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

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests.

Councillor Sabina Akhtar, Kamrul Hussain and Shubo Hussain declared they had received direct representations from interested parties on Item 5.2, Royal Mint Court.

Councillor Kamrul Hussain asked the Committee to note that Item 5.2 Royal Mint Court was in his ward (Whitechapel).

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 19 October 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2022 were agreed and approved 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.

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 Strategic Development Committee.

There were no deferred items.

Proposal       

Construction of a new pedestrian footbridge to connect South Quay and Canary Wharf in Isle of Dogs, to align with Upper Bank Street on the north bank of the London South Dock, and the Berkeley Homes 'South Quay Plaza' scheme on the south bank, including landscaping on Upper Bank Street and other associated works.

Summary Recommendation         

Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

Update report was noted.

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for construction of a new pedestrian footbridge to connect South Quay  and Canary Wharf in Isle of Dogs, to align with Upper Bank Street on the north bank of the London South Dock, and the Berkeley Homes  'South Quay Plaza' scheme on the south bank, including landscaping on Upper Bank Street and other associated works

Conor Guilfoyle, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds. The Officer’s recommendation was to geant planning permission subject to conditions.

The Chair invited Andrew Wood to address the meeting in objection to the application. He explained that whilst he supported the bridge, he had concerns about:

·         Unauthorised cycling on the bridge. Fears signage would not prevent this creating a danger to crossing pedestrians. A preferred option would be a segregated cycle lane.

·         Late at night delivery scooters using the bridge illegally.

·         Reduction in the amount of water space for sea scouts. Lack of clarity as to how they would access the dock to the other side of the bridge and access the water on weekends or during periods of maintenance.

·         Lack of clarity as to who would have responsibility for bridge maintenance.

The Chair invited Louise Plant to address the meeting in support of the application. She highlighted the following:

·         The bridge would improve connectivity, reduce congestion on the Docklands Light Railway and on the existing bridges, improve pedestrian access to jobs, retail and other services in Canary Wharf.

·         The principle of establishing a new bridge was supported in the Local Plan.

·         Over ninety per-cent of respondents were in favour of the development.

·         Cycle access will be controlled through appropriate measures and signage and will be subject to further consultation.

·         Sea scouts had been engaged at the design stages of the project; there had been dialogue with the scouts about opening the bridge at certain times for their activities.

·         The Council would be responsible for maintenance. A third party operator was being sought to operate and maintain the bridge once delivered.

Further to questions from Committee Members, officers provided more information on:

·         Approach to concerns regarding illegal moped use.

·         Anticipated impact on mooring space at the site and proposed options to mitigate it.

·         Responsibility for maintenance of the bridge and the role of recommended conditions to enforce this.

·         Non- financial contributions and associated policies. The Council as planning authority had to treat all applications the same and could not insist on enhanced contributions from a Council application.

·         The bridge operation and maintenance condition. It was anticipated the bridge would open two times on average per week,

·         Anticipated disruption to residents and the environment during construction.

·         How the proposal would facilitate opportunities for economic and social growth in the area.

Further to questions from Committee Members regarding cycling and moped use, the applicants’ representatives reported that there would be CCTV surveillance on the bridge to discourage illegal use.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal

Redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy (Sui Generis use class), involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman's Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works. 

Summary recommendation

Grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions and planning obligations

Update report was noted.

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for the redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy (Sui Generis use class), involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirke Building (Grade II* listed), partial demolition, remodelling and refurbishment of Seaman's Registry (Grade II listed), with alterations to the west elevation of the building, the retention, part demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, the erection of a standalone entrance pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking and all ancillary and associated works.

Rikki Weir, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission

The Chair invited Sue Hughes, Dave Lake, Naz Islam and Simon Cheng to address the meeting in objection to the application. They highlighted concerns over the following:

• Inadequate amount of space outside site’s perimeter for protestors giving rise to concerns over road management including if protestors spill onto the carriageway itself the police will need to close a major road junction

·         Location and space surrounding the site; inadequate space to ensure protesters can attend without risking their safety and security and the safety and security local residents.

·         Concerns regarding cyber security upon  local people and local communities.

·         Road congestion and security issues

·         Concerns that site security and management of protestors will only be considered and  negotiated after planning permission is granted by planning condition, this is too late in the process.

·         Concerns regarding the independence of the bomb blast assessment provider and how the blast assessment was procured.

·         The restricted ‘official sensitive’ nature of the bomb blast assessment, means  residents and Councillors were not aware of its full content.

·         Concerns regarding the freedoms of tenants and leaseholders in properties surrounding the site, some of which have been bought by the Chinese state.

·         Concerns regarding privacy to residents from overlooking due to the physical proximity to the rear of the site

·         Some local residents’ groups and social tenants felt they were excluded from the planning consultation.

·         A lack of robust public consultation and planning assessment in relation to security matters was undertaken with this application

·         Concerns regarding additional for tenants and leaseholders due to the need for additional security embassy

• Concern local Tower Hamlets Homes residents will incur additional service costs from the arrival of the embassy on Royal Mint Estate
• With such a large embassy in this location the planning application has the potential to curb people’s freedoms

The objectors called on committee to reject the application to allow it to called-in by the Secretary of State.

The Chair invited Gary Ashton, Sunny Desai, Graham Laughlan, and Andrew Clark to address the meeting as the applicant’s representatives. They highlighted the following:

·         The proposal is fully aligned with the Council planning policies; Council officers had recognised this and recommended approval.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2