Development Committee - Thursday 11 September 2025, 6:30pm

Development Committee
Thursday, 11th September 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Thank you.

Good evening.

And welcome to this development committee meeting.

My name is Councillor Ali Bahasane and I will be chairing this meeting.

This meeting is being held in person.

committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room.

Only the committee members present in the meeting room will be able to vote.

Other persons may be attending remotely.

Committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by the

committee officer that should technical difficulties prevent

in their full participation in their meeting, it may proceed in their absence if I feel

it necessary.

I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like

to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting

procedure.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as the chair.

Thank you.

If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact

the democratic service officer as soon as possible via email.

However, officers may not be able to respond to all such requests.

You should keep your microphone and cameras switched off at all other times.

Please do not use the meeting chart facility.

Any information added to the chart facility will be discarded.

If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the democratic

services officer as soon as possible.

I will now ask committee members present to introduce themselves.

Please can you also indicate, state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda

items and the nature of the interest.

Let me start first.

I have no GPIs, but I have received emails on the second item.

I have not replied.

Now I'm going to start from my right.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudhury popular word nothing to declare but I have received some email, but I did not respond

Thank You councillor Shafi Ahmed watch up award no DPI's I have received emails in relation to this

application

Councillor I'm in Rahman no DPI's only emails. I'm from Bethlehem Green West. It's my award. I'm coming with an open mind

I'm Mark Francis from Bow East Ward.

No declarations.

I have received emails from both the applicant's agent and also a couple of residents as well.

And just for the record, I'm a former resident of Hackney Road, but a long time ago.

I'm Afida Bustin, Councillor for Ireland Gardens.

No DPIs.

I have also received some emails from residents which I haven't responded to either.

Thank you, colleagues, councillors.

Now to apologies.

Justina, have you received any apologies for absence?

No, Chair.

All members are present.

Thank you.

Apologies.

Not all members are present but I have not received any apologies.

Thank you for your correction.

agenda item 2 is the minute from previous meetings.

Can we all approve the minutes from 24 July meeting, please?

Thank you.

Agenda item 3 is the recommendation and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.

I will now ask Paul Bakanam, Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control

to present the guidance.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening.

Good evening, members, officers, members of the public who are joining us this evening.

So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,

including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant

development plan policies and material planning considerations.

The process for considering the reports of recommendations and the procedure for public

speaking will run as follows. So I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application

and a summary of the recommendation. Officers will present the report and then those registered

to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three minutes each. And then those

registered to speak in support, including the applicants, can address the committee

for up to three minutes each. And then also any councillors who have registered can address

the committee for three minutes each. The committee will consider the recommendation,

including any questions, debate and further advice from officers.

The committee will reach a decision based on the majority vote and I will confirm the

decision back to the Chamber.

If the committee proposed to make changes to certain aspects of the officer's recommendation,

for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or planning obligations, then the

task of formalising those changes is delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control.

And in the event that the committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must

give their planning reasons and propose and agree on alternative course of action.

Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task

of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director

of Planning and Building Control.

If the committee proposed to make a decision that would appear to go against the provisions

of the development plan or may have other legal implications, then the item may be deferred

for further reports and advice from officers dealing with the issues.

Chair, there is an update report that's been circulated this evening to the committee and

published online and I'll come to those matters when we get to that part of the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you for presenting guidance on the application.

As in Item 4, we have no different item to consider this evening.

As in Item 5, the planning application for decision.

We have one application to consider this evening.

Item 5 .1 is the planning application at 5 to 6, the Oval, London ET9DT.

I now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

So as the Chair said, this is a planning application affecting land at 5 to 6, the Oval.

and the application proposes the redevelopment of the site

to provide residential accommodation, class C3,

shared living accommodation, which is sui generis,

commercial space, class E, and associated cycle parking,

play space, landscaping, and other associated works.

Chair, sorry, the recommendation to the committee

is to grant planning permission subject

to the planning obligations and conditions.

Chair, if we may hold, just run through some matters

that have arisen since the publication of the agenda,

which are in the update report.

I'll just go through those briefly.

So since the publication of the main agenda,

we've received an additional seven letters of objection

and 20 letters of support.

Those in objection generally don't raise

any new material planning issues

beyond those already listed in the report.

However, just to draw members' attention

to one representation that's been received

on behalf of Gossemer East Development,

to own land directly adjacent to the application site.

They have submitted a fairly detailed representation,

but there are three main points.

The failure to setback the building line

from the site boundary may significantly constrain

and prejudice the future development potential

of the site that they own.

The council has sought to ensure that buildings

are set back from boundaries when considering

other planning applications.

And there's no reference within the officer assessment around policy DDH6, which is the

policy that relates to building heights and tall buildings.

Our response is set out in the update report.

Generally we don't share those concerns to the extent that the landowner does.

However there is one point where they have suggested that any residential windows that

that are facing that boundary should be fitted

with obscure glazing, and there are some windows

that do face that boundary, and there are secondary windows.

So we think that would be a reasonable request,

and we have recommended one additional condition

to deal with that matter.

Just moving on briefly, we've just clarified

in the updated report our assessments of the impact

on heritage significance of the conservation area.

There is a typographical area that relates

to the provision of affordable workspace,

and just for clarification, it's 10 %

of the employment floor space will be provided

as an affordable discount of 50%, not 25%.

There's a matter dealing with the on -street loading bay

and a planning obligation to provide that within the site

if the on -street bay, through monitoring,

is deemed not to be performing in the way as it should,

And also because this scheme includes affordable housing, we have recommended an early stage

review mechanism which is in accordance with the London plan as an additional planning

obligation.

Other than that, the recommendation is as per the main report.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul, for explaining the additional notes of changes.

I will now invite Daniel Jeffries, Planning and Case Officer, to present the application.

Over to Daniel.

Thank you, Chair. I'll just present the presentation on the existing site and the proposal.

The site location plan identifies the application site outlined in red.

So you've got Hackney Road at the bottom and Cambridge Heath Road on the right of the screen.

So this aerial photograph identifies the application site shaded in red.

Can you please speak a little bit up if you can? Thank you.

So yeah, it's one site which forms two parts of land either side of Graw passage, which is here.

Land to the west of the Royal Passage is between the oval and the left of the image and to the south of the residential building of the Empress Works.

This part of the site consists of two -storey warehouse buildings which should be demolished.

To the east of the Royal Passage is the remains of the former Brouw building, which is located here and adjacent to the railway tracks.

So this photograph is taken from within the site.

It shows the side elevation of the Empress Works building here and the railway tracks.

As you can see, the site is largely vacant.

So this photograph is taken from within the site, facing west towards the oval.

And the right -hand side of the screen is the existing Empress Works building.

This image shows a plan identifying the site allocation

associated with the site with its boundary outlined in red.

The priorities for this area are the delivery

of both employment floor space and residential development.

The site is in close proximity to several heritage assets

including the Hackney Road Conservation Area

and regional canal conservation area, which are here and here.

And the non -designated heritage asset of the Foreign Brewery building

forming part of the proposal, which is here.

So this is an existing photograph taken from the oval facing north,

showing the existing Empress Works building, to the left,

which will be immediately adjacent to the site,

and the proposal will be located on the right -hand side of the screen.

This photograph is taken from Emma Street from the south of the Oval.

The building in the backdrop is the principal elevation of the Foreign Brewery building,

which the officer has identified as important in heritage terms and will be retained.

In the foreground is the southern entrance to the alleyway of Broad Passage, which allows for pedestrian access to the site.

The proposal is for partial demolition of the existing site.

Block A, which is part five, part eight storey building, which provide 24 self -contained

residential homes, which are 100 % social rented tenure.

Block B, which is part eight storey building, includes the retention of the facade of the

and social community living areas.

A reprovision of workspace across both blocks A and B,

landscaping, public realm, and highway improvement works.

So now I'm going to take you through

some CGI visualizational proposal.

So this one is taken from Earth Street facing north.

This image shows block B, which is here,

which include the shared living accommodation,

includes a former brewery facade, which will be retained,

and the flank elevations either side,

which would match the height,

and to the rear, which is the backdrop,

which is eight storeys in height.

So this one is taken from Cambridge Heath Road,

Hackney Road Junction.

It shows Block B, which would pop up

above the existing buildings

on the west side of Cambridge Heath Road.

So going into block A, this image shows a relationship

of the building when viewed from the oval.

So this is another image of block A

from the top of the oval facing towards Herro,

which is down here.

So to the left of the image is the existing

Empress Works building, and to the right is block A,

and this would be a similar height to the existing building.

So as shown in the image,

they activate the gap between the public realm,

between the two buildings,

which are the creation of public realm improvements,

being set eight metres from the shared boundary,

which is here.

So the separation between the buildings

would be eight metres,

which is largely dictated by the position of Empress Works,

which is set back only two metres,

and is shown by the fencing onto the left of the screen.

It will enable a route through,

which is consistent with the site location.

So looking at block A in more detail,

the building will provide 24 affordable homes

on all floors, which will be 100 % social rented.

The entrance to the residential building

will be via the newly created public realm

to the north of the building,

right here, and on the corner of the site,

The fronting of the oval and employment workspace unit

will be provided here.

Blue bed,

air bed badge parking space will be created

along the oval here.

So Block A would deliver child play space

for naught to 11 age groups to the rear of the building

here and the new recreated access.

So future occupiers of the building will be benefited

from community living space at fifth floor.

And moving on to Block B, which is where the shared living

accommodation will be located, providing 222 units

to the upper floors and community space to all floors.

So the entrance to the shared living accommodation

will be a ground floor,

where the newly created public realm.

The building would also deliver a majority of the schemes

and employment workspace, which is located here and here,

which should be designed for small businesses

and include the delivery of affordable workspace.

So this is second floor layout,

showing the shared living units in yellow

and the internal and external immunity spaces, essentially,

which would be largely replicated on all floors.

So this is a visualisation of the second floor

the external amenity space.

It's second floor, we're in the former brewery building.

And this shows the fifth floor external amenity spaces

at roof level.

And this is the walkway providing for the entrance

of the employment work spaces within the building.

So in terms of consultation, the application

will advertise 369 letters to occupy

the neighbouring properties and advertise

in the local paper and erection of free site notices.

So prior to publication of the report,

27 letters were received, 25 related to objections

and two of support.

Since the date of the publication,

they've had additional letters received,

including 27 raising objections,

30 supporting proposal.

So looking at the objections,

the concerns regarding immunity impact,

impact in the redevelopment of adjacent sites,

The impact and heritage include design and visual appearance,

the proposal, standard accommodation, and fire safety.

And in terms of support, the letters of support identify

delivery of shared living and affordable housing,

public realm improvement, reprovision of employment,

work space, and potential access

to the community investment programme.

So the key considerations identified land use, housing,

design and heritage, immunity impacts, the environment

and transport and servicing of development.

So in terms of land use, as noted previously,

the proposal to deliver a mixed use scheme

meeting the objectives of the site location.

The proposal within the site identified in blue

on the right hand side of the plan

would deliver the housing and employment works

very consistent with the objectives.

And the social housing element would be

within the site location in the shared living

accommodation would be outside the site allocation.

So these are considered to be consistent

with the site allocation objectives.

So in terms of housing,

we've delivered 35 % on -site affordable housing

based on habitable rooms,

all of which will be located in block A.

So we've delivered 24 self -contained residential units,

which would be affordable housing

and would be 100 % social rented.

So the housing mix of the block would focus towards family sized units with 17 .8 % being

three, four or five bed units.

So in terms of the shared living accommodation there will be 222 studio units and will be

sick of occupants and will contribute towards the housing delivery for the site.

Looking at the quality accommodation for self -contained units, all of the units would provide good

levels of daylight, sunlight outlook, some dual aspect and some triple aspect, and it

would meet the internal space and private immunity requirements under the plan. Child

play space would be provided not to 11 age groups, say ground floor and communal immunity

space at 5th floor. So this image shows the typical layout of a 5 bedroom unit including

two double bedrooms so the access is here and as you can see it's got the triple aspect.

And again this image shows the typical layout of a 4 bedroom unit, one double bed and the

access will be located here. So going on to the shared living accommodation, this shows

typical layout of one of the studio units.

So this assessment is in the form of accommodation

based on the plan guidance and the scheme

will be fully compliant in this regard.

So going into the amenity impacts of the scheme,

as outlined in the report,

proposal would result in daylight sunlight impacts

in urban properties.

So the most impacted building is Empress Works,

which is located to the north of Block A.

The impacts are largely as a result of the existing position of the building,

which is set back two metres from the shared boundary,

whereas the proposal would be located only eight metres.

A supplementary assessment called the Mirror Test is being carried out,

replicating the scale and form of the Emperor's Works building on the application site.

The results confirm the impacts of the proposal will be favourable when compared to this test.

So due to the nature of the site and closer relationship with neighbouring buildings,

proposals have potential to result in privacy issues to neighbouring properties.

Ordinarily policies seek 18 -metre gap between habitable rooms,

but due to the design constraint this has not been achieved across the whole of development.

Between Block A and Bembridge work, the gap is 10 metres,

but it is largely due to the position of the existing building,

which is positioned only two metres away from the shared boundary,

whereas the proposal will be set eight metres away.

The proposal is considered to be in compliance with the policy in respect to biodiversity, energy, air quality, waste and circular economy matters.

These measures will be secured by conditions legal agreement.

In terms of highways, the proposal provides policy requirements in terms of cycle storage and be car free,

the appropriate inclusion of one disabled Blue Bay badge

adjacent to the oval, and the proposal

would include highway improvements,

including Delivery Bay, and is confirmed to be accessible

for fire safety, waste collection, and delivery vehicles.

So these are the financial obligations

associated with the scheme.

And these are the non -financial obligations,

and this would be in addition to the obligations

or requirements for

being seal payments.

So the offer of recommendation is that the committee result to grant plan of admission,

subject agreement, secure obligations and the conditions and the report.

And that ends my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you for presenting the application.

Now I would like, I'm going to ask the register speaker to speak.

I will now invite Irina Bedouevsko.

Good evening chair, good evening councillors.

My name is Irina Bedouevsko and I've been living

at Empress Works for the past four years.

I'm speaking today as a resident,

but most importantly I'm speaking today as a parent

because this development will have serious impact

on my home and especially my four year old child.

Our flat directly faces the development site.

One of the rooms overlooking this development is my child's room, where he spends most of

his day.

If the development goes ahead in its current form, most of the daylight to that room will

be lost.

The view out the window, which right now gives us space and air and sky, will be replaced

by a blank seven -storey wall just a few metres away from his room. Just a wall.

We know that this is a city so I'm not expecting panoramic views or blue sky

all day long. However, the difference between urban living and building

something that makes a home feel boxed in is massive. Tower Hamlet's policy is

Development must protect the amenity of surrounding residents, especially when it comes to daylight and outlook.

And this proposal doesn't do that.

As residents we've commissioned a report from Delva Patman -Reddler, which puts into real life terms what the impact will be to real life people.

When I read it I was actually devastated because they describe how some rooms, including my son's room, will be rendered, and I quote here, in virtual darkness.

This is not just a statistic. This is my child's room. It's the place where he'll grow, he'll learn, he'll develop.

And it's about to lose most of its light for good.

I'm not here to stand in the light of, or in the way of new housing, but it shouldn't

come at this high cost to existing residents.

It's wrong in human terms and it's wrong in policy terms too.

In planning language, the current development fails on daylight, sunlight, outlook and residential

amenity.

But what that really means is real harm to real people and to my four -year -old child.

So my ask is to please refuse or defer this application until something more balanced and humane can be put forward.

Thank you.

Can you please turn the mic up? You've done it. Thanks.

May I ask invite Charlie Simpson, who is online, to address the committee in objection to the

application you have up to three minutes.

I will remind you before 30 seconds of your time.

Thank you.

Could I ask you to have a pause please? We're just sorting out the technicality. Thank you.

We'll ask you again.

Thank you.

Your time is up now. Awesome, thank you. Good evening chair and good evening councillors.

My name is Charlie Simpson and I'm speaking on behalf of the many impacted residents of Empress

Works to urge the committee to refuse this application or at the very least to defer it

so the applicant can revisit the design and reduce the scale and impact on surrounding homes.

I want to be clear that none of us are opposed to redevelopment. We agree with the committee on the

urgent need for new housing and tower hamlets and this is prime Brownfield site well suited for

regeneration. But development should not come at the cost of rendering existing homes unlivable,

and that's exactly the impact this scheme will have on many homes in Empress Works,

the building opposite. The applicant's own report shows that only 54 % of habitable homes,

windows in Empress Works meet Daylight Gateway guidelines. That means 46 % fail.

Looking at the worst affected, 15 windows will see their daylight reduced to just 0 -2 % VSC,

and 11 rooms will have the NSL reductions down to 0 to 20%.

That's not a minor shortfall, that's a total loss of light.

We commissioned Delver -Patman -Redlett LLP or DPR,

a highly respected firm of experts in this field

to independently assess these findings.

Their conclusion is damning and I quote,

the proposed messing with the site

will render some of the units within Empress Works

in virtual darkness and well below any standards

the offices should consider acceptable.

Even with the proposed building itself,

13 habitable rooms facing Empress Works failed to meet daylight targets, a clear sign that

this design is flawed. The applicant attempts to justify this harm using a mirror massing

study, a hypothetical, imagined version of Empress Works built opposite itself. The DPR

are unequivocal on this and I quote again, regardless of the mirror massing studies,

the proposed development is too bulky and too close to Empress Works to enable adequate

daylight and sunlight amenity. This is not just a technical failure, it is a clear breach

policy with real and lasting human consequences. Tower Hamlet's local plan policy D -DHA requires

development to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents, particularly around

daylight and outlook. We all accept that urban development involves compromise, but this proposal

crosses a clear line. It sacrifices light, comfort and basic livability. And while the delivery of

new homes matters, here the scale, severity and concentration of harm clearly outweighs the

benefits when properly assessed against policy and impact on amenity, especially in the absence

of any serious effort to explore less harmful alternatives.

To grow DPR one final time, the retained level of light will be very low and even zero in

some instances. We're not asking you to reject housing, we're asking you to demand better

design. Committee please refuse or defer this application until a more balanced scheme comes

forward one that delivers new homes without devastating the homes already

here. Thank you.

Thank you for finishing in time. I have used my discussion to allow a third speaker to speak tonight.

I now invite Timothy Tan from Gusmare East Development to address the committee

in objection to the application. You have up to three minutes.

Good evening Councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm here as a concerned neighbour representing the landowner of the Gossamer City project

at 1 -65 Gossamer Gardens which directly adjoins the application site at 5 -60 Oval.

As you may be aware from the update from your offices, my solicitor has written to officers

highlighting a number of issues with the report and setting out the reasons why we believe

the application should be deferred accordingly.

He has advised me that if the errors in the report are not corrected, there are potential

grounds for judicial review.

The point was clearly made in the correspondence, although officers have not mentioned that.

Whilst I am grateful that officers have now agreed that requiring obscure glazing on the

windows on the flanks of Block B overlooking my site as necessary, my solicitor has reviewed

the update report and is of the opinion that the other concerns raised have still not been

adequately addressed or in the case of Policy DDH6, the response is just incorrect.

Block B is a tall building as defined by that policy and that policy therefore requires

that its development must not prejudice the future development of my site.

An offset of 3 metres from our boundary is substantially less than has been required

on other schemes and that inconsistent approach has not been justified.

It does still potentially prejudice our site.

The Gossamer City project is a thriving hub of creative start -ups, housed in repurposed

shipping containers.

Since its inception, it has supported dozens of small businesses, many of which have grown into larger premises.

It's a proud example of Tower Hamlet's entrepreneurial spirit and a valued contributor to the local economy.

We are not opposed to development. We simply ask that modest changes be made to ensure the proposal doesn't unfairly constrain our own future potential.

The proposed building, a five -storey building, would sit directly on our shared boundary.

This raises serious concerns. Planning policy calls for a design -led approach that optimises site capacity and avoids prejudicing neighbouring sites.

The Council has previously applied this principle in its assessment of other schemes, including the Nearby Regions View scheme,

where buildings were set back by over 7 metres to protect adjacent development potential.

If approved as it stands, this application would significantly limit our ability to redevelop.

Any future residential component on our site would be compromised by overshadowing and

loss of daylight.

We would be forced to set back from our own boundary, reducing the developable area and

future contribution our site could make to planning policy objectives.

I must also raise concern with the officer's report, which justifies the boundary treatment

by suggesting the brewery building would be less appreciated if we redeveloped.

That's a flawed rationale.

Officers cannot predetermine the future of neighbouring sites or rely on speculative

assumptions to justify decisions that constrain them.

We are not asking for refusal, just a reasonable amendment that the rear building be set back

see ...

Very early point

You have nine minutes between

and Matthew Gibbs from Savills to address the committee in support of the application.

You have nine minutes between yourselves. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Matthew Gibbs and I'm a director

at Savills advising the applicant on the planning aspects of the development. The planning application

Consultation has been developed in close working with officers of your council, alongside review

and scrutiny by the Quality Review Panel.

We welcome the officer's recommendation to approve and trust that this is something you

too can endorse.

A detailed process of consultation has been carried out, commencing in early 2024.

Local interest groups, residents and businesses have been contacted throughout.

This has included a newsletter issued to over 1 ,800 local residents and businesses,

creation of a project website, liaison with local charities and organisations,

as well as an in -person consultation event to which local residents and businesses were all invited.

The application proposals present a balanced approach reflecting the site location and its characteristics.

The part of the site fronting the Oval is within the Marion Place Gas Works and the Oval site allocation,

an allocation that's been in Development Plan documents for many years.

The proposals provide for class C3 residential and employment space,

improved local walking and cycling connexions including a new route from the Oval to Hare Row,

new open space and improved public realm.

all objectives of the adopted site allocation.

The design has been subject to detailed discussion with your officers

and modified to respond to comments.

The scale, height and massing has been carefully considered

whilst the existing remains of the brewery building on site

have been sensitively incorporated into the design.

We have been mindful in particular of impacts to occupiers and empress works,

As has been noted by your officers, owing to the close proximity of the emprex works to the site boundary,

any form of meaningful development is going to result in impact to occupiers of those flats facing the site.

Objectors have said that the proposal fails to strike an appropriate balance between development and residential amenity.

I do not agree. Mr Lonergan of EB7 will now speak to matters of daylight and sunlight.

Good evening, my name is Jonathan Lonergan.

I'm a Chartered Surveyor, Director of EB7 and Daylight Sunlight Specialist

with over 20 years of experience working both for developers and local councils.

I've advised the applicants in respect of the proposals since the earliest stages

and could provide some clarity on the concerns we've heard about this evening.

Empress works as windows to habitable rooms that are inset to deep balconies

and this includes a number of bedrooms and main living spaces

that we've heard about from the objectors, positioned only two metres from the boundary

of this allocated site. This design leads to constraints and compromises prior to any

development of the site. In the existing position, 45 windows to Empress Works have lower vertical

sky component levels of 15 % or below, with 41 of these being 10 % or below. Under the

proposal, only seven additional windows fall into this sub -15 % category, five further folding

below 10%. The applicant has considered alternatives and worked with officers to refine the scheme

following quality review panel input to limit the effects and balance them against the delivery

of much needed affordable housing. This has included reductions in height, specifically

responding to empress works and other neighbours. Daylight sunlight targets are not rigid standards

but flexible guidance. Your officers have reached their conclusions that the effects

of the schema acceptable, having the benefit of an independent review. This review was

undertaken by the BRE, the institution who authored and published the guidance. The BRE

document provides specific guidance on the application of a mirrored massing assessment

to ensure fairness where neighbours build windows to a boundary which could otherwise

prevent reasonable development on neighbouring sites. The mirror test assesses the scheme

against a hypothetical baseline.

In this case, assessing the performance

of the scheme before you against the impacts

that would occur if the application were the same bulk,

mass, and location from the boundary

as Empress Works currently is.

This test reflects the reasonable assumption

that later developments may match the height

of their neighbours.

It ensures that earlier development

does not take more than its share of life

and prejudice future potential,

in this case, the delivery of affordable housing.

Our assessments demonstrate the effects of Windows Empress Works are in line with, and

in many cases materially outperform, this mirror test.

The BRE review specifically confirmed the mirror test is, quote, an appropriate analysis

of an alternative target where there is an existing building that is tall and close to

the boundary.

We agree with the findings of your officers and the BRE.

The consultants acting for Empress Works also did not raise concerns about the methodology

or relevance of this mirrored massing study.

To conclude, it is important to emphasise that the BRE guidelines are not prescriptive

and in central locations it is unlikely that all of their advice can be met.

This has been acknowledged in recent committee and appeal decisions.

The most affected spaces to Empress Works are built on the boundary of an allocated

site and positioned within deep balconies which inherently limit daylight.

The contextual mirror test, confirmed as appropriate by the BRE, shows impacts are consistent with

the guidance and this is confirmed by our officer's conclusion that the effects are

acceptable.

For these reasons, we do not believe it would be reasonable to object to proposals on daylight

sunlight grounds and we ask that you follow your officer's recommendation in granting

planning permission.

Thank you for your time.

I will now pass to the applicant to expand on the significant benefits of scheme.

My name is Jamel Brown and I'm the co -founder of Reshape. This evening I will speak to you not only

as a developer and operator but someone from personal experience understands why housing is

far more than bricks and mortar but about dignity, belonging and fairness. Over the last 20 months

we've worked closely with the officers at Tower Hammers Council with a clear goal. To strike the

balance between maximising the number of social family homes and community benefits while

having regard to heritage and neighbouring amenity, all with a single aim to create a

new place that feels like home for everyone in Tower Hamlets.

Our proposals breathe new life into a neglected site in Bethnal Green and at the heart of

this are 24 new social rented homes. 17 of them are family sized, including 9 of them

providing four beds and four units providing five beds.

Homes specifically designed in response to the fact

of the council's 28 ,000 person housing waiting list,

unfortunately, 2 ,670 households are categorised

as living in severely overcrowded homes,

an issue that could have dire ramifications

on a child's development and confidence.

Alongside the social housing, 222 co -living homes are proposed with all bills included.

For us co -living is also referred to as community housing and is far more than an alternative way of living as opposed to HMO.

Because a lot of our residents can feel genuine, a sense of belonging and build meaningful connexions.

in a time where loneliness is an epidemic in this country and sadly many of us know

what it feels like to go home and have no one on the other side of the door to speak

to.

And this is why we ensure all our developments are marketed to key workers and locals first,

because it's important to us that all our homes, social or co -living, respond to the

greatest localised housing needs first.

But good housing alone isn't enough to create great places and that's why we have our community

Investment Programme that opens our gyms, workspace, event space and even our bedrooms

for temporary accommodation stays free of charge for local charities and communities.

Our Community Investment Programme is not unique to this project either, it runs through

everything we do. In our operational asset at Wembley Arc we have survivors of domestic

violence stay free of charge, youth clubs using our gyms and community groups hosting

events and meet ups all at no cost, while in Salford we are launching a pilot scheme

for temporary housing in our empty rooms. For us the Community Investment Programme is

a way to frame what we can give back through operation and construction. And as most of

you know, every little single additional social housing bedroom and family home that is delivered

in the midst of the country's housing crisis truly does matter, with each new family home

potentially changing the lives of a family for the better.

While beyond education, we would argue that nothing is a greater catalyst for social mobility

and inclusion than a home that creates a sense of pride, security and belonging.

We hope you welcome our community first approach to placemaking and housing and subject to

securing your support tonight.

We look forward to implementing the planning permission before May 2026.

Thank you.

Now, do members have any questions for the officers, the objector or the applicants?

Please indicate.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

Quick question for the officer.

You've acknowledged there will be a daylight and sunlight impact, practically to impress

works.

Can you clarify why officers believe those loss are acceptable in planning terms and

what specific benefits overweight to harm?

Thank you.

So the image above shows the relationship between the two buildings.

So I think in terms of the Dela Sunlight assessment,

I think we have to acknowledge that relationship

and I think the impacts are largely due to the existing position

in relation to the shared boundary.

so the Empress works is looking two metres away from that shared boundary,

whereas the proposed development is eight metres,

and ordinarily the existing building would be set back.

So I think, yeah, look, the table shows that there would be,

like, 40 windows which would have major impacts,

in terms of VSC and I think we have to acknowledge that they would be significant but I think

this is also any development coming forward would have a significant impact and I think

even at a reduced scale those impacts wouldn't be altered significantly and I think it's

to the low levels of daylight and sunlight,

which is sort of demonstrated in these tables.

So basically in terms of, yes,

so these are the representation of those impacts.

So largely, where these red coloured windows,

so it's here and here, and the,

It's largely dictated by the low levels of VSC.

So in terms of...

So 41 of the 45 windows would have a VSC of 10 or lower.

So in that would be 46 post -development.

And I think it should be noted that the independent review

of submitted by the objectives didn't say

that the mirror test was inappropriate,

which would ordinarily be produced in this type

of circumstance, and it is very favourable

in comparison to that, in terms of that test.

So I think, and also I think it's important

to look at the whole development in its,

rather than just daylight, sunlight in its,

and I think given the site location,

and given the benefits we have to take those into consideration as well rather than purely

still at sunlight.

Do all the members have any questions?

Thank you for your presentation. Can we just go back to this sunlight, daylight, because

I think I understand what the matter is, but I don't understand the mirror test, particularly

particularly well, to be honest with you.

So how does that work?

I guess my question is, how does a mirror test work?

What is its purpose?

Was a mirror test done when the Empress works itself?

Was... when that application came in?

And, yeah, let's start there and then we can continue. Thank you.

So in instances such as this where there is a close proximity to neighbouring buildings

and that there is an impact, the BRA guidance advises this supplementary test to give an

idea in terms of what the impacts of a similar scale building to the local area. So the BRA

in comparison to the existing ones, so it's a given indication in terms of any development coming forward

within that site, and it's to show that relationship. And I think it's to give you an indication of

a reasonable form of development in that location.

So in terms of the existing building, Empress Works, so I think obviously the assessment of daylight sunlight would have occurred.

Obviously the Empress works would be to the north of this site, so from a daylight point of view it's unlikely to have any sort of impact in terms of buildings to the south.

But it would have obviously, like the assessment,

basically for that site there was two appeals,

which were both, so the initial one was dismissed

and it was a larger building than what has been allowed.

So one of the concerns that neighbouring occupiers raised

was the potential impact on the future development of adjacent sites, including this one, and

the Inspector does address that point and says that basically that they didn't believe

that that dismissed appeal would actually result in the potential prejudice of future

development of adjacent sites and so this secondary development which was a louder appeal,

so it was the same footprint but with a lower building, so that basically therefore the

impact in terms of adjacent sites wasn't considered a reason for refusal or considered an impact

in terms of that.

But I think, yeah.

Just to sort of supplement that,

so the Amperst building,

the way it's been built,

two metres from the boundary of this site.

So generally our expectations were for buildings,

particularly large scale residential buildings,

would be that they be set back somewhat

to allow the development of the neighbouring site

with this building, two metres from the boundary.

It has quite a lot of residential windows

on that return elevation,

which is also something that we wouldn't generally see.

So we're not shying away from the fact that there is some significant impacts.

I think any development of any scale on this site is going to have some impacts.

I think what this development is trying to do is set itself back from its boundary as much as possible

to minimise those impacts, but there are impacts.

I think, just going back to the earlier point about the benefits,

I think what we see here is that we are getting some social housing and we've tried to minimise those impacts.

But there are some significant impacts I think.

Yeah, I think the thing I'm really struggling with is the argument that the building Empress Works has,

because it's built so close to the boundary, it's almost caused its own problems in a way.

and what do we need to do as a planning committee,

how relevant is that to our decision making?

Actually, should we be...

The impact on our residents is still the impact on the residents,

regardless of where that building is placed.

How significant is it, the fact that the building is close to the boundary or not?

And that's I think what I just don't understand to be honest with you

Paul might want to come in after me, but I mean, I think it's a very

Sorry chair. It's a very valuable. It's a very important question

obviously

This say there's no shine away that this scheme does have impacts significant impacts in terms of daylight and sunlight

Obviously our immunity policy seeks to protect daylight or a good standard daylight and

and the BRII guidance is in a sense our guide, our metric,

it's not that you should, there is expectations that there will be failures against that guidance,

but never that sets the setting.

And it needs to be emphasised that, I appreciate daylight, sunlight is a complex issue,

everybody gets their head around the mirror test and is challenging it,

But the BRIGA alternative tests are available to use and the only one set out in detail

within the BRIGA guidance itself is the mirror test.

And I say even from the report prepared by the residents next door from Dalva Patma Redla,

They do accept that the mirror test

Is appropriate in this instance to say but it doesn't just it doesn't take away the facts

As we've set out in the report that there are impacts

I think there's a few as I think we've as it needs emphasising the

From the site visit you remember that the immediate land on this site is cleared

So any developer Daniel said any development of any meaningful height will in it necessarily have impacts and daylight sunlight

the council through the local plan allocated that

This site falls form part of the site allocation and the site allocation

directs housing

On this land. So again, there's a full expectation that development would come forward

there yeah, the

It is no get away from the fact that it's very unfortunate.

I mean typically we would look partly for the overlooking issues.

They would normally seek developments both sides of a boundary line to set themselves

back nine metres.

This development comes forward eight metres.

So you feel like this split is one metre shyer that but obviously Empress Coachworks came

forward.

it was one under appeal and it's only two metres apart.

And then the vertical sky component assessment is about, the primary assessment in Seta and

the Brie guidance is about measuring the change, so what you currently experience and what

below.

But then sort of beyond that I think it's acknowledged by all that you also look at

what's called the retained values, and it's much disputed about what acceptable retained

values are, but there's kind of broad recognition and certainly the GLA take the view that mid -teen

values, so that's a retained value of 15, is broadly acceptable in a tight urban context

and in an opportunity area and a site like this which the departments direct in housing

4. There are significant changes, there are significant losses, I think it's 52 changes,

but it needs qualifying that because all bar 7 of those significant changes are for windows

that are already significantly below that measure. Many of them under 10 and some are

under five, I think there's general recognition if you're in VSEs of five, you would rely

on that, you'd have to turn on artificial light, you'd have to turn on your lights in

your building already.

So again we're not diminishing them, but those which take it down, those who bring the daylight

below what we normally support is a much smaller number because they say that there are existing

poor daylights and then there's other contributing factors because they've got, this is more

reflective probably in the daylight distribution in terms of the benefits of deep balconies

to those properties. I hope that was helpful rather than adding just a layer of additional

kind of confusion.

Can I ask you a question?

So in the 8 -metre gap between the two buildings or 2 -metre, does it comply with the recommendation

of London Police or local policy?

If not, why?

Thank you.

Sorry, could you just ask the question again?

I didn't catch it.

The distance between the two, the existing building in the proposed Block A is how much?

It's 10 metres, so it's 8 metres.

Does it comply with the recommendation or the London policy?

So there's no plan setting out minimum separation distances.

As I say, within our own local plan, and this is, well, it's very much framed in the context

avoiding mutual overlooking between habits or rooms, that we seek in normal ordinary circumstances no less than 18 metres.

So it is a rule of thumb, as you like, it's guidance and it is very much to manage this issue of overlooking between the two properties.

So there would be an issue overlooking in this instance, but we will use obscure glaze

on this development to avoid that overlooking.

Thank you to members of any Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

My question is also BRE related.

In your supplementary Sunlight report shows that this proposal does not fully

comply with the BRA guidelines but still provides a good level of compliance with

well lit and shaded spaces for future residents. Can you explain this please?

So yeah the in terms of the BRA guidelines and assessments in terms of

sunlight and daylight in terms of the internal units.

So I think it's a very high level of compliance generally.

So every unit has some rooms which are fully compliant

in terms of the requirements.

There are some of the rooms which face

to the north of the development which are not in focus

compliance, but given the site constraints we consider it's almost impossible to get

a fully compliant scheme from internal daylight perspective for those proposed units.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks for the presentation.

I have a couple of questions around daylight and sunlight as well, but before I do, I want

to say obviously there is lots to be said in favour of this application, particularly

The fact that this is co -living

Scheme and yet includes on -site effectively on -site affordable housing, which is really positive

the proportion of

larger family sized accommodation as well

and also the the fact that

The numbers of them that are proposed to be fully disabled accessible

All of that's really strong just in itself. Let alone there's some other really good parts of this scheme

But the part that I find most challenging is also the impact on daylight and sunlight of residents living in Empress Wharf.

So I'm newly back on the committee, having been away for a few years.

So I remember us having lots of conversations in the past about daylight and sunlight, but not having this mirror test.

So this is new to me. So I need to understand it better as well.

So just so as I understand, the actual mirror, just to describe that,

is that placed in the position of the building boundary,

the proposed new building boundary?

Or is it placed directly opposite the...

or precisely as a mirror on the boundary line of the site?

That would be in the footprint of the proposal.

If I just make a minute, so it will literally mirror

the relationship of the built out development.

So it would be set two metres away from,

it would be exactly the same form of Empress Coachworks

and it'd be set two metres away from the boundary.

Okay.

So it's essentially saying if you had more of the same

on the other side of the boundary, what would the impacts be?

So all of these

supposed existing

failings according to the mirror test are based upon

the building being located 2 metres from the

boundary as opposed to 8 metres from the boundary.

Okay, I understand that now. So the

The other elements are the amount that is significantly adverse.

I think it's the 30 % plus adverse.

So can you talk to us about the numbers of those?

So I think you know that we've been sent, well you've seen, Daniel's seen a copy of what was sent to us by the objectors.

daylight and sunlight agent, which gives an indication of red windows that fail significantly.

Can you just talk to us a little bit more about those that are the most severe ones

and why you don't think that that sufficiently outweighs the benefits of the application?

In terms of the, so there's 15 windows mentioned in terms of that email, which are located

first, second and third floors. So all 15 of those have existing values that the sky

component of under 15, and 12 of them would be under 10, and one would be under five,

which are kind of like, so they're low.

And I think in terms of the 11 rooms mentioned

which will lose 80 to 100 % of the existing daylight

based on the no skyline measure.

So eight of those are bedrooms

and three are living, kitchen, dining spaces.

So I think in terms of just the nature of how long you would spend in those rooms and

bedrooms are considered less sensitive than sort of living areas.

Jeff, I might just make a minute. Again, so there are major adverse effects and against

It's that change and so there's no getting away from that

Say in circumstances like this is appropriate to apply the mirror test, but it doesn't you know the red I

Don't want to it. I don't want to diminish the fact that there will be significant impacts

But when we're in these difficult situations, and are we trying to sort of manage?

people's a

Neighbours a minute while equally trying to bring forward new housing. They're always in a in a tight context

is always challenging. So again, I think that it's, and again, this is very much an appeal

situation as well, but also just when we make the assessment, the retained values become

very important. So there are 45 existing windows, 45 existing windows which have currently retained

values below this mid -teens, below 15. Of those, 23 of them are below 10 per cent, and

say 18 or below five.

So these major reverse,

the last majority of them are major reverse,

are all in the context of where they have

very poor daylight, sunlight, below what we make.

It's a legitimate question, why is it acceptable

to make things worse when they're already bad?

But I think it needs emphasising

that they are already probably relying frequently on artificial light.

And there is a function of where the buildings sighted itself.

It is quite unusual to see a whole series of windows

on what we'd normally call the return elevation rather than to the street.

So again I hope that provides context.

And so just a couple more things to follow up on that.

So are you able to tell us those of them that are major adverse that are living rooms as opposed to bedrooms?

And can you also tell us, so I think when we did the site visit I hadn't understood that Block A was part 8 storey as well as part 5 storey.

And so just wondered if you could say if we know the extent to which it's that eight -storey

part of Block A that is causing those major adverse impacts.

Just on that second element, I'm going to be very candid and say I don't know.

I wonder whether mindful we got the daylights consulted from the applicant.

You may want to direct that question to him.

By all means, come back to officers on how we conclude on those issues.

Can you respond to that, please?

Thank you.

I can, thank you, Chair.

The image on screen is really useful to answer that question, actually, because Block A is

is at the lower height, most directly opposite

the lower element of Empress Works that you can see there.

And then it steps up towards the rear of the site,

somewhat mirroring the massing approach

as you see on the screen.

So really, where you see the red in the taller element,

that is an effect of stepping up to eight storeys.

but in any event, even if this scheme stayed at the lower height all the way through,

you'd already have red in that zone in the same way that you do on the lower element of Empress Works there,

so it's not attributable to the step up.

It is a constraint which is uniform all the way along that elevation of Empress Works

and is caused equally as much by the lower element of the scheme.

Sorry, just to probe that. And is that because the eight -storey element is to the east of block A?

Is that the main reason?

No, it's to the south. It's because Empress works.

You can see the red is almost uniform across those lowest three floors.

That is being impacted by the lower floors of the proposal, rather than it solely being attributable to where it steps up to eight.

Any other members have any questions?

Councillor Rochman, then Councillor Bastani.

Thank you.

If the application was to go through, do you know which roads will be affected?

Will any of the roads be closed, like Emma Street and the Oval?

Would those roads be closed, you know?

No reason to suppose they would be closed, no.

They would be able to do all the construction on site, I think.

It's unusual in a sense for Tom and his body because it is kind of a brownfield site where

much of the site in a classic sense that much of the site is kind of clear.

It always got some very derelict buildings which they could demolish and then they could

do the work compound from it.

We'd obviously would have a construction management plan and a new code of construction to manage very extensively carefully

How construction traffic gets there

Council of Austin

Thank you chair. Can we talk about the

back of the

application so

One of the objectives, one of our residents spoke about the Gossamer City Project growing

the grave passage and the fact that this application will be built right up to the boundary and

that might prejudice future development.

So as I understand it, the argument against that is because we have the heritage asset

of the brewery. Could you just explain a little bit more about why that is considered to mitigate that argument please?

I'll take that one. There's probably a couple of points to make. Yes, there's the existing brewery building

and that frontage has been retained. We consider that a non -designated heritage asset.

So it's a real positive that it's been retained.

I think how that co -living building has been designed,

the windows within that will not offer any overlooking

because behind that is the amenity space to the co -living

which is set back from those windows, so there's no overlooking from habitable rooms.

So in terms of overlooking and privacy issues from that elevation,

we have no concerns about that.

That we have in the update report agreed to include privacy screens on the habitable rooms for the new extension to the return elevations beside the brewery building.

So that would prevent overlooking issues there.

In terms of prejudicing the future development of the neighbouring site, as we said it is a non -designated heritage asset.

and any future development coming forward without pre -determining it or deciding because we don't know what's coming forward

would need to be cognisant of the fact that that is a non -designated heritage asset which is visible from that corner of Emma Street towards Hackney Road

and in terms of any scale on that site would need to not impact on the setting of that.

So that would potentially limit the scale of development on that site in any event.

So these are very constrained sites, they're all very constrained sites around there.

And I think what this site has tried to do is limit the potential for overlooking.

There is the existing boundary wall of the brewery which is being retained.

And we think that that has limited the privacy issues.

Can I just follow up on that then?

So are we at risk of being in the same position in the future where the neighbouring site

comes to committee with a development and the people living in the co -living space say

our sunlight is going to be reduced because of the application that's coming forward

and actually we're here debating it and we say well actually it's because the co -living

space has been built right up to the boundary?

Again, it's a very good question.

The main bulk of the co -living sort of runs parallel

with the railway line.

And the separation distance there is far more than 80

metres.

So obviously, that's about 80 metres, as I said earlier,

is for privacy in the first instance.

But obviously, we're talking significantly more

than 80 metres so I wouldn't want to say it in any categorical sense but the bulk will

be set if there was any development brought from this it would be set far away from that

where the main set of windows facing head on for want of better word of gospel it is

as I say we do recognise that the brewery buildings were retained is book ended by two

neighbouring development which has got some co -living homes in them and they're facing

if you like north and south but they will have some oblique views on the development

so again we've recommended this condition for daylights for overlooking and it should

be said that the development is to the north of the site so I don't I don't I don't sorry

I don't, in short answer that I don't think it will have anything like these sort of scale impacts.

Paul I know is going to come in.

Thank you chair. I think it's a really important question.

We spent a long time discussing the relationship with Empress Works and I think it's important we address this issue as well.

I think if I can ask Mr. Jeffers just to go back,

there was quite a good plan image

that was just on the screen a little while ago

that showed the relationship to the site.

There we go.

So the site,

the Gossamer site is the one

that's just being highlighted now.

So that has some, I suppose there's sort of like

container buildings on it at the moment.

If you look at the plans of the part that's just

slightly confusing because north is actually

to the left of the image rather than to the top of the image

but the planning application before us this evening,

I think if Daniel could just highlight

where the heritage asset is.

So that is obviously something that we wouldn't support

being, you know, the only way to set that back

is to demolish it and that is not something

we would support in planning or conservation terms.

So the only other opportunities to set back are the two,

I suppose if you like, wings where you've got corridors

with the shared living units either side.

They actually have their main windows facing

north and south rather than into the site.

They do actually, the way it's been designed,

they do have some secondary windows on those end

sort of flank walls to provide a bit of interest.

However, we do agree with what the objective says that that in itself could cause potentially a problem.

They're not in the main windows, they don't rely on them for the main lighting to them.

And that's why we recommended that if the planning commission were to be granted,

then they should be non -openable and be fitted with obscure glazing.

So that prevents an overlooking issue.

Beyond that, it's really difficult to say because we can't pre -determine what might happen on that site.

but I think it is materially different

to the Empress Works relationship,

where there is a whole, as you've seen,

there's a whole elevation full of habitable room windows.

So what's that, where the containers are,

or what's the allocation for that,

the usage allocation for that site, do we know?

I don't believe it's allocated,

because it falls outside of the boundary

for the local plan site allocation,

is actually just slightly to the north of that.

So I think we might even have a slide that shows that.

So it's outside the site allocation.

It should be said that it is designated as part of local employment.

So there would be a policy to re -provide the employment space if there was any redevelopment.

Obviously it doesn't preclude there's an opportunity also to provide some C3 housing

or other housing or other development on the site.

So yeah, it's very difficult to say,

but unquestionably one of the restraints,

I don't wanna say limiting development period on the site,

is unquestionably the recognition that we've identified

in the report about retaining the views

of that principle facade.

So, yeah.

Councillor Ramon.

Thank you.

This is a question for the applicant.

You're highlighting there will be new pedestrian and cycle link as a public benefit.

What measure will you take to ensure this space is safe, inclusive and not treated as

a private courtyard for residents only?

I'm happy to answer that.

So the space that links Her Road and the oval will be ungated.

So you will never have gates which have precluded access.

We will also ensure that there are CCTV cameras and that the maintenance and also the responsibility for cleaning that falls within the management team.

The good thing about co -living is that we manage our own projects on site, so you will always have that point of contact to also raise issues with if you're not happy with the state of that environment as well.

It's probably worth noting as well that at the moment, or historically, it has been gated that route through outside our development, and we think that by creating that new route through, it will increase its usage, which then will make it a lot safer.

Obviously in terms of land use, the site allocation seeks housing on it and safeguarding any employment

space.

But in terms of design objectives for the development, we identify that route through

as part of a new strategic pedestrian cycle route

that goes across site allocation in its entirety.

And obviously the Marion Place gasway

which already consented provides that.

So we would, we will secure it by planning condition

and I think there will also be a planning obligation

in terms of treating it as a public open space.

So yeah, there will not be an opportunity

from the closet and I think one of the benefits of that, I mean it's a generous, it's quite

a generous space, it's very well, officers are very comfortable with the landscaping

approach as you all know as a ward councillor probably better than any of us in the room,

Grove Passage probably on a dark winter's night is probably you'd have to be a brave

individual to do that so this clearly provides an opportunity from Cambridge to Heathrow

under the arch of Harrow, across to the oval, so we very much see it as welcoming it, and

actually even Grove Passage, the land which is under the developers ownership, you'll

see an opening up there, so I think it will make you feel space, and obviously hopefully

the activities coming from the employment workspaces, the C3 housing, and the co -living,

the greatest kind of comfort I know studies of women in particular is seeing other people

and women in particular makes people feel more comfortable about it so I think that

will improve it and as the developer said that we will be securing improved lighting

in it and I'm sure there will be CCTV. The other end of Grove Passage will remain what

it is and I know which route I would go through if this development came forward.

Any more questions?

I won't be finished.

Councillor Francis.

So within the report I didn't see that there's a density figure stated.

Is that because it's co -living or is there a different reason?

I think it's probably because I suppose the London plan policy sort of moved away from

the density approach to more sort of design led approach.

But I suppose if it helps we could probably work it out relatively quickly because we

know how many habitable rooms there are.

So if that helps you just to give a flavour of sort of what's being proposed.

Yes please. But also just looking at a report that went to Strategic Development Committee

earlier this month there was details around density provided in that. So if we could have

that. So the other thing for me was around within the report, sorry I have to go back

can get it back in front of me, is on the mirror report.

Let me just get it, sorry, excuse me.

So it says that there are 163 windows that were assessed.

I think that was what was submitted.

as part of the revised assessment carried out through the mirror test.

Could we have the picture back up that showed Empress works, please?

So in this detailed, so I'm looking at paragraph 7 .208, it talks about, sorry not 163, 123,

And it says in paragraph 7 .209, the submitting report confirms that the supplementary assessment

confirms the proposal would compare favourably with significant proportion 61 out of the

123 experiencing improvements in the levels of retained VSC levels. So I can't really

do you see 123 windows facing this block A from that picture?

Where are the 123?

Do they include west facing windows, east facing windows as well?

So yeah, they do on this side elevations will be included in terms of the assessment.

Okay, but I'm struggling to see how that's relevant in terms of impact on daylight and

sunlight, it's clear where the windows that would be affected are. Why are all of these

other windows being included in the assessment? And then it says half of them would see an

improvement.

So the BRA guidelines are quite specific in terms of what windows should be assessed and

which shouldn't and the window,

I think just because of the orientation of the site

and that building, the windows and the side elevations

would be windows that should be assessed

as part of that assessment.

The line is still on the same line.

Okay, please go ahead.

Just to add some clarity on that number, the windows that have been assessed as part of that,

it's all the windows in the units that also have windows facing this way.

So you can see just on there, you just pick up the returns.

So we haven't assessed everything that runs all the way back along the east and west elevations.

It's only those windows that turn the corners.

In most cases, they also serve units and rooms

which have windows facing back towards the proposals,

so they're relevant as part of that mirrored assessment.

Where you get the improvements under the mirrored baseline,

that's actually for those windows looking directly

at the scheme, those that are around the corner

that can't see the scheme don't change effectively.

You also, and you just can't see it, but for clarity,

There are a few windows that are secondary within those enclosed balconies.

You can't pick them up and miss them each year.

There are 128 windows in that image and round the corner.

Any more members have any questions?

Councillor Rohan.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a quick question for the applicant.

You've committed to 24 social rented family homes. Can you confirm how quickly these will be built?

Yeah, I can. So the aspiration is to implement the planning permission as early as early next year.

And then immediately go through the gateway process where we get the Building Safety Act approvals to then implement and build on site.

So we would like to be probably laying a brick on the site probably within

I'd say 15 months from today, which probably about

nine months after we signed the section 106

Will you be building them in phases or all together?

Most likely all together, but not at the same time

We're in discussions with a local housing association and we will be agreeing that strategy with them.

Do you know if the 24 that you've committed to will be built first?

Most likely in relation, well it depends on the form of the construction and the construction management.

The two schools are forties. You deliver the affordable first and then you're more relying on the oval and her rod for access.

Or you deliver the co -living first because then it allows you then to build out towards the oval.

So in theory both could potentially work and we just need to fine tune that.

And we can also speak to the council on what is going to be the best course of action in relation to the construction process and the implications that can come from that.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, officer, for your presentation.

You mentioned out of 369 letters, 57 has been received,

But in paper, page 29, out of

369, only 27 responses have been received.

25 is in objection and 2 in favour.

That's fine.

But if you consider, out of 369, in

your presentation, 57 responses have been received.

scope for the council within the statutory consultation process to engage more participants.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

I mean, the consultation that we carried out is in line with our published statements of

community involvement, so it's in line with that.

I mean the law only requires councils to notify occupiers of directly adjoining land.

In reality the Tower Hamlets has a long established principle of going beyond the bare minimum

required by regulations.

So I guess in terms of the response rate that perhaps just maybe that's just indicative

of the nature of the area.

it's quite mixed and perhaps there are some people who are notified who perhaps felt that

they didn't need to say anything.

Obviously it's not the volume of objections we receive, it's what the considerations are.

So whether it's one person or whether it's 27 people, we still need to, as a committee

and as officers, take into account what they're saying and give that the appropriate consideration.

Thank you Paul.

Any more questions for any members?

Just to counter Fanta's request about habitable rooms, density, so it's 944 habitable rooms

per hectare.

And is that comparable to other developments in that part of Bethnal Green?

I wouldn't have an answer to hand.

I think we need to be somewhat cautious about it because obviously the old density matrix

in the formal London plan that we always used to report, I think was framed primarily, I

suppose in the context of an appropriate density C3 housing, yeah, whilst obviously this development

is providing the equivalent, yeah, is equivalent in terms of the affordable housing that you

would seek if the scheme was all C3 housing. But obviously as we have very, we've got

communal community spaces, place based standards, we've got very set out standards in terms

of the amenity and ultimately a higher bar if you like in terms of C3 housing. I think

obviously it's not answering your question directly in terms of the density, but the

The policy in terms of co -living is guided and currently under the London plan or our

local plan and there's a supplementary planning document the Mayor of London has produced

in terms of co -living and a set out in the committee report that does provide guidance

in terms of amount of community space, kitchen space, external community space, it also seeks

shared space on each floor and against all those metrics it meets that guidance as well.

I think it's worth drawing to attention the scheme doesn't meet all the child play space provision

but it does meet all the under 11 and from an officer's perspective we think it's of a very high quality

and it's not so often when we bring committee schemes to you where the play space at Naught

Eleven is all meted on site and 93 % of that area meets that direct sunlight on the 21st

of March, the metric as you have said are the BRI guidance. So we do welcome that and

obviously there's a number of parks and they matter in place, Gasworks provides a large

open space when that's come forward so I think that does again provide some context.

Councillor Busti. Thank you just two really quick questions

please. We're relying quite a lot on we're relying quite a lot on the applicants daylight

sunlight expert how do we how do you how does the council assess that how do you

assess that do you have your own internal experts who review that and to

what level of detail not in this instance I say we appointed our own in

our independent daylight sunlight consultants and as Daniel said early we

appointed Bri so if you as I say who published the the authoritative report

and guides us and you as the decision makers and so that's informed, that's formed,

officers have made, we've made our assessment with the benefit of the expert, independent

expert opinion of our independent daylight consultants.

Thank you for confirming that.

So my next question I guess is a bit more about policy and approach and

the I guess the thing I'm struggling with is it's a bit of a

an issue here with what's been built first and how and this development in itself is now another

one of those which is being built before other potential buildings in its area as well and I'm

I'm not sure, and I think I need some guidance on this really, is how much we need to take

that into account as to what has been built there already and how long it's been there

and what the impact is on what's there, but also in terms of this development, it being

built ahead of potentially other developments, how do we kind of consider that?

It's quite an, I don't know if that's too abstract for planning.

Thank you, cancer. I don't think it's an abstract question because it's an important question.

Having said that, I suppose we all know from experience that it's often quite difficult to

secure land in different ownership to also come together for a whole host of very complex reasons.

I think in terms of making a decision, well obviously we've talked a lot about the effects on Empress Works

and I think you should just consider that that is a building, it's there, it's occupied

and consider that in exactly the same way you would consider anything else.

in terms of the relationship to adjoining sites

and what might happen.

Again, very difficult to predict, particularly as

one of them that we talked about this evening

isn't actually in the site allocation,

so we don't know that there's an imperative

to bring it forward.

We're not aware of any pre -application discussions

or any planning applications.

However, what we don't want to do is to,

if permission were to be granted,

to do something that would potentially stifle

development on that site.

and we spoke earlier about whilst the relationship is quite a tight relationship,

we don't believe that this particular development would stifle development there.

There are still opportunities for that site to come forward

and subject to conditions around obscure glazing.

That should help with any intervisibility issues,

which I know the landowner has raised some particular concerns about.

So yes, it is a material consideration, absolutely,

but I think our advice is that this development is capable of going ahead without adversely

affecting future sites. The amenity impacts on the existing sites, that's more one of

your own planning judgement. I just wanted to add briefly, I know this wasn't the focus

of your question, but we've talked quite a lot about the mirror test. I would say have

that in the background, that is there to try and give a flavour of how the impacts are

arising, but ultimately it's the real world impacts that I would say are your primary

concern. The mirror test is there just to give you a flavour. Is it because, for example,

the building is too tall or too big, or is it to do with other factors such as proximity?

But it's not, to my mind, the determining factor. It's just an added tool, if you like,

to help you to make that decision.

I'm in.

Thank you, Chair.

I've heard the concerns about the daylight, the privacy and all the objections and the

building size.

But overall, I think the plan brings big benefits.

24 new social rentied family homes were very needed in Abara.

So for me that is a good, I think that is more good than bad.

So that's one of the reasons why I was called the officer's recommendation to that.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Councillor of Mon.

Thank you. I'm a bit torn to be honest. Like I feel I agree like the social housing is

a big plus. And I think if it wasn't for the social housing, and particularly the family

social housing I think the decision would be really easy but it is it is

much needed however the impact on our residents who are already living in the

area can't be ignored and so I'm keen to hear what other members of the committee

think on that as well.

Thank you Councillor Basterd and Councillor Francis.

Thank you.

Like I said earlier, I've kind of known this site and I'm kind of incredulous that there

hasn't been an application because I don't go around there that often these days.

I really want to see something come forward on this site.

It's a really great location for people to live.

And I'm also, like this is the first time I've looked at an application that's got co -living in it

and having looked at it and having looked at the policy, talked to officers about it as well,

I actually think that there's a lot of positives in that.

I think clearly though the key positive is around the social housing that's proposed to be included within it.

and as I said earlier the different elements within that are especially strong.

I think one of the things that slightly takes away from the affordable housing for me is

that the five bedroom social homes are, I've got two double bedrooms and three single bedrooms

which makes them five bed seven person dwellings and the four beds have got one double bedroom

and three singles I think which makes them four bed five bed spaces and that doesn't

I think necessarily meet the need that I see from my residents.

In fact those people that are on the housing waiting list often aren't able to even bid

for those properties in the first place because the number of bed spaces that they require

is higher even if the bedrooms is the same.

So that's the downside but I think the much bigger downside is about the impact on residents

living within Empress Works.

And I really do understand that there are constraints and there will always be impacts of any development

But I think that this these impacts are excessive. They go too far and have too much of a negative impact

I'm also not really persuaded by

By the manner in which the mirror test has been applied in this instance

I do accept that is to Empress is two metres away

But I don't think that as a driver to then say that that means that there's significant improvements

From this scheme. I'm not really persuaded by that. So overall I think that I'm that this is too much

So I'm going to vote to say to refuse this application

Thank You councillor Francis any members

Thank you

Yes, having considered all the factors, I remember 2017 -2018, myself and Councillor Francis was on committee

and we went to that actual site and it was before the containers actually got in.

So it's a site that is called out to be developed and I think it's a site that over the years has had some impact

but I think this co -living stroke social housing will be something,

a new concept for Tower Hamlets I think.

And in terms of the social housing aspect,

we see residents every day, four bedroom, five bedroom bed space

is one of the key factors.

And I know 24 isn't a huge amount,

but it is a huge amount for many families

who have been on the waiting list for maybe 17, 10 years, 12 years, 8 years and above.

And I believe that this development will eliminate some families, 24 families,

to come into a housing that they have been waiting for and deserve for so long.

So I believe I will be voting for the recommendation of the officers this evening.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ahmed.

I understand the concern expressed by the residents living in Amperswold about daylight

sunlight issues. But at the same time, question arise whether

the landlord or the developer would have been more considerate or more

thoughtful for siting in terms of living adequate space, distance, thinking of the

and the

site next to it one day will need

a decision to be used.

So I know members struggled, but on the

balance of benefit

and the I think this development will

comfort some of the 24 families have been waiting long years and years to be rehoused

and relieve them from their overcrowding situation suffering from years. So I would recommend,

I would go for the recommended officers. Thank you.

I would now like Paul and Astrid Pattel, Senior Leader, to share their final advice before

we move to vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair.

I will be fairly brief because the Committee has given this application lots of consideration.

I'm very grateful to all members for that.

I think, I mean what I would say, this is somewhat unique sort of proposal.

We have had a couple of co -living developments in Tarraghambles, but this is quite unusual

in the sense that it's proposing two blocks where it has conventional affordable housing

alongside the co -living rather than the London plan approach which is a commuted sum.

So I think from that point of view it's arguably a better outcome in terms of meeting housing

And I think that's something that does go in favour of the balance of the public benefits

of the scheme.

And there are others including the affordable workspace and just the regeneration of a brownfield

site in an area that members have talked about needing some uplift and some regeneration.

There's no doubt about it, there are challenges because of the site constraints and what you

can achieve on the site and the relationship to neighbours.

But I would just sort of stress, and I think this was alluded to during the presentation,

that the scheme has gone through quite a number of iterations and reviews through pre -application

discussions and also the Council's independent quality review panel to try and get to a point

where the massing is the best it can be and the impacts are the least adverse that they

can be, notwithstanding that there are impacts.

So I think really it is a balance, but we feel that the right thing to do is to recommend

approval and we await your decision.

Thank you.

Thank you Paul.

Thank you Chair.

I don't think there were any points of planning law that arose, so I've got nothing to add

unless anybody had any comments for me.

Thank you, Astrid.

Can I see all those in favour of the application, please?

Can I see all those against?

Are there any abstention?

Paul, could you please confirm the committee decision?

Thank you, Chair.

So of the committee members here this evening,

four have voted in favour.

There's been one against and one abstention.

So on a majority vote, the recommendation

to grant time permission subject to conditions

and obligations is supported by the committee

and permission is granted.

Just as a point of clarification,

perhaps if I could confirm with the members

who have voted to grant time permission

that you are agreeable to the additional condition around the obscure glazing that we mentioned

in the update report.

Thank you.

Are you in the condition?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chad.

Thank you.

Thank you, members, for your contribution.

I consider this application, you took your time to balance, to see the application, to scrutinise the application.

So with your contribution, we have concluded this meeting.

This meeting for tonight, the next meeting will take place on Thursday 16th of October

2025.

Thank you.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Development Committee - Thursday 11 September 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Development CommitteeThursday, 11th September 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Development Committee
Thursday, 11th September 2025 at 6:30pm