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

Councillor Kabir Ahmed and Val Whitehead declared that they had received representations on the applications.

The following Councillors declared interests in Item 5.2 -  Site at 2-6 Commercial Street, 98 and 101-105 Whitechapel High Street, Commercial Street, Gunthorpe Street, London (PA/20/02726).

Councillor Kevin Brady - Non Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. This was on the grounds that he was a Council appointed Member of the Whitechapel Art Gallery and they had objected to the proposals. He left the meeting for the consideration of this item.

Councillor Kahar Chowdhury - Non Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. This was on the grounds that he was:

·       Cabinet Member for Highways and Public Realm

·       Had attended a recent Cabinet Meeting that approved the Land Swap Agreement for the Canon Barnett Primary School, Gunthorpe Street, E1 7RQ

He left the meeting for the consideration of this item.

Councillor Sabina Akhtar - Non Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. This was on the grounds she was

·       Cabinet Member for Culture, Arts and Sports

·       Had attended a recent Cabinet Meeting that approved the Land Swap Agreement for the Canon Barnett Primary School, Gunthorpe Street, E1 7RQ

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 23^rd September 2021

RESOLVED:

1.                 That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 23rd September 2021 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.

nO ITEMS

Proposal:

Full Planning permission for a riverboat station, jetty and associated works at Blackwall Yard.

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report was published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for a riverboat station, jetty and associated works at Blackwall Yard. He also outlined the issues in the update report.

Aleksandra Milentijevic (Planning Services) presented the application advising of the site and the surrounding area and Blackwall Yard scheme.

The following issues were noted:

·       The key features of the application to provide a sustainable travel mode, with a new Pier which maximises the use of the river. It would also contribute to the transport interchange connecting the area with other Thameside areas and riverboat stations across London from Putney to Woolwich.

• The outcome of the consultation in relation to the amended application (after the removal of cross ferry service from the proposal). Nine representations had been received with three additional representations in the update report.( In addition, the Applicant had also carried out their own consultation). The issues raised were note, through the Council’s consultation scheme relating to: issues with the existing public foot path, air quality issues, amenity impacts, potential ant-social behaviour, and lack of demand and use of river services. It was proposed that an additional compliance condition should be secured as set out in the update report limiting operating hours, clipper movements and vessel engine capacity.
• The land use was in accordance with policy -  PLA’s Thames Vision 2035 (2020), the London’s Passenger Pier Strategy (2015).
• The scheme has been designed to respond to the local area, minimise the impact on heritage assets with mitigation for any environmental impacts and operational and navigation restrictions.
• Officers were mindful of the concerns raised by the  Council’s heritage and design Officers about the impact on the setting of the listed structure. They also noted the issues around lack of use, and the benefits in terms of better revealing the dock.  It was considered that the public benefits would outweigh the less than substantial harm.
• In terms of the amenity issues/construction impacts, conditions would be secured to minimise any impacts, as set out in the list of conditions. This included a requirement to submit a detailed CEMP and Construction Logistics Plan and to ensure compliance with the Considerate Contractor Scheme
• In highway terms, the scheme raised no issues.
• The environmental information had been considered by the Council and the Environmental Agency and they had withdrawn their objection.

It is recommended that the scheme be granted conditional planning permission.

?

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee

Natalie Carter addressed the Committee in objection: She expressed concerns about the impact on New Providence Wharf in terms of

• Safety and security issues due to the increased footfall/ use of the public footway, due to the increase in public access. Conditions should be secured to provide security measures, including contributions from the Council to fund this.
• Impact on the river wall from increased river use. Responsibility for the costs.
• Impact on air quality and increased carbon emissions from Thames Clippers.
• Increased noise pollution and ASB

Alexandru Ene also address the Committee raising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of 101 Whitechapel High Street, 2 – 6 Commercial Street and the western annex of the Canon Barnett Primary School; partial demolition and partial retention of 102 - 105 Whitechapel High Street; and redevelopment to provide a building ranging from ground plus 4-14 storeys, comprising office and retail (Class E); relocation and expansion of the existing school playground; associated cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping another associated works.

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission

Update report was published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application. This sought the demolition and partial demolition of buildings on the site and the redevelopment to provide a building (ranging from ground plus 4-14 storeys), comprising office and retail space, with the relocation and expansion of the existing school playground and associated works.

Also outlined was the contents of the Committee update report, including details of late representations. It was also noted that a Committee site visit had taken place in earlier in December.

Simon Westmoreland (Planning Services)  presented the application advising of the site and the surrounding area - including the proximity to the Cannon Barnett Primary School and the nearby heritage assets.

The Committee were also advised of the key features of the application including details of the proposed demolition, retention of buildings and new elements.

The Committee noted the following:

• Details of the public consultation- in response to this 223 representations in objection were received. A number of historic societies had submitted objections, as well as a Councillor. Six representations were received in support including  from the London Assembly Member for City and East. Issues raised were summarised, around land use, the scale, design and heritage, highways and traffic, neighbourhood amenity, environmental impact, impact on school, and other issues.

·       Overall it was considered that the proposed land was acceptable, given the sites location in the Central Activities Zone  (CAZ).  In addition the affordable workspacegoes well beyond Local Plan and London Plan policy, (10.7% of the floorspace at a 37% discount secured through the S.106 agreement for the lifetime of the development)

·       A key part of the proposal included the relocation of playground. In principal these proposals accorded with policy. The Council’s Education Department had raised no concerns about the proposals for the school.

·       The loss of the education floor space, Class F1 was also noted. There was no compelling evidence regarding the need for this space.

·       It was considered that the proposals would meet the criteria in relation to locating a Tall Building outside the Tall Building Zone.

·       Regarding the heritage assessment, it was considered that the building would cause less than substantial harm to heritage assets as defined by the NPPF – given the proposals to demolish a building of lesser significance in the case of 101 Whitechapel High Street/ quality of the replacement facades. It also noted that there will be a noticeable contrast between the appearance of the new development and existing buildings. Images of the proposals were noted, as well as the response of Historic England on the extent of the harm (middle range of less than substantial) and the need to balance this against the public benefits. 

·       Details of the landscaping and public realm improvements were noted

• In daylight/sunlight terms, there would be significant impacts to a number of properties surrounding the site – including major impact on flats at 4 Gunthorpe Street and Kensington Apartments from loss of daylight and sunlight. Such impacts are however inevitable with buildings at scale  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2