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 was reported.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 16^th February 2022

RESOLVED:

1.          That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 16^th February 2022 be agreed as a correct record

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.

There are none.

There are none.

Proposal:

Erection of single tower block accommodating a high density residential led development (Use Class C3) with ancillary amenity and play space, along with the provision of a flexible retail space at ground floor (Use Class E), the provision of a new publicly accessible park and alterations to the public highway.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update reports published.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for the erection of single tower block accommodating a high density residential led development, with a publicly accessible park, and commercial use.

Kevin Crilly presented the report, providing details of the following issues:

• The character of the site and the surrounding area, including new and consented developments. This also included views from key points from the surrounding area. The site had an excellent PTAL rating.
• An overview of the recent Planning history including the refused application
• Key features of the application.
• Outcome of the two rounds of public consultation following amendments to the layout. 62 individual objections were received and a Petition in objection with 37 signatories. The main issues raised were noted.
• The land use. The provision of a tall residential led development in this location would be in line with policies for the area. It would help meet the Borough’s housing targets (including a significant amount of family houses across all tenures).  It would provide 30.15% of high quality affordable homes by habitable room. This was considered to represent the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be delivered, according to the viability assessment that had been reviewed. There would also be a late stage review mechanism. The development would be tenure blind.
• The proposed development responds positively to its local context and would be of appropriately high architectural quality. 
• The proposal would provide publicly accessible open space, with a proposed park. 
• The on site child play space had a focus on younger children, and would be accessible to all occupants. A contribution had also been secured for facilities for older children via the s106.
• The scheme had been designed to minimise impacts on neighbourhood amenity including sunlight and daylight impacts and overlooking.  Whilst there would be some impacts, on balance, it was noted they would be less severe than the previously refused application. Taking into account the context and the various mitigating factions, Officer did not considered that they were significant to warrant refusal.
• In terms of fire safety, the application includes a Fire Statement which has been amended to address the concerns raised by the London Fire Authority as part of the consultation process of this application. The layout had been amended to introduce a second stair case which all the occupants would have access to, as well as the introduction of other changes, including increasing the size of the remaining three lifts
• In terms of the Highways issues, the proposals would be car free.  it was also proposed to provide on street car parking places for disable residents and cycle parking spaces. Details of these plans were noted and as well as the operation of the servicing arrangements.
• A range of planning obligations had been secured. The scheme would be liable for both the Mayor of London’s and the Borough’s Community Infrastructure Levy.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.

Ralph Hardwick, Rehanaz Begum, local resident and Councillors Andrew Wood and Kyrsten Perry (Canary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of existing building and erection of a 48 storey building (plus basement and lift pit) to provide 1,068 student accommodation bedrooms and ancillary amenity spaces (Sui Generis Use) along with 184.6sqm of flexible retail / commercial floorspace (Use Class E), alterations to the public highway and public realm improvements, including the creation of a new north-south pedestrian route and replacement public stairs. This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Update report was published

Jerry Bell introduced the application for the demolition of existing building and erection of a 48 storey building to provide student accommodation bedrooms and ancillary amenity spaces -  along with flexible retail / commercial floorspace and alterations to the public highway and public realm improvements.

Katie Cooke  presented the report, highlighting the following points:

·       The site location, the surrounding area and the site allocations in policy

·       Overview of the proposal, including the layout.

·       That two round of public consultation had been undertaken. The outcome of this was noted and the issues raised, as set out in the Committee report and the update report.

·       Officers considered that in land use terms, that the scheme complied with policy. This was due to a number of reasons including: the difficulties with providing large office floor space on the site, the pipeline line of new office space in the area, and sites unsuitability to provide residential  accommodation. The provision of student space  is supported in view of the location and increasing demand for such accommodation.

·       A Fire Report had been provided. The GLA and the London Fire Authority have raised no objections.

·       The scheme would deliver a number of benefits, in addition to high quality student accommodation. These were noted including: retail/commercial space,  amenity space, biodiversity benefits and carbon reduction/energy efficiency measures.

·       The principle of providing a tall building in this location accorded with policy. Overall, the height, scale and massing was supported by officers and comparable with other developments in area. It would be of a high quality design, and it was considered to respond positively to it’s context. Images of the proposed development were noted. This included the cumulative views from General Wolf Statue, and along  Marsh Wall/Millharbour.  Overall, it would form a positive addition to area.

·       The scheme had been designed to limit impacts on neighbouring developments, including measures to prevent overlooking, Given the retained levels of  residential amenity, the losses were not considered sufficient enough to warrant refusal. The benefits  of the development would outweigh this.

·       In terms of the Highways issues, the proposals would be car free with cycle parking spaces and a cycle hire scheme.

·       A range of number of planning obligations had been secured. The scheme would be liable for both the Mayor of London’s and the Borough’s Community Infrastructure Levy.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee

Ralph Hardwick and  Councillor Andrew Wood (Canary Wharf Councillor), spoke in objection to the application regarding the following points:

·       Lack of disabled parking spaces contrary to London Plan.

·       Adequacy of the waste collection issues.

·       Adequacy of the proposed servicing at Cuba Street.

·       Air quality issues given the provision of the gas boiler system.

·       Obstruction caused by construction process. This will hold up traffic on Marsh Wall.

·       No indication of cycle routes.

·       Fire Safety issues – given the separation distances between this development and the Cuba Street site. Has anyone looked at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

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 was published

Jerry Bell introduced the application for erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building, ground floor flexible commercial space, basement cycle storage, resident amenities, public realm improvements and other associated works.

It was noted that the

•         The proposal seeks to build on the extant consent to provide additional 58 residential units and increase in height of 7 storeys, adding further22m to the consented 49 storey building, ground plus 48 storeys (163.08m AOD).

•         The proposal is for a total of 390 residential units, 85 of which would provide 25.9% of affordable housing offer by habitable room, with ground floor commercial space and associated works.

Aleksandra Milentijevic presented the report, highlighting the following:

·       The site location and the surrounding area.

·       Key features of the application.

·       Details of the planning history, including an overview of the extant scheme compared to the proposed development.

·       Outcome of the public consultation. 27 reps were received with 25 in support, collated by the applicant in a single document, 2 in objection and 1 further correspondence in support, set out in the update report. These were briefly summarised. The applicant had also carried out their own consultation.

·       In land use terms – this had already been established. This was supported.

·       Details of the housing mix and the affordable housing proposal. The LBTH viability team had reviewed the offer and had concluded that this was the maximum that could be supported.

·       The amenity assessment. The impacts on the surrounding area were considered acceptable on balance, in terms of daylight and sunlight, privacy, outlook and construction impacts.

·       The environmental matters were also considered to be adequate.

·       Height of the proposed building. Officers explained the concerns in relation this, including the issues with the height difference with Madison Square. It was considered therefore that the proposal  does not respond to its context and fails to deliver on the objectives and principles set out in the Local Plan policies on tall buildings and views, It would be detrimental to the townscape and the Canary Wharf Skyline, which was of Strategic Importance.

·       The concerns about the waste management and collection methods for the proposed development. These were not considered appropriate for a building of this scale

·       The concerns around the lack of policy compliant level of cycle storage spaces for future residents.

Overall, the planning balance exercise has not identified significant public benefits which would outweigh the harm caused by the application. On this basis, for the reasons set out in the report Officers recommend the refusal of planning permission.

Julian Carter spoke in favour of the application, highlighting the following:

The existing planning permission. This proposal will provide opportunities to provide further benefits – including additional affordable homes. The applicant was willing to provide 35% affordable homes in this part of the application. Applicant has confirmed that the 35% offer only relates to the uplifted units and not the whole scheme.

·       Fire safety measures had been secured. The applicant was willing to provide additional measures such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

To note the briefing note on infrastructure