The agenda order was varied at the meeting to consider item 8.1. 21 Buckle Street Public Inquiry reasons for refusal (PA/16/01612) before 7.1 Chrisp Street Market, Chrisp Street, London (PA/16/01612). For ease of reference, the items are listed in the minutes in the order that they appeared on the agenda.

To elect a Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2018/19.

It was proposed by Councillor Kevin Brady and seconded by Councillor Dipa Das and RESOLVED

That Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2018/2019.

Councillor Dipa Das declared a non disclosable personal interest in agenda item 7.1 Chrisp Street Market, Chrisp Street, London (PA/16/01612)  as she had met with Steve Stride, (one of the speakers registered to address the Committee in support of the application) to discuss  local services after the local election.

Councillor Zenith Rahman declared a non disclosable personal interest in agenda item 7.1, Chrisp Street Market, Chrisp Street, London (PA/16/01612). This was on the grounds that she was the Vice- President of the Bromley by Bow Centre and they worked with Poplar HARCA who were one of the applicants (along with Telford Homes) for the application.

Councillor Val Whitehead declared a non disclosable personal interest in agenda item 7.1, Chrisp Street Market, Chrisp Street, London (PA/16/01612) as she had met with Steve Stride, to discuss local services after the local elections.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 15^th February 2018 and the extraordinary meeting held on 28^th February 2018

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 15th February 2018 and the extraordinary meeting held on 28th February 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.

Recommendation:

To note the Strategic Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this report.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

That the Strategic Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report be noted.

None

No deferred items.

Proposal:

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site (including existing car park) comprising the demolition of existing buildings with the exception of the Festival of Britain buildings, Clock Tower and Idea Store; erection of 19 new buildings ranging from 3 to 25 storeys (up to a maximum AOD height of 88m) providing  643 residential units (C3 Use Class) (including re-provision of the124 existing affordable residential units); existing market enhancement, including new canopy and service building; refurbishment of retained Festival of Britain buildings; reconfiguration and replacement of existing and provision of new commercial uses including new cinema (D2 Use Class); alterations and additions to existing Idea Store for flexible community/ affordable office space use (D1/B1 Use Class); office  space (B1 use class); retail, financial and professional services and café/ restaurant floor space (A1 - A3 Use Class), including A1 food store; public house (A4 Use Class); hot food takeaway floor space (A5 Use Class); upgrade and provision of new public open space including child play space; new public realm, landscaping works and new lighting; cycle parking spaces (including new visitor cycle parking); and provision of disabled car parking spaces.

Recommendation:

That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings (with the exception of the Festival of Britain buildings, Clock Tower and Idea Store) for the erection of new residential buildings (including the re-provision of the existing affordable residential units); existing market enhancement, the reconfiguration, replacement and provision of new commercial uses and associated works.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Objector’s case

Mr Murtuza Hasanie (local trader), Sue Brian and Terry Mcgrenera (local residents) addressed the Committee. Concern was expressed about the planning application documents, especially the applicant’s transport study in respect of the need for customer parking spaces. They questioned its methodology and that it was carried out independently. Their own survey showed that most of the trips to the market were car born. Businesses and customers relied on these spaces so it would adversely affect them. They also expressed concern about the loss of existing services in view of the absence of a written agreement guaranteeing ‘like for like’ services for traders and the loss of trade during the construction phase.

It was also considered that there was a lack of consultation and engagement over the plans. A ballot of residents should have been carried out in compliance with the Mayor of London’s requirements in respect of estate regeneration.

There would also be a lack of social and affordable housing particularly for the existing residents under the proposed equity share option leading to the displacement of leaseholders. Steps should be taken to increase the level of affordable housing.

The proposal would also harm residential amenity late at night due to the increase in establishments such as restaurants that could apply for a late night license.

Concern was also expressed about the loss of the existing shops and the need for the new shops and cinema etc.

In response to Members questions, they clarified their concerns about the applicant’s parking study. It was considered that the organisation that conducted the survey had been appointed to negotiate with traders rather than carry out a survey. They also stressed the need for like for like services especially loading bays with suitable delivery times for smaller traders and customer car parking to meet current business needs.

They also responded to questions about the loss of residents homes, the affordability of the new units, the impact of the proposal on residential amenity and the adequacy of the consultation.

Councillor James King addressed the Committee. He considered that the viability assessment should be reviewed to  better understand the risks and to maximise the amount of affordable housing that could reasonable be provided. He answered questions from Members about the discrepancies in the various viability appraisals submitted to the Council and the GLA.

Applicant’s case.

Scott Hudson, (Planning consultant), Steve Stride (Poplar HARCA) and Shabel Khan (local resident), spoke in support of the application. They confirmed that the plans had been updated since the February 2018 Committee  meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

Recommendation

For the Committee to delegate authority to officers to advise the Planning

Inspectorate and the appellant that refusal reason 3 will not be defended by the Council at the Appeal Inquiry and that this can be agreed as part of an updated Statement of Common Ground.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application seeking the Committee’s permission to delegate to Officers authority to remove reason 3 from the proposed reasons for refusal for the public inquiry for 21 Buckle Street. The reason for this was that Officers considered that it would be very difficult to defend this reason at the appeal on planning grounds. It was also considered that the matter should be brought to the Committee since it made the original decision and in the interests of transparency.

Elizabeth Donnelly (Planning Services) presented the report, providing an overview of the application. The application was originally considered by the Committee in August 2017 and the Committee were minded to refuse the application. At its meeting on 4th October 2017, the Committee received an updated report in line with the Committees procedures, and resolved to refuse the application for four reasons as set out in the report.

The Committee were reminded of the full wording of the suggested third reason, relating to the need for short term accommodation.

The Committee were recommended that this ground should be removed given the issues set out in the report in respects of the policy grounds and lack of evidence to support the reason.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

That  officers be delegated authority to advise the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant that refusal reason 3 in respect of the public Inquiry for 21  Buckle Street   (PA/16/01612)  will not be defended by the Council at the Appeal Inquiry and that this can be agreed as part of an updated Statement of Common Ground.