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

Councillors declared interests as follows:

Item 4.1 Asda – Crossharbour District Centre, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/19/02534)

•         Councillor Kahar Chowdhury, a non DPI interest – as he had received further representations.

·                 Councillor Chowdhury also declared that he had met the applicant at a recent event for the 50th Anniversary of the Independence of Bangladesh. This had not influenced his judgement on the application and he could retain an open mind.

·                 In addition, following Councillor Chowdhury’s recent appointment as Cabinet with the Public Realm and Social Inclusion portfolio, he advised that he had not been involved in leading any Executive decision making which impacts on the applications. Therefore he did not consider he had a conflict of interest. He could consider the applications with an open mind.

•         Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE, a non DPI interest. This was on the grounds of previous contact with the applicant’s representatives who is a prominent member of community. This had not influenced his decision and he could consider the application was an open mind.

·                 Committee Councillors also declared non DPI interests. This was on the grounds that they had been invited to attend a recent fundraising/awards event, involving the applicant and had been invited to submit nomination for awards. This had not influenced their decision and they considered that they could consider the application was an open mind.

Item 5.1, North Quay, Aspen Way, London, E14 (PA/20/01421 and PA/20/01412)

·        Councillor Tarik Khan, a DPI interest on the grounds of his employment. He left the meeting for the duration of the consideration on the application.

·        Councillors Sabina Akhtar, David Edgar and Abdul Mukit MBE, a non DPI interest. This was on the grounds of previous contact with the representatives of the Canary Wharf Group as community figures. This had not influenced their decision and they could consider the application with an open mind.

·        Councillor Rabina Khan a non DPI interest. This was on the grounds that she had attend an event with the Canary Wharf Group. This had not influenced her decision and she could consider the application was an open mind.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 18^th August 2021.

  The Committee RESOLVED

1.      That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23^rd August 2021 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.             The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.             In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

3.             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 be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

Proposal:

Councillor Kahar Chowdhury (Chair)

Update report was tabled

Jerry Bell introduced the application for a hybrid planning application (part detailed, part outline) for the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive, mixed-use, re-development of the site, comprising a maximum of 218,991sqm (GEA) of floorspace.

This application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 9^th June 2021.

The application was deferred by members to request that officers further consider the proposal in relation to

·   fire safety measures,

·   sunlight and daylight assessments,

·   water pressure,

·   affordable housing compared with a previous planning permission,

·   and the mix of town centre uses.

The Committee also requested an additional site visit for members to further consider the relationship with Friars Mead. This took place on 13^th September 2021.

Rikki Weir provided a brief overview of the scheme, describing the application site and the key features of the scheme.

The application has been updated with additional information relating to the Committee’s reasons for deferral as set out in the report.

Focusing on the reasons for deferral, Members noted an update on the following issues, as set out in the report.

·       The fire safety issues. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Greater London Authority (GLA) considered that the submitted fire safety information complied with the relevant policy and the requirements.

·       The sunlight and daylight impacts on Friars Mead/ concerns about the adequacy of the assessment. It was noted that BRE have confirmed that the information available to Members (in the Environmental Statement, the applicant’s supplementary report and BRE’s independent review) is sufficient to enable members to fully assess daylight and sunlight impacts. The BRE confirm that properties in Friars Mead would have windows which would experience minor impacts or minor to moderate adverse daylight impacts. However, these properties would generally continue to receive satisfactory levels of sunlight.

·       The water pressure issues. It was noted that the Council had held a meeting with Thames Water and they have provided reassurances regarding the plans to increase the capacity of the network to accommodate local development. They had also confirmed that for Waste Water, there would be enough Foul Water sewerage network infrastructure capacity and Surface Water network infrastructure capacity for both the Detailed and Outline components of the application. Thames Water also have a legal obligation to provide a minimum level of water pressure. There would also be pre–commencements conditions to ensure that the development would be planned in such a way to address the water needs of the development.

·       Concerns about the level of affordable housing compared to the previous 2014 permission. It was confirmed that, as set out in the update report, on 17th September 2021 the applicant had agreed to provide 10 additional affordable homes, increasing the proportion from 25% to 27% from the previous committee. Overall, it was considered that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing had been secured as confirmed by LBTH viability team. The proposed 27% was in excess of the 16.5% that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Proposal

Application for OUTLINE (Ref PA/20/01421) planning permission (all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the North Quay site for mixed use comprising:

·       Demolition of existing buildings and structures;

·       Erection of buildings and construction of basements;

·       The following uses:

          - Business floorspace (B1)

          - Hotel/Serviced Apartments (C1)

          - Residential (C3)

          - Co-Living (C4/Sui Generis)

          - Student Housing (Sui Generis)

          - Retail (A1-A5)

          - Community and Leisure (D1 and D2)

          - Other Sui Generis Uses

- Associated infrastructure, including a new deck over part of the existing dock;

- Creation of streets, open spaces, hard and soft landscaping and public realm;

- Creation of new vehicular accesses and associated works to Aspen Way, Upper Bank Street, Hertsmere Road and underneath Delta Junction;

- Connections to the Aspen Way Footbridge and Crossrail Place (Canary Wharf Crossrail Station);

- Car, motorcycle, bicycle parking spaces, servicing;

- Utilities including energy centres and electricity substation(s); and

- Other minor works incidental to the proposed development.

LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION (Ref: PA/20/01412) Stabilisation of listed quay wall and associated/remedial works, as well as demolition/removal of the false quay in connection with the erection of a mixed-use development.

Recommendation

Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions

Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE (Chair)

Update report was tabled

Jerry Bell introduced the application for outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the North Quay site for mixed use.

Max Smith presented the report, explaining the site and the surrounds, including images of the extant permission. The application was in outline and would be controlled by a number of documents.

The Committee noted the following:

•         That the proposed complied with the aims in the North Quay site allocation, for an employment led scheme.  That officers raised no objections to the proposed night time uses and the casino. 

•         An overview of the parameter plans and the indicative scheme showing how the development may look.

•         That public consultation had been carried out resulting in the receipt of 30 representations in objection, 6 neither in support or objection and 7  in support. The issues raised were noted.

•         Details of the various land use options, including a summary of the residential option.

•         Under the residential housing option, the scheme could provide 30% housing affordable. The viability of this option had been tested. It was found that the maximum level of affordable housing that could be provided had been secured. Should student accommodation or co – living space may form part of the scheme – the scheme would deliver 35% of these units, through on site or off site provision.

•         It was recommended that a condition be secured to secure a minimum level of residential floor space subject to the caveat, requested by the applicant, allowing this to be waived if a substantial amount of Life science floor space was brought forward.

•         That the development would deliver a range of public benefits. These include substantial contributions to employment and affordable workspace

•         Other key benefits of the scheme included public realm improvements. These included: new access routes and public open space.

•         The application is generally acceptable from a transport perspective,  providing a high density car-free scheme  with disabled access parking.

•         It would also provide improvements to permeability. These included additional pedestrian and cycling routes through the site -  along with improvements to Poplar footbridge as sought in the Site Allocation, as well as a dockside pedestrian route.

•         Whilst there would be some impact on the Grade II* Listed St. Matthias Church, any harm cased would be less than substantial and would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. Any harm can be addressed through detailed design at the reserved matters stage.

•         In daylight/sunlight terms, there would be major impacts on a number of residential properties under the maximum parameters. It is likely that the final design, would result in a lesser impact as evidenced by the assessment of the Indicative Scheme.

•         The Council would retain considerable influence at reserved matters stage to ensure that the ultimate development would be of sufficient quality, regardless of which development scenario is pursued.

Given the merits of the scheme and the public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1