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 reported

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

RESOLVED:

1.             That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14^th December 2022 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 building (Use Class E) and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a single tall building (205m AOD to the top of the building and 230m AOD to the top of the spire) providing residential accommodation (Use Class C3) along with a mix of flexible commercial uses (Use Class E) at ground floor level with associated hard and soft landscaping including the delivery of a new pocket park providing general public realm improvements.

[The Application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment]

Recpmmendation:

Grant planning permission, subject to conditions and planning obligations 

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for the demolition of the existing building and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a single tall building providing a mixed use development.

He also drew attention to the update report including the clarification of the Canary Wharf (Isle of Dogs)Tall Building Zone (TBZ). 

Nelupa Malik presented the report describing the site and the key features of the application.

The Committee received details of:

·        The outcome of the public consultation and the issues raised.

·        Details of the proposed housing – comprising 35% affordable housing based on habitable rooms, with a tenure split of 71%:29% between Affordable Rent and Intermediate. Officers noted the issues with the overprovision and under provision of certain unit types in relation to policy. However the scheme will provide a range of much needed housing including the policy compliant affordable housing, of a good quality. Therefore, on balance, the housing mix was considered to be acceptable

·        That the loss of office floorspace could be considered as acceptable, given the underutilised nature of the site and the benefits of the application.

·        The scheme sought to provide landscaping enhancements, as well as a new pocket park and public realm with increased permeability. Child play space will also be provided in certain locations on the site. The level of this fell short of policy for certain age groups -  Due to the site constraints and the difficulties with providing additional play space on site.  This will be mitigated by a contribution to offset the shortfall.

·        The height, scale, massing, form, architectural appearance and design is considered to be of a high-quality and had been designed to respond well to the area. Members noted an overview of the design and appearance of the proposal.

·        Reassurances were also provided about the development’s relationship with heritage assets. Historic England had no concerns about this.

·        Reassurances were also provided about the impact on neighbourhood amenity -  in terms of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, outlook or sense of enclosure. Overall, the proposal would maintain a good level of neighbourhood amenity.  

·        Other key benefits of the scheme included: biodiversity enhancements.

·        A range of financial and non financial contributions had also been secured.

Officers recommend the proposed development be granted planning permission, subject to conditions and obligations identified to be secured via a S106 agreement. 

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee

Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the application expressing concerns about the following issues:

·       Capacity of local infrastructure to accommodate another new development in area given level of development. This was particularly in the context of the water supply issues, the lack of playground space, the closure of police stations, youth centre cuts and the lack of funding generally for  infrastructure.

·       Failure to comply with the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Plan. Particularly the failure to implement the elements in this relation to infrastructure.

·       Poor doors.

John Connolly, applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application. He highlighted the following points.

·       He provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Redevelopment of the former Hatton House site to provide Education and Teaching Floorspace (Use Class F.1)

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.

Update report published.

The Committee considered the presentation in accordance with the protocol.

The Committee discussed a number of issues around:

·       Work on materiality of building, particularly in terms of the heritage sensitivities.

·       The landscaping was felt to be important, both on the campus section and where it related to the canal. Particular  regard paid to the provision of soft landscaping and greenery; and the use of the open space at different times for different activities.

·       Ensuring local consultation and engagement was extensive and robust.

·       The extension to 357 Mile End Road and the importance of not undermining the heritage significant of that asset.

·       Ensuring that the application is seen in terms of the wider requirement for additional university floorspace on the campus.

RESOLVED:

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

·       Redevelopment of the former Hatton House site to provide Education and Teaching Floorspace (Use Class F.1)