Update report noted.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application to grant planning permission with obligations for the redevelopment of site involving erection of five buildings and retention of one building for provision of up to 69,033 sqm (GIA) of Class E(g) space for flexible life science purpose uses; and provision of up to 6,363 sqm (GIA) flexible Class E supporting uses and Class F1 and Class F2 supporting uses (gallery/ exhibition/ community uses); up to 2,820 sqm (GIA) F1(a) for research and development and teaching activities in the  life science sector; with associated landscaping; public realm and highway works; re-provision of existing on-street car parking; and erection of a single pavilion building comprising up to 759 sqm (GIA) Class E(b) café use with ancillary storage, and Sui Generis use (public toilets) set within a new landscaped open square. The development is to involve erection of a building up to 4 storeys on Plot A (including top storey plant); and erection of two buildings (on Plots B1 and B3) of 4 storeys rising to 8 storeys respectively (the latter including top storey

plant) including the demolition of former Outpatient's Building Annexe and part demolition/part retention of main former Outpatient's Building; and on Plot B2 the retention of the Ambrose King building. The development is to also involve the erection of a 7 storey building (including top storey plant) on Plot C (45.9m AOD); and erection of 15 storey building (including 2 top storeys of plant) on Plot D1 (78.7m AOD).

Robin Bennett provided a presentation to accompany the application and highlighted the site and surrounding areas. The proposal for a life sciences development and it’s definition was outlined as a facility for research, development, discovery and innovation connected with the study of the structure and behaviour of living organisms or life process for human health purposes. This will include several plots from A to D from Whitechapel Rd, New Road and Newgate Street and partly falls within the former London Hospital Conservation Area,

It was noted that there were two rounds of public consultations, in 2022 and 2023. There were 5 letters of objection and two petitions received in regards to the scale of the proposal, amenity, construction impacts, heritage, waste, architecture, landscaping and highway concerns. Historic England also expressed opposition to the extension of the Outpatient's building and noted it will cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. There were also 35 written representations in support of the proposal.

Mr. Bennett outlined the public benefits of the proposal which will maximise the health outcomes for residents and offer employment and training opportunities during and after construction. The scheme is also estimated to generate up to 4,180 jobs, and the affordable workspace will  provide 10% of qualifying floor space for 25 years, with 65% of affordable workspace to accommodate at least 40% wet lab at 20% discount on market rates. Other benefits included 35% of qualifying floorspace that will be provided as affordable entry level office space at a 50% discount on market rates, and after 25 years the affordable workspace will be provided at 10% discount for another 10 years.

Other benefits proposed included a multi-purpose on-site space within the scheme for community use, provision of an on-site community lab and a new research and teaching facility for Queen Mary University Hospital, London (QMUL). An education and outreach programme and provision of new and enhanced public realm.

Following the presentation, the Chair invited Tom Bruce, a resident to speak in objection to the application. Mr Bruce highlighted the following concerns:

·       This proposal indicates that coloured bitmac will be used to repave Mount Terrace, although York stone was proposed but not used when The Royal London Hospital was redeveloped. If the application is granted, a condition should be implemented that states the preferred paving of York stone is used and takes place when Turner Street resurfacing is completed.

·       The scheme has adverse daylight / sunlight impacts to basement properties by the proposal of planters positioned directly over the basement light wells.  If the height of the buildings cannot be lowered, the planters positioning should be revaluated.

·       The proposals include constructing a bench at the East End of Mount Terrace, where antisocial behaviour is commonly observed and will exacerbate the situation. The alleyway between plot B1 and B2 should be secured so ASB activity can no longer occur there.

·       The proposal denies residents right of access to both ends of Mount Terrace, despite The Royal Hospital confirming residents have this right. The sign on the gate states ‘Keep Clear for Fire Access’ and residents were given keys by the Hospital.

The Chair next invited Edwin Mingard, a resident, to speak in objection to the application. Mr Mingard highlighted the following concerns;

·       The scheme has adverse daylight / sunlight impacts to  Gwynne House residents who will directly face Block C on the proposed development and is below the recommended BRE guidelines. This block should be stepped back from the south and begin at around two stories on the Newark Street side, to mitigate the loss of light for neighbouring residents.

·       The construction phase of the development, if granted will cause negative impacts for the neighbouring residents, causing further distress.

The Chair then invited Adrian Powell from NHS Property Services to speak in favour of the application. He was accompanied by Sir Mark Caulfield, Vice Principal for Health, Queen Mary’s Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, and Jonathan Marginson,  Planning Consultant for DP9 Limited, who highlighted the following benefits;

·       The proposal is in line with the local plan and  extensive engagement has been conducted to ensure the application meets the needs of Whitechapel residents.

·       There have been 35 letters in support of the  proposal, which will create thousands of new jobs during the construction phase and after.

·       The scheme offers affordable workspace that will enable young residents to utilise the lab facilities, skills and training opportunities.

·       The proposal will create new square green spaces for local residents, a new NHS academic facility and attract investment to Tower Hamlets with the life science industry, which is in partnership with QMUL and Barts Health.

·       The proposed site will invest, test and utilise new treatments for the benefit of residents and the wider area. Currently, research has discovered a treatment for a strain of hepatitis C and revealed that certain medicines should not be administered after heart attacks, as 57% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani residents do not respond. An alternative has now been developed.

Further to the presentation and registered speakers, the Committee asked questions to the officers and applicants regarding the following issues;

·       Explained that the proposals do not include using York stone paving on Mount Terrace, although consideration by the applicant will be given to discussing this as well as  relocating the planters over the basement the light wells.

·       Clarified that the applicant does not control the right of access for residents on Turner Street and the access point on Mount Terrace will remain in residents' control. In that area, consideration will be given to preventing anti-social behaviour, which is due to the vacant properties. If the scheme is granted, this will no longer be an issue.

·       Explained that the bench displayed in the plans will not necessarily be installed in the landscaping design phase. If the proposal is approved. residents' concerns will be taken into account regarding the anti-social behaviour currently occurring there.

·       Clarified the difference between the first daylight / sunlight assessment and the second. The first, which is a Vertical Sky Component (VSC) assessment, measures the amount of daylight arriving at a window and the proportion of sky space available. The second, a No-Sky Line (NSL) assessment, measures the amount of light that is present in the room.

·       Confirmed that the proposal includes a green space to the east of Saint Philip's Church.

·       Clarified that the land use for this proposal is consistent with policy and a housing development is ongoing to the west of the site.

Following the points raised by officers, the Committee debated the application and noted the following:

-      Concerns with the lack of local economic contribution the proposal will provide.

-      Concerns with the lack of housing provision the proposal will provide.

-      Concerns with the adverse daylight / sunlight impacts the scheme will cause to nearby residents.

Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury requested a deferment of the vote for a site visit due to the scale of the scheme and to re-evaluate the contribution of the proposed development.  of the proposed development. This was seconded by Councillor Suluk Ahmed.

On a vote of 5 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.    That the consideration of the application at Whitechapel Road Development Site, Whitechapel Road, London E1 2BB be DEFERRED for a site visit.