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

None were reported.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14^th July 2021.

1.             That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 21^st July 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.

Proposal:

Redevelopment of the site to provide a new mixed use building including student accommodation units and associated uses (Sui Generis), residential units (Class C3), office (Class B1), shops/cafes (Class A1/A3) and a restaurant/takeaway (Class A3/A5) arranged over a 4 storey podium with three taller elements of 46, 36 and 28 storeys (with roof-top plant and basements), alongside parking, landscaping, public realm and other associated works.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the  redevelopment of the site to provide a new mixed use building (including student accommodation units and associated uses, residential units, office, shops/cafes and a restaurant/takeaway) with three elements of 46, 36 and 28 storeys and other associated works.

The update report corrected factual issues and clarified details of the  public realm works.

Sally Fraser introduced the report, advising of the character of the site,  the surrounding area and the key features of the scheme.

The Committee noted the following issues:

·       The planning history, in particular the amendments to the previously approved application, in 2015 to remove the on site affordable housing and to increase the affordable housing contribution which was granted permission. This was in view of the site’s unsuitability for affordable housing. No further progress had been made with this.

·       Key features of the scheme – including the layout, proposed uses, design and images of the site from the surrounding area.

·       Consultation. 35 representations had been received in objection The  reasons for the objections were noted, around the proposed use, amenity impacts, the design, highways/infrastructure/ environment issues amongst other issues.

·       The land use was in line with policy -  given the provision of good quality purpose built student accommodation. The London Plan supported the provision of such accommodation. The site also had excellent transport links

·       The proposed housing. It would contribute to the delivery of 748 homes across the borough, helping to meet housing targets. It was considered that in viability terms this represented the most that could be provided.

·       Good quality amenity and child play space would also be provided and open space contributions.

·       Other aspects of the scheme included: the delivery of employment work space – including affordable work space. Details of which were noted.

·       The issues around the height. It was considered that the proposals would be proportionate to the location. It met all four of the exception criteria for assessing the acceptability of a tall buildings outside the Tall Building Zone. The  reasons for this was noted, as detailed in the report.

·       The impact on heritage assets would be less than substantial and the likely overall planning benefits of the proposals would outweigh this.

·       The amenity impacts – particularly -the sunlight and daylight impacts, The vast majority of nearby windows would experience a negligible impact. However, it was noted that some properties (Boardwalk Place, Wharfside Point) would experience minor to moderate impacts. However, given the urban context and the circumstances (that it mostly affected secondary windows, the existing restrictions on sunlight/daylight to these properties, the separation distances) the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity.  Overall given the public benefits of the scheme and the nature of the impacts this was found to be acceptable.

·       That scheme also sought to provide significant improvements to the   public realm and the highway. This included: the proposed regeneration of the underpass, the new subway entrance and associated infrastructure.

·       That biodiversity enhancements were welcomed

·       Financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Redevelopment of site to provide circa 1600 new homes, new employment space, a new high street, repurposing of the Abbott Road underpass and new and improved open space.

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 considered the presentation in accordance with the pre - application presentation protocol. Alongside the developers team, Councillors Rajib Ahmed and Andrew Wood spoke in the proposals.

The Committee raised a number of issues around:

·       Connectivity, bus services, infrastructure, transport, and engagement with TfL in helping to deal with relevant issues.  

·       The housing mix – particularly in relation to policy, the existing provision on site and the demolition. The management of occupants returning to the development.

·       Environmental and biodiversity issues.

·       Building safety and fire safety issues

·       Links to Council’s policy on tall buildings.

RESOLVED:

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