There were no declarations of interests

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 5^th February 2019.

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 5^th February 2019 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 deferred items.

There were none

Proposal:

Demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys in height and comprising:

?          5,620 sq. m GIA of office floorspace (Use Class B1a)

?          3,398 sq. m of industrial floorspace (Use Class B1c and B8)

?          699 sq. m of plant over basement, ground, first and second floor level including a publicly accessible ground floor café;

?          264 residential units (Use Class C3) including on-site affordable housing from ground to tenth floor level;

?          basement servicing areas;

?          landscaped open space; and

?          new pedestrian and service routes linking Schoolhouse Lane and Cranford Street and Cranford Street and the Highway.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys in height.

Piotr Lanoszka, (Team Leader, Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site and the surrounds and the good transport links to the site. He explained the key features of the proposals, describing the layout, elevations, the quality of the communal amenity and play space and the measures to minimise any impacts.

The application had been significantly amended and consultation had been carried out on the original application and then on the amended application resulting in 26 representations to the original consultation, compared to 8 in response to the revised application.

Regarding the land use, there would be an uplift in employment benefits, due to the re – provision of light industrial/warehousing floorspace, and new SME office space. Other aspects of the development included:

·         Delivery of good quality housing with private amenity space

·         A policy compliant level of affordable housing. The proposals would deliver 35% affordable housing at a tenure split of 59.1% affordable rented (London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent) to 40.9% intermediate (Shared Ownership/Intermediate Rent)

·         A high-quality well thought out design

·         Landscaping measures including a policy compliant level of play space

·         A publically assessable café and a new pedestrian and servicing routes.

In terms of the impact on the surrounding area, the proposal would have a less than substantial impact on the setting of the Free Trade Wharf building. In addition a number of the neighbouring properties would experience sunlight and daylight impacts, as detailed in the Committee report. The Committee noted details of the assessments. On balance, Officers were of the view that such impacts could be considered as acceptable given the benefits of the application and the urban setting.

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

Wassim El-Solh and Robbie McIntyre (local residents) spoke in opposition to the application. They raised concerns that the development would result in a loss of light to windows at their properties as they were south facing (in relation to the development). This was due to the excessive height and massing of the proposal and the proximity of the most harmful features to their properties.

Concerns were also expressed about the accuracy of the applicant’s sunlight and daylight report, given the apparent decision to treat their development as one house, rather than individual apartments. Their properties would no longer be BRE compliant. The local residents expressed the view that the assessment should be reviewed to get an accurate assessment. 

The proposal would also be out of keeping with the setting of the area so would be contrary to planning policy.

Applicant’s presentation.

Philip Dunphy (Architect) and Bryony Gerega (Workspace) spoke in support of the application. They highlighted Workspace’s good track record in providing similar mixed used developments in the borough. It was also noted that the proposals would provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new mixed use development consisting of five buildings ranging from ground plus 3 to ground plus 48 storeys in height comprising 579 residential units (Class C3); a two-form entry primary school with nursery facilities (Class D1); a 10,272 sq. m GIA small and medium enterprise (SME) Business Centre (Class B1); 2,228 sq. m GIA of flexible commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/B1/D1 and D2); single level basement car parking and servicing; and landscaped open space including a new public piazza with future pedestrian connection to Chipka Street and ground and podium level communal amenity space.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new mixed use development consisting of five buildings ranging from ground plus 3 to ground plus 48 storeys in height. He drew attention to the minor internal and external changes to the school following advice from the Council’s Education team which were detailed in the update report.   For procedural reasons the Committee were requested to delegate to the Corporate Director of Place authority to finalise the compliance condition to take account of these changes.

Kevin Crilly (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site and the surrounds, and the relevant policy objectives for the site that identified the area as capable of accommodating high density mixed development. Members also noted the key features of the scheme in terms of the layout, building heights, the proposed new school, and verified views of the proposals from the surrounding area. The Committee also noted the outcome of the consultation.

In land use terms, the proposals would deliver an uplift in business floor space including affordable work space, accommodating SME units. There would be a relocation strategy to help support the existing business tenants on site. The development would also deliver a new two form primary school with a MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area).

There would be a policy complaint of affordable housing of a good standard. The development would deliver 35% affordable housing, at a tenure split of 65% affordable rented (London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent) to 35% intermediate (Shared Ownership/Intermediate Rent)

There would be sufficient amount of play space, which would be accessible to all of the units. In design height and massing terms, the proposal was acceptable.

The proposals would relate well to the surrounding area and would generally achieve a stepping down in height from Canary Wharf.  Regarding amenity issues, the application had been amended to minimise any impacts. Although there would be some amenity impacts on neighbouring occupiers these would be acceptable given the urban location and the benefits of the scheme.

The proposals would be car free and would not result in unacceptable stress on local transport infrastructure.

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

Objectors case.

Tabrez Niazi and David Jones, (local residents and business owners)  spoke in opposition to the application. They raised concerns regarding the loss of the existing businesses on the site and the lack of suitable replacement business spaces. They felt that the safeguards in the s106 to protect the existing business were inadequate. They were also fearful of the consequences of a CPO of the site.

Concern was also expressed about the impacts from the height, scale, massing, the daylight and sunlight impacts, the impact on services, micro climate issues and the failure to provide adequate public benefits.

Taner Akcesme (local resident) also expressed concerns that the proposal would block daylight and sunlight. Concern was also expressed about parking stress due to the loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Proposal:

Demolition and redevelopment of site with a ground plus 13 storey building with a single storey basement, comprising a 156 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), ancillary cafe and reception area, cycle parking provision, plant and storage, and other works incidental to the proposed development.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition and redevelopment of site with a ground plus 13 storey building with a single storey basement.

John Miller (Planning Services), presented the report, describing the site location and the nature of the surrounding area. He also noted the similarities between the proposal and the consented office based application. He described the key features of the application. He also outlined the nature of the community consultation on this application and that no representations were received.

Officers considered that the proposed redevelopment of the site represents a good example of hotel- led development (specifically an apart-hotel) and was considered appropriate in the location.

The proposal would  appropriately respond to the local context, safeguarding the character and appearance of nearby heritage assets. There would be some impact to the adjacent conservation area however; officers consider that the proposals would be of high architectural quality and that public benefits that would result from the scheme (including improved permeability across the site, a net increase in employment and affordable housing) would outweigh this limited harm.

 The impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers would be minimal and would be acceptable for an urban location.

In relation to Transport matters, parking, access and servicing, it was not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the highway network.

In response to questions, it was noted  that there would be a servicing and delivery plan and an obligations prohibiting coach bookings , however , it was  should be noted the transport study indicated that there would only be a small number of vehicle trips and most would be by foot.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, Planning permission is GRANTED at 73-77 Commercial Road, London, E1 1RD for the demolition and redevelopment of site with a ground plus 13 storey building with a single storey basement, comprising a 156 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), ancillary cafe and reception area, cycle parking provision, plant and storage, and other works incidental to the proposed development (PA/18/03094) SUBJECT to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report.

2.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

3.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters set out in the report

Recommendation:

That the Committee notes the report and provides any comments on the draft protocol to the Divisional Director of Planning and Building Control.

Paul Buckenham introduced the draft report, highlighting the key points

In response the Committee generally supported the proposals. Members also expressed the following views:

• To receive more in-depth information on the sunlight and daylight assessments, particularly focusing on how they were carried out.
• Members expressed an interest in the new virtual reality software.
• Support was expressed for the proposals to allow ward Councillors to address the pre - application briefings.  It was also suggested that the local planning forums should be given an opportunity to address the pre applications meetings if they wished. 

• That consideration be given to adding a the following bullet point to the criteria in paragraph 3.8: 

·                     Applications with a public significant interest.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

1.         That the draft protocol be noted and the Committee’s comments (as set out in the minutes) be taken into consideration and that it provides any further comments to the Divisional Director of Planning and Building Control.