Councillor Kevin Brady declared an Interest that must be registered (Other Interests) in item 5.1 Central House, 59 - 63 Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7PF (PA/18/01914) as a Trustee of Whitechapel Art Gallery that was near the site

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 25 October 2018.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 25th October 2018 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)         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 Development Committee and the meeting guidance.

There are no petitions

There were no items.

Proposal:

Retention, refurbishment, part-four and part-five storey side extension, six storey upward extension and change of use of the vacant, existing building from an education facility (D1 use class) to office accommodation (B1a use class) with flexible units (A1/A2/A3/A4/D1/D2 use classes) at ground floor.

Officer recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to APPROVE planning permission subject to

any direction by The London Mayor, obligations and conditions.

Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application for retention, refurbishment, extension and change of use of the vacant, existing building from an education facility to office accommodation with flexible units at ground floor.

Officer’s presentation.

Rikki Weir (Planning Services) presented the application describing the existing site and the character of the area, including the nearby conservation areas and listed buildings.

The Committee were advised of the key features of the revised application, including images of the proposal in relation to the surrounding area and the Conservation Area and the proposed layout. Details of the issues raised in response to the consultation were covered in the report.

Regarding the land use, Officers considered that the loss of the education use was acceptable given the circumstances. The Greater London Authority (GLA) had confirmed there would be no net loss of education facilities due to the relocation of the Holloway campus and the wider package of benefits including apprenticeship places. The provision of office space was consistent with the land use policy. 10% of which would be offered as affordable workspace. Up to 25% of the affordable workspace would be offered to local businesses on a first refusal basis at further discounted market rent. Overall, the provision exceeded the aspirational policy requirements.

The proposal would fit in well with its surroundings, given the design, involving a recess above the sixth floor, the existing building being set back, and the stepped transition in height helping to break up the cluster and building massing amongst other issues.

The proposal would not adversely affect local views and the level of harm to the setting of the Conservation Area would be ‘less than substantial’. Furthermore, it was considered that the merits of the proposal would outweigh any harm so the proposal was policy compliant.

Regarding the amenity issues, Officers were of the view that the impact on neighbouring properties and new developments (yet to be built) would be broadly acceptable in view of the circumstances. It was however noted that a number of properties would experience minor, moderate and major adverse losses of daylight and sunlight as a result of the development. The Committee noted details of the assessment as set out in committee report, together with the factors that ensured that the proposal was acceptable overall in regards to impact on amenity.

In Highways terms, the plans be would be acceptable including contributions for highway improvements.

Taking into account the merits of the proposals, Officers were recommending that it was granted permission.

Committee’s Questions.

The Committee asked questions about the employment opportunities to be offered to local residents as part of the development. Officers confirmed that details of which would be secured in the legal agreement, including the measures requiring the developer to use best endeavours to ensure 20% of the construction work force would be local residents.

Regarding the affordable workspace, the Committee sought clarity on the policy criteria for such workspace and discussed the potential to increase the offer and how the plans would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1