To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Marc Francis declared a non disclosable personal interest in agenda item 82 West India Dock Road, E14 8DJ (PA/18/01203). This was on the basis that he had sat on the Committee on two previous occasions  (13th July 2017 and 2nd February 2010 meetings) where proposals for the site were considered. Councillor Francis also reported that whilst he had not received representations, there was extensive lobbying on the 2017 application and representations were made by a person who became a donor for the Labour Party in the local election.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20^th September 2018.

Update report tabled for this item

The Committee RESOLVED

1.         That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 20^th September 2018 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment to minute item 5.1 Former London Chest Hospital, Bonner Road, London, E2 9JX (PA/16/03342 and PA/16/03343)  as detailed in bold below:

It was also clarified that the new policies in paragraph 175 of the NPPF  relating to the loss of veteran trees would not wholly apply to this application, given the tree would not be lost as a result of the proposed development, but would be re-located under a very detailed and carefully considered technical re-location strategy. Officers also considered that the public benefits of the application would warrant the relocation. Therefore, Officers considered that the proposals complied with the requirements in the NPPF with regard to the protection of trees. It was also pointed out that retaining the tree in its current location would require substantial changes to the application and would impact on the viability of the scheme.

It was also explained that there were special circumstances to allow the consideration of the re-location of the mulberry tree, because if left in its current location, that would have a fundamental impact on the redevelopment of the northern part of the site.

2.         That the Strategic Development Committee notes the content of the update report regarding ward Councillors representations in respect of the London Chest Hospital application and, confirms that there is no requirement to revisit the Committee’s resolution of 20 September 2018 and that the contents of the update report for this item be recorded appended to the minutes.

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.

None

There were none.

Proposal:

Erection of a part 7-storey, part 28-storey and part 30-storey building comprising 15,639 sq.m (GIA) hotel (Use Class C1) floorspace (consisting of 400 bedrooms), 8,537 sq.m (GIA) residential (Use Class C3) floorspace (consisting of a total of 66 homes; comprising 30 x 1 bed, 28 x 2 bed and 8 x 3 bed homes) and 71 sq.m (GIA) flexible retail and community floorspace (Use Class A1/D1), creation of a new 'left turn only' vehicular access from West India Dock Road, hard and soft landscape improvements to the adjacent areas of highway and public realm and other associated works.

Officer 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 planning obligations, conditions and informatives.

Update report tabled.

Jerry Bell (Planning Services) introduced the planning application for the  erection of a part 7-storey, part 28-storey and part 30-storey building comprising a hotel use, residential use and flexible retail and community floorspace other associated works.

Graham Harrington (Planning Services) presented the report describing the site location and the character of the surrounding area.

The Committee noted the planning history for the site including the scheme approved in 2010 for a hotel led scheme. They also noted details of the scheme refused by the Committee in July 2017 for a part hotel/residential scheme and the reasons for this. It was noted that the site was not within the Conservation Area but there were a number of listed buildings in the area. 

The Committee noted the key differences between the proposal and the refused scheme in terms of the height, design, scale and massing amongst other issues.

The Committee noted the key features of the application including: the two uses, the proposed layout,  the servicing plans, the communal amenity space and play space. The Committee noted details of the elevations, the wider landscaping master plan and the public realm works that covered adjoining areas of land.

Consultation had been undertaken resulting in a number of representations in support and objection. The principle grounds of support and objection were noted as set out in the Committee report

It was noted that the proposed land use would be appropriate for the site location and was consistent with policy for the area. The proposals would generate a number of new jobs. In terms of housing, the level of affordable housing equated to 35.2% of the proposed housing (by habitable room) and was policy compliant. The proposed housing mix was noted. Sufficient child play space would be provided on site to accommodate the number of children expected to occupy the development. The plans would also deliver the required amount of communal open space and play space for the site.

Officers considered that the impact on occupiers of neighbouring homes would broadly be acceptable. There would be some daylight and sunlight impacts to properties at Cayman Court and Compass Point. However, the assessment showed that the windows to the rooms mostly effected were  mainly bedrooms and the separations distances were reasonable.

The proposal would be of a good quality design, with variations in the design, height scale and form to fit in with the area. Details of the materials submitted at this stage would be secured by condition.

There had been a thorough assessment of the impact of the proposal on heritage assets and the impact on views as detailed in the Heritage Assessment in the Environmental Statement. Overall, Officers considered that the impact on the Conservation Area and listed buildings would be acceptable and met the tests in policy. Officers considered that the level of harm  to heritage assets would be less than substantial and the public benefits would outweigh this harm.  In considering this point, the Committee noted verified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1