report

In Full, for a comprehensive phased development comprising demolition of existing buildings and structures, and residential (Use Class C3) flexible residential facilities and commercial uses (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, C3, D1 and D2) together with public open space; public realm works and landscaping; car and cycle parking; servicing arrangements; sustainable energy measures; formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access and means of access and circulation within the site; and site preparation works.

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Update report was tabled.

Paul Buckenham presented the application comprising an outline and a full application for a comprehensive phased mixed-use development. The full component of the application related to phase 1 of the development. The outlined application related to the wider site and this would be subject to the reserved matters application.

The update report contained two further representations and provided clarification on community infrastructure issues.

Kevin Crilly presented the application providing an overview of the site, located within the vicinity of Conservation Areas and the Tower Hamlets  Cemetery Park Nature Reserve. He also provided details of the surrounding character of the site. He advised of the following issues:

•         In terms of the land use, the scheme sought to provide a range of uses and public realm and permeability improvements as detailed in the report. This included the provision of 39% affordable housing in Phase 1 of the scheme, and 35% affordable housing across the whole scheme.

•         The proposal aligned with the site allocation policy. The application had been accompanied by parameter plans and control documents.

•         Two rounds of public consultation had been carried out. Many of the representations received on the amended scheme related to the impact on the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park

•         It was considered that the height and massing of the scheme, whilst resulting in an increase in scale, would respond positively to the surrounding area. The development would also be of a high quality design. Details of the final design would be considered  and agreed at the reserved matters stage.

•         The scheme, as amended had been designed to minimises the impact on the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park in terms of overshadowing. Details of the reduced impact was provided.  Due to the measures, the park would continue to receive adequate levels of light. Officers and the applicant had worked to ensure that any impacts were mitigated during the course of the application process. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer had reviewed the application and had concluded that whilst there would be some overshadowing, the measures and improvements should offset this and there would be net biodiversity improvements.

•         Whilst the application would impact on the daylight and sunlight of neighbouring properties, overall the results complied with policy.

•         It was considered that the scheme would result in less than substantial harm to the heritage assets and met the planning balance tests in policy. The public benefits of the scheme including the retention of 120 Bow Common Lane, would outweigh the harm. 

•         The applicant had looked carefully at the possibility of retaining the Bow Cottage. However, due a number of reasons (it’s poor condition and limited potential use, the impact of its retention on the delivery of the wider scheme,), this was not found to be viable.

•         Details of to the highways issues were noted (including the parking and cycling and the waste management arrangements). The plans complied with policy.

•         A range of obligations had been secured

•         Officers were satisfied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

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.

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