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

Councillors Kevin Brady and Tarik Khan declared a non Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda  item  5.1Marian Place Gasholder Site, Bethnal Green, London, E2 9AP. This was on the basis that they were St Peter’s Ward Councillors and had attended presentations with the developer and Council Officers.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 22 July 2020.

 That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22nd July 2020 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.       The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.       In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

3.       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 be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

There are none

There were none

Proposal:

Demolition of existing buildings, decontamination/remediation of the site and retention (including dismantling, refurbishment and reinstatement) of the two existing gasholder frames to facilitate redevelopment for a mixed-use development comprising 5 buildings ranging between 6-13 storeys (up to 63m AOD) to contain 555 residential dwellings and 4,182sqm (GIA) non-residential floorspace in flexible A1-A4, B1 and D Use Classes (maximum provision of up to 180sqm A1/A2, up to 1,300sqm A3/A4, up to 2,485sqm of B1(a) and up to 635sqm of D1/D2 use class floorspace), together with access, car and cycle parking, associated landscaping and public realm, public open space and works to the existing canal wall, Pressure Reduction Station and existing gasholders.

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings decontamination/remediation of the site and retention (including dismantling, refurbishment and reinstatement) of the two existing gasholder frames to facilitate redevelopment for a mixed-use development. He drew attention to the issues raised in the update report.

Adam Garcia (Planning Services) presented the application. He provided an overview of the site and the principles of the site allocation. He also advised of the design approach to refurbishing and retaining the two gas frames and locating the new buildings. Public consultation had been undertaken. 79 letters in objections were received including five from interest groups/organisations. The update report contained a further nine representations and four representations from interest groups. The principle of the objections, mainly centred around the guide frames. 

The Committee were advised of the following issues.

•         That the development would provide 555 good quality new homes. 

•         That the housing mix was considered to be broadly in line with policy, despite the variation in tenure mix regarding the private and intermediate family sized units,  given the provision of 35% affordable housing.

•         The proposals would provide new fully publicly accessible open space. The calculations submitted demonstrated that the level of consolidated open space would meet requirements. Details of the public space and landscaping would be secured by a s106.

•         That the scheme had been carefully designed to respond appropriately to the retained guide frames, that had influenced the development. The development would retain their prominence and strengthen their visual significance. The applicant had given careful consideration to the various options in terms of refurbishing the guide frames including the option of in situ refurbishment on site. However, it was found that there were a number of practical difficulties with this. As such, it was proposed to refurbish the gas holders off site. Officers had liaised with Historic England in respect of these plans, and they were satisfied with the conditions proposed. The Committee noted details of these conditions, including the obligation that they be restored prior to the occupation of the parts of the development.

•         The proposal would provide active frontage, improving natural surveillance.

•         That that the development would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Regent’s Canal Conservation Area, at the lower end, as defined by the NPPF. It was considered that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh any harm.

•         That the sunlight and daylight assessment had been reviewed. This showed that with the exception of some discrepancies, the neighbouring properties should continue to receive good levels of sunlight and day light. Details of the assessment were noted.

•         Details of the transport matters.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.

The Chair invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.

Lucy Rogers and Paul Latham expressed concerns about the following matters:

•         The Impact on the gasholder guide frames and loss of their historic significance. They noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks comprising residential units (Use Class C3), commercial floorspace, off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works.

Minor Material Amendments to Planning permission Ref: PA/18/00917, Dated 12/09/2019:

Amendments include:

•   Overall increase of residential units [from 648 to 698];

•    Increase in affordable unit provision [from 159 to 180 (32%      

     to 35% of total)];

•    Increased height to blocks A and C (up to two additional

     storeys). Block A would be up to 22 storeys and Block C up

     to 26 storeys.

•    Amended residential unit mix

•  Reduction in on-site parking spaces

•  Increased office floorspace (use class B1)

•  Additional amenity space and associated works

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and obligations and GLA Stage II approval

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for  Minor Material Amendments to Planning permission Ref: PA/18/00917, Dated 12/09/2019. He highlighted the issues in the update report. It was noted that the guidance for such variations indicated that the Committee should focus on the amendments and any policy changes.

Max Smith (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location and the layout of the scheme. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were noted as set out in the Committee report.

Details of the various changes were noted relating to:

•         The revised housing mix including the increased level of affordable housing to 35% from 32%.

•         Increased height to blocks A and C.

•         The  assessment of heritage in relation to the conservation areas and Grade II listed buildings. The design of the scheme had been arranged  in such a way to minimise any impact. The scheme would have a comparable impact to the consented scheme and it was considered that the public benefits will outweigh the harm.

•         Increased amenity space and child playspace in view of the increased number of residential units.

•         The measures to recognise the archaeology of the site

•         The sunlight and daylight report - particularly the additional impacts on neighbouring properties compared to the consented scheme.

•         Transport matters.

•         Planning obligations.

Overall, given the nature of the changes, it was considered that the impacts of the scheme on balance remained broadly acceptable and would be outweighed by the benefits of the application

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Amanda Day and Paula Bodington spoke in objection to the application, expressing concerns about the following issues:

•         The negative impact on amenity, particularly in terms of light.

•         The increase in the number of units and height. It would be 3 metres taller than the previous application.

•         The lack of additional affordable units. Only a small number of affordable units were to be provided.

•         Increased parking from the development.

•         Overdevelopment of the Whitechapel area given the cumulative impacts from other new developments. The Impact on local infrastructure due to this.

•         That the public benefits would be minimal.

Thomas Lane addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant advising of the benefits of the scheme in terms of:

•         That the proposal sought to provide good quality additional affordable homes at London Living and Tower Hamlets affordable rents. 45% of which would be family sized housing.

•         There would be an increase in affordable workspace in excess of the policy requirements.

•         The enhancements to the public realm incorporating the historic features of the site.

•         New publicly accessible open space.

•         There would be biodiversity enhancements and measures to improve air quality.

Committee’s Questions.

In response to the above, the Committee asked a number of questions of Officers and the registered speaker as summarised below

•         The Committee asked questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2