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 8^th June 2022

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 and structures and construction of residential dwellings (use class C3), public realm works, landscaping, access, servicing, parking and associated works.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report was published.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of residential dwellings, public realm works, landscaping, access, servicing, parking and associated works.

Fran Haines provided a presentation on the application.

It was noted that this application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 8th June 2022.The application was deferred by members for a site visit. This was held on 4^th July 2022.

The application has been updated since the June Committee with a Post Committee Clarification Note – prepared by Quod

No additional consultations have been carried out.

The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds.

The following topics were discussed during the Strategic Development Committee on 8th June 2022. Officers addressed each matter in turn:

• Clarified the number of additional storeys to the residential tower. This proposal sought to increase the number of residential storeys by six (and five overall) compared to the previous scheme, ref PA/20/01065 with other changes as set out in the Committee report.

• Residential entrances would be of the same standard. The development would be tenure blind in terms of the quality of the private and the affordable housing
• Affordable housing. A total of 202 dwellings would be provided including 94 low cost homes which totalled 58% of the total residential accommodation by habitable room, which exceeded policy. 
• Of these 94, 58 would be affordable homes (including 34 London Affordable rent homes) and 36 intermediate homes, which was in accordance with the 70/30 policy target.
• Compared to the previous scheme, this proposal would provide 58 more homes including 12 more affordable homes. Of these 12, six would be homes for London Affordable Rent and 6 shared ownership.
• The proportion of larger family sized affordable homes also complied with policy. A viability assessment had been carried out showing that this was the maximum amount of affordable housing the application could provide.
• Shared ownership agreement. This would be controlled by the nominations agreement in the s106 and One Housing’s, following their inclusion on the LBTH Intermediate Housing register.
• Child play space provision. Play space would be located at podium level in Block C as well as in the pedestrian link. This would be assessable to all.
• Fire safety matters. Details of the staircase and lift arrangements were noted and the fire protection features. The proposals met the relevant building regulation.
• Details of the energy strategy, including the plans to link the development to the Barkantine District Heating Network where feasible and viable. This would be secured via the s106.  If not feasible, an alternative strategy would be secured in the s106 involving Air Source Heat Pumps.

The Officers recommendation is to grant planning permission.

The Committee asked questions of Officers around the following issues:

• Assurances were sought about the quality of the development. It was confirmed that all of the proposed housing would be tenure blind and be of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Proposal:

Erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building (Use Class C3), ground floor flexible commercial space (Use Class E), basement cycle storage, resident amenities, public realm improvements and other associated works

Recommendation:

Refuse planning permission.

Update report published

Jerry Bell introduced the reportfor the erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building with ground floor flexible commercial space and associated works

Aleksandra Milentijevic presented the report highlighting the following:

• Key features of the proposal.

·       Overview of the planning history and details of the extant scheme.

·       That in land use terms the proposal would be compliant with policy.

• This proposal is for a total of 390 residential units, (58 more than the approved application). Of which 90 would be affordable units (19 more than the previous scheme). This equated to 26.6% of the total residential development per habitable room. On viability grounds, this was considered to represent the most that could be provided.
• According to policy, the affordable housing contribution for the scheme should be considered as a whole, rather than the contribution for this new proposal in isolation.

·       The quality of the housing would broadly meet standards, but the proposed communal space  arrangements at Level 53 would only be accessible to private tenure residents. There were also concerns about the segregated entrances in terms of promoting social exclusion.

• Other key aspects of the scheme included new public space  and a policy compliant level of child play space.
• Consultation had been carried out and details of the letters in support and objection were noted. Additional information had been provided by the applicant about noise impacts as set out in the update report.
• The Officers had concerns about the building height. This was in terms of the lack of compliance with the step down objectives for tall buildings in the Canary Wharf Tall buildings Zone in the Local Plan. As a result, it was considered that the proposed building would undermine the principles and objectives of the TBZ policy in the Local Plan, and adversely affect the townscape of the Canary Wharf area and its designation as the Skyline of Strategic Importance.
• That the amenity impacts remained acceptable.
• An Environmental Statement had been submitted. No objection had been raised to this.
• Details of the waste management plans were also noted. Whilst Officer were mindful that the proposed method did not comply with the Council’s waste policies, Officer’s did not consider that this would cause any additional harm.
• Details of the highway aspects were also reported.

Overall, Officers considered that planning balance exercise has not identified significant public benefits which would outweigh the harm caused to the townscape and Skyline of Strategic Importance, as well as the proposal’s failure to meet other Development Plan policies relating to design tall buildings. Officers were recommending that the application was refused permission.

The Chair invited Julian Carter to address the meeting, in support of the application highlighting the following:

• That compared to the extant scheme, this would deliver additional benefits. This included additional homes and affordable homes, amenity and play space, a more energy efficient building  and an additional CIL contribution. No weight had been attached to this only the proposed height
• The development was in a tall buildings zone  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1