An update report was tabled.

Councillor Golds informed the Committee that he had received a pamphlet, addressed to his home, which provided information in support of the application.  He was concerned that the literature did not identify the sender.

The Area Planning Manager (East), then introduced the report which contained proposals for the redevelopment of 4 sites from 767 – 785 Commercial Road, London E14 7HG.  The proposals also included an application for listed building consent for the restoration of 3 Grade II listed buildings that were included in Historic England’s Register of Buildings at Risk.  The Planning Case Officer then presented the report, informing Members that the application had first been presented at the meeting on 20 December 2018 but, for planning reasons, had been deferred prior to consideration.  He set out the relevant issues concerning the application which were; heritage, conservation area, design and appearance, effects on listed buildings and conservation areas, effects on the Blue Ribbon network and economic impact.  He advised that the proposals would provide regeneration in the forms of housing units class C3, class B1 offices and a number of communal living units which are in the form of a new type of HMO accommodation as set out in the report.  Other planning considerations were transport and highways.  There had been statutory planning consultation comprising site notices and 458 individual letters sent to neighbouring properties.  2 letters and 2 petitions objecting to the proposal had been received.

Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:

• The consequences of failure to restore the listed buildings and redevelop the site would be further deterioration of the listed buildings and their potential loss.
• In regard to the buildings at risk, there was no responsibility to intervene incumbent upon the Council.  The Council has powers of compulsory however the current circumstances for local authorities needed to be considered.
• Concerning minimum space standards for the proposed communal living units, the Committee was advised that national planning standards do not apply to this new form of housing, nor were there any local standards for this type of accommodation; this has been identified as an issue by the Mayor of London.  However Members were asked to note that the size of the sleeping accommodation proposed in the communal units was greater than that specified under national planning standards.
• Concerning what feedback had been offered by Historic England, the Heritage Officer advised that Historic England had monitored the building over many years and had been fully involved in the proposals that concerned the heritage buildings.  A Member observed that the details of the application suggested that the applicant had had regard to the historicity of the site.
• Concerning what guidance was available to ensure that the new communal living units would operate successfully and what policies, regulations and enforcement there were around this type of accommodation in term of contracts and minimum standards; the Committee was informed that the standard of accommodation proposed was far higher than that specified in the established London HMO guidance.  Additionally, there were draft management arrangements which specified length of tenancies and enforceable management arrangements were proposed.  A Member noted that the measuring standards used were not in the Local Plan nor in the London Plan; Officers advised that a proposal for this new type of HMO accommodation had been carefully considered and the recommendation was site-specific.  Therefore it did not set a precedent.
• Concerning what parameters determined how much accommodation could be delivered, the Committee was informed that the quantity of accommodation was prescribed by the Council's desire to preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.  Viability was investigated by consultants GVA who initially advised that the cost of restoration of the heritage elements would cancel out any affordable housing.  However following reassessment a small capacity equating to 3 affordable residential units was proposed.
• The rationale for listing the buildings at 777-783 as heritage buildings was to secure their future.  Their listing enabled these buildings to be retained and restored using minimal appropriate intervention.
• Concerning parking and disabled parking provision, the Committee was informed that because of the location and nature of the site, no parking provision was proposed.  However cycle spaces which met agreed standards would be provided.
• Concerning provision of employment, the development would deliver 2500 m² of B1 business space.
• Concerning other benefits which would be delivered, Members were informed that these were varied and included a new pedestrian canal-side access to Limehouse Cut.
• Concerning whether the proposed size of the communal living units was normal for this type of arrangement, the Committee was informed that there were few examples of this kind in the Country.  In London there were 2 sites; a site in Ealing was operational and one in Stratford had not yet received permission because of concerns around the quality of accommodation.
• Concerning the modest S106 contribution secured, Members were informed that since CIL was applicable, S106 would be smaller.  However the main benefit of this scheme was the restoration of the listed buildings.
• Concerning the effects of the proposal on the Blue Ribbon network, the Committee was informed that the development site was situated alongside this network and did not preclude use of the canal.

Members made the following observations:

• Much of the development concerned conservation and restoration of heritage buildings, however the materials for the development were of bright colours and bricks clashed with the materials of the existing heritage buildings. The Heritage Officer advised the Committee that suitable materials had been considered;  those of the listed buildings was red brick and the proposed adjoining developments would comprise red and white materials to reference the original.  Final choices presently were subject to confirmation, nevertheless, the scheme aimed to achieve an acceptable mix of materials.
• A Member expressed concern that the London Mayor's Housing SPG supported the new form of HMO and the Committee was informed that support was subject to 6 criteria.  The new draft London Plan contains a provision for licensing new shared access developments where the neighbourhood level meets 8 criteria.  Additionally policy DH7 in the emerging Tower Hamlets Plan references this new type of accommodation.
• Members observed that the scheme must meet housing need in accordance with the Local Plan.  They were informed that this did not apply to the proposed communal living development as it was intended that rooms would be let at market rents.

The Committee then heard from 3 objectors 2  whom had agreed to make a joint representation. The objectors raised following concerns:

• The Sailmakers Warehouse was the only surviving structure of its kind and therefore should be fully preserved.
• Insufficient consideration had been given to sympathetic replacements of existing structures or alternative design which would reduce the necessity for the demolition of large parts of the adjoining historic Engineering Workshop.
• Historic England had failed to give due consideration to conservation as it had revised its approach.  Because of this, the proposal would result in the loss of many heritage features in the Engineering Workshop and the Committee was asked to give greater weighting to conservation.
• There was concern that the proposals lacked a social housing provision.  Therefore residents of the Borough on low incomes would not be able to access much-needed social housing.  Additionally the development would cause rents to increase.
• The proposal would harm the local community because it was focused towards exclusive accommodation and did not foster a mixed environment of housing.

Having heard the submissions, Members questioned the objectors and received the following additional information:

• Although the purpose of the proposal was to preserve some of the Borough's heritage, objectors contested the developer's assertion that a social housing element was not viable because of the costs of conservation.  They asserted that conservation and provision of social housing should not be mutually exclusive.
• Concerning criticism of the approach taken by Historic England towards the proposed renovations, the Committee was informed that Historic England no longer followed the conservation-led approach but followed an approach based on enhancements of significance.  This would result in the demolition of large proportions of the service building.  The objector further argued that, with some modifications, demolition of large proportions of the service building would not be necessary.

The Committee then heard representations from 2 Ward Councillors.  They asked the Committee to refuse or defer the application based on the following:

• The accommodation that would be provided was not affordable.  Although the buildings would be restored, little community benefit would be delivered.
• The proposal did not meet the Borough’s housing needs or help the community but only benefited the developer.   The Committee was asked to commission an assessment of the benefits of the proposed scheme.
• Policy DM 87 from the emerging Plan states that development should be resisted where other housing forms are eliminated and the proposal provided no social housing.
• There had been no reference to the Council's own viability study,  therefore Members were asked to defer the application to permit this  assessment to be brought forward.

The Committee was invited to question the Ward Councillors and Members indicated that there were no questions that they wished to ask.

The Committee then heard from the Applicant's Agent.  He informed Members that the applicant and architect had worked closely with the local authority over three years to bring forward proposals for the development which included the restoration of historic buildings.  The proposed shared living element was of the highest quality and emerging local plan policies included this new type of communal living accommodation; additionally a housing needs assessment had indicated a need for this.  The applicant had undertaken viability testing and this had been provided to the Council.  In concluding his presentation, the agent offered to increase the number of class C3 units to be given as affordable housing from 3 units to 4 units plus S106 contributions.

The Applicant then made his submission informing the Committee that he was from a family firm with a background in this type of development.  He acknowledged that the new communal living proposed was not suitable for all but met housing needs that suited short term living arrangements.

Responding to Members’ questions the Agent, Applicant and Architect provided the following information:

• When working with listed buildings there must of necessity be adaptions in order that schemes may be delivered.  These adaptions are required to be delivered within certain parameters and wherever possible efforts had been made to preserve the heritage features.  The proposal had been endorsed by Historic England and the Council's Conservation Officer.
• It was intended that the weekly rent of the communal living units would be £250-£280 per week including bills.
• It was intended that the communal living arrangements would enable the tenants to interact with each other when using the cooking facilities and also when using the communal area at the front of the building.  These arrangements would enable more interaction with the community.
• Concerning how the proposal fulfilled the Land Plan which specified that development should contribute to neighbourhood development, the Committee was informed that the proposal would enable people to come to live in the area that would otherwise be prevented from doing so.
• In regard to mixed living, the proposal would provide different types of tenure across the scheme.
• The additional housing unit offered by the Applicant as a contribution would be one of the 9 Class C3 units specified in the scheme; the authority could determine which to choose.
• Concerning provision of open spaces, the Committee was informed that the development would offer more openness towards the canal-side of the development; the areas fronting Commercial Road would be less open to defend against noise and pollution. 
• Overall, the aim of the development was to reinstate the streetscape,  the building and its surroundings.

The Committee briefly adjourned between 8:35pm and 8:38pm and then then moved to vote on the officer recommendation.  The Vice-Chair proposed and the Chair seconded, and on a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention the Committee

RESOLVED

That

1.    The application for the demolition of 767 and 785 Commercial Road (behind retained facade).  Mixed-use redevelopment to provide 558 m² of class B1(a) offices within 777 - 783 Commercial Road; 134 rooms of communal living accommodation and associated facilities (sui generis) at 769 - 775 and 785 Commercial Road; and 252 m² of class B1(a) offices and 9 x self-contained class C3 residential flats at 767 Commercial Road BE GRANTED subject to completion of a legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer and subject to delivery of 4 x affordable housing units within the 9 Class C3 dwellings at 767 Commercial Road - the composition of these to be determined by Tower Hamlets Council and subject to conditions and informatives.

2.    The application for listed building consent for works to 777 - 783 Commercial Road, Grande II, BE GRANTED.