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 Kevin Brady declared a Non DPI interest in Agenda Item 4.1. 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

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20^th April 2021.

RESOLVED:

1.          That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20^th April 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.

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.

Recommendation:

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 update report set out additional representations in support and contained clarification of drawings and documentation that was not listed in the previous meeting’s update report

This application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 20 April 2021.

As set out in the minutes of the meeting, the Committee expressed concern that the public benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to heritage assets, as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019). Members deferred the application for further consideration of the affordable workspace arrangements and potential for public realm improvements to Redchurch Street.

Tanveer Rahman briefly outlined the site and the surrounds, including the heritage assets and the main elements of the scheme, highlighting the design of the affordable workspace. Officers were of the view this would provide a high quality space. 

Addressing the points raised at the previous meeting, the following points were noted:

Affordable Workspace

It was confirmed that the original r offer exceeded the Council’s Local Plan and the London Plan requirements. However, Officers have since engaged with the applicant and the Director for Growth and Economic Development. Based on a calculation of the realistic market rate for the floorspace, Officers had secured the following changes:

·                Increased rent discounts on the lower and ground floor Affordable workspace for 15 years (representing  an estimated 36 – 42% discount on the lower ground floor and an estimated 19 – 25% discount on the ground floor). Followed by 10% discount for the remaining lifetime of the development.

·            An affordable workspace delivery strategy. This comprised measures safeguarding the use of the lower ground floor as ‘maker space’,  A review mechanism on the rent levels for the lower ground, if not occupied, and requirements around engagement with local colleges and internships and  apprenticeship programmes, ground floor to be fitted to shell and core, marketing strategy with first refusal for microenterprises operated by existing Tower Hamlets Council Tax or Business Rate payees.

·    and to secure all workspace for microbusinesses

Public realm improvements to Redchurch Street

Officers have also engaged with the applicant  and the Director of Public Realm regarding contributions towards improving the setting of the area. This should also help mitigate any impacts to the setting ofthe Owl and Pussy Cat Public House and beer garden . Contributions had been secured for the completion of a scoping report and for works to be carried out as set out in the Committee report.

Overall, given the additional public benefits as outlined above, in additional to the range of the original benefits, Officers considered that this would outweigh the less than substantial heritage harm caused by the scheme and that the application should be granted planning permission.

The Committee asked a number of questions of Officers about the following issues:

·       Affordability of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Recommendation:

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide four buildings, including a tall building of up to 25 storeys, comprising residential units and flexible commercial space (A1/A2/A3/B1) at ground floor level and alterations to façade of retained building, together with associated ancillary floorspace, cycle and car parking, landscaping and highway works.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide four buildings, including a tall building of up to 25 storeys, comprising residential units and flexible commercial space and associated works. The update report included additional representations and a number of clarifications including corrections to the level of affordable housing provision.

Kevin Crilly presented the report providing an overview of the site, which had an excellent PTAL rating.

Member were advised of the following issues:

·       Details of the previous consented scheme. Due to this, the existing homes and businesses on site had  already been vacated so were vacant.

·       Consultation had been undertaken. The main issues raised were noted.

·       Height of each block and what they would provide in terms of their uses.

·       The proposals included the reprovision of the 50 social rent homes and in addition to this, there would be a net uplift in social rent homes, facilitated by grant support. The proposals had been viability tested. It is also recommended that the s106 agreement secure an early stage review.

·       Officers were mindful of the conflict with policy in terms of aspects of the housing mix, but on balance given the wider benefits of the application, considered that this was acceptable.

·       The proposal would deliver a number of additional public benefits. This included: improvements to public realm and lighting, a pocket park a court yard, and landscaping improvements

·       Other benefits  included: the delivery of flexible retail and commercial uses with enhancements to facades

·       Design. The scheme was considered to have an acceptable relationship with surrounding properties and the setting of the area.

·       Height of the development. The development would meet 3 out of the 4 points of the exception criteria for tall buildings outside the Tall Building Zone. Officers also felt that significant weight should be given to the regenerative benefits and the role of the height in supporting the viability of the scheme. Taking these factors into account, it was considered that a tall building in this area was acceptable.

·       That, in relation to the heritage assessment, the proposals  would have a limited impact on views of the Church of St Mary, the listed buildings and setting of the area. It was considered that the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh any harm so the application complied with the tests in the NPPF.

·       That in terms of neighbouring amenity, the proposals broadly complied with policy. Properties would retain a reasonable level of sunlight and daylight.

·       The transport proposals included the provision of cycle parking and facilities.

·       Contributions had been secured including for improvements to the nearby cycle highway and cycle facilities. 

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission. 

The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.

Councillor Andrew Wood expressed concerns about the application. He considered that it was too small for the site given  the site’s development potential and the PTAL rating. There was a need for more housing in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1