Strategic Development Committee - Thursday 31 July 2025, 6:30pm

Strategic Development Committee
Thursday, 31st July 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.

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

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 everyone and good evening.

Good evening everyone.

Good evening and welcome to the Strategic Development Committee meeting.

My name is Councillor Amin Rahman and I will be chairing this meeting.

This meeting is held in person.

Committee members and key participants.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

I hope this is better.

Is this better?

The mic's not working?

The mic's not on yet.

Testing, testing, one, two.

Can you guys hear me now?

Is that alright?

Is that better?

Can you hear me now? Is that better?

Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello.

Yeah it's working.

Is that better?

I can't shout any louder than this but is this better?

No? Stop coming out with the speakers.

This one works.

Yeah it's working.

I can't use his mic.

Hi. Yep.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

I hope if everyone in the gallery remains quiet, maybe you could hear me a bit better.

Is that okay?

Thank you.

So I'll start again.

Good evening and welcome to Strategic Development Committee meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good evening and welcome to the Strategic Development Committee.

My name is Councillor Amin Rahman and I will be chairing this meeting.

This meeting is held in person.

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

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

Other persons may be also attending remotely.

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

committee officers that should technical difficulties prevent the full participation in the meeting,

it may proceed in the absence if I feel it is necessary.

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

to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing this meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.

Participants must address the meeting through myself, the chair.

If you are participating online and you are experiencing any technical difficulties, you

contact the democratic service officers as soon as possible via email.

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

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

Please do not use the meeting chat facility.

Any information added to the chat facility will be disregarded.

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

service officers as soon as possible.

I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves.

Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have given in the

agenda items and the nature of the interest?

Let me start first.

I have been receiving emails and text messages, calls, but I have not responded to any emails,

any text messages, any calls.

And yes, obviously we all come in with open mind and I was very open minded.

Thank you.

I'll start from my right.

Thank you, chair.

Councillor Saeed Ahmed, cabinet member for resources, Canary Wharf Councillor.

I've also received messages and emails.

I haven't responded to any.

And sit here with an open mind.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Councillor Jaye, from Lancebury Wood.

I have received emails, mainly emails and messages as well.

and I haven't responded here to email or messages

and I'll come here and open my notes as well.

Good evening, Chair, everyone.

This is Councillor Iqbal Hussain for Lainsbury Wood,

also the Chair of the Development Committee.

I have no interest to declare, nothing to declare.

And I have received email

but haven't responded to any of those, thank you.

Thank you chair.

Good evening.

My name is Councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudhury, Popular Award.

I have also received some email and text message but I have not responded and I am hearing

open minded.

Thank you.

Councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudhury, Popular Award.

I have received some email and text message but I have not responded and I am hearing

open minded.

Hi, everyone in the gallery.

You guys must remain quiet, please.

If you can't hear any of these officers or any of the

councillors, please put your hands up. We'll know what the

reasons are. We're trying our best. The speakers are on loud

on max. We are speaking very loudly and we have never had

this issue.

However, we are trying our very best.

Okay, I'm counsellor Lilu Ahmed from Myland Ward.

Counsellor Lilu Ahmed from Myland Ward.

Nothing to declare.

I hope everyone can hear me.

Council Ashuba Hussein, Bromley South.

The declaration I have to make is I have a business in the neighbouring ward, which is

about ten minutes away from the site.

And also there was an event which took place at the site and I was a sponsor of the British

Bangladesh Sports Awards.

And I'm also here on Open Mind.

It's Councillor Asma Bega, Labour from Bow West Ward.

Firstly I would like to welcome the community for attending STC.

I have received several emails and I have read them.

I've not responded to any.

And I don't have any DPIs.

I'm here with an open mind.

Thank you very much.

My declarations are that I am a business

owner which is off brick lane in the neighbouring ward which is

ten minutes away. At the same time there was an event which

took place called the Bangladeshi sports awards and I

was a sponsor of the event and I attended that event.

This is Councillor Kabir -Sain.

I have some interest to declare, if I may.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm the ward Councillor of the area.

And I have signed the petition for safe bricklaying.

This is one of the conflicts.

I have signed the petition to save my residents.

We need more housing in the area.

when more housing development in the area and I'm with my people.

Councillor, we're here to ask for your interest.

I have been the subject of the coordinated smear campaign

involving false and defamatory allegations, which I strongly deny and reject.

I wish this to be formally noted on the public record.

Please, please, this is a meeting of the council in public, not a public meeting.

Can we please have silence whilst Councillor Hussain is explaining his interests.

We do not wish to go this far.

There is the ability to clear the chamber.

We do not want to do that.

But if behaviour like this continues, we may well have no option.

It's in your interest to listen to people.

Please don't heckle.

Please treat people with respect as we will treat you with respect and listen to what

you have to say and ask questions of that and reach a decision.

We can only do that with your patience and with your support in the gallery.

I appreciate there may be some difficulty here and we're doing our best in that respect

and the chairs asked you to raise your hand if there is a difficulty.

But hair clean shouting will not achieve anything tonight.

Please we want this meeting conducted with the quorum not only from councillors but also

from you in the public gallery.

We want to serve as residents as best we can.

Please allow us to do that without the barrack in.

Thank you.

I'm not well.

The doctor suggested me to take some rest because my nose is bleeding.

I came here for my residence.

Let me begin by saying this clearly.

I am a listening Councillor.

I always listen to my constituents.

Your voice, your concern, your lived experience, shape everything I do.

I take my role seriously and I am committed to make sure that your heart and your...

Councillor Hussain, if I may, this isn't a political speech, you're declaring interests

and the position.

Please, if you could get to the point.

I think Chairs asked me to ask.

Just to be clear, I have actively participated in consultation alongside Councillor Sulek

Ahmed and many of our residents.

One of the residents I have worked closely with, Diba Malik, who has been vocal and dedicated

to addressing local issues.

We have raised our voices on the matters that truly matter to our people.

One of the most pressing issues in this serve over crowding many residents face in our area.

Not only that, but our too many buildings are affected by their most...

Councillor HUANG.

I'm sorry to interrupt again.

Can you get to the point?

Is there an interest?

do you have any prejudicial interests, predetermination, predispositions, et cetera, that this committee

ought to be aware of?

Because I have signed the petition to save Bricklin, and some people, they complained

against me that you are predetermined for the Save Bricklin campaign, and that's why

If I am biassed for the people of Star Hamlet, for people of Brick Lane, for people of Spital

Field, then I'm biassed for the people.

And I respect that.

Only conflict I have, I don't know, someone complained against me that I've signed the

petition and it's a conflict, but I say to Jonathan is here, he can just justify, you

can testify with him.

I said to Jonathan, is there any conflict?

He said no, and he took off my name from the petition.

And again I'm saying if this is the case, then I'm biassed.

I'm supporting my residents.

I'm supporting say Bricklin.

Thank you.

I would just confirm for the record that Councillor Hussain, I am Paul Bakkin, Head of Development

Manager, has spoken about the matter before.

The petition that was signed contained details of the two planning, the four planning applications

before us tonight.

It was headed up, I object, to the proposed development.

Council Hussain has done the proper thing because that creates the optic of predetermination

of bias in respect of leaning one way or the other in respect to the application.

He's done the entirely the proper thing by declaring that interest and having to leave

the meeting.

that, so I will ask the committee members

. Guys, please.

Thank you, Ian, for explaining what has happened.

If anyone has signed any petitions

or anything, please respectfully let us

know if you have been involved in anything like that.

any petitions or anything regarding say Brick Lane or the applications. I'll ask

from Councillor Said. Thank you chair no I haven't signed any petitions or

anything like that thank you. Thank you chair no I won't sign any petition or anything like that.

Chair thank you I haven't signed any petition thank you. Thank you chair I haven't signed anything.

I have not signed any petitions.

Back to business.

Now to apologies.

Justina, have we received any apologies for absence?

No, Chair.

All Councillors are present and correct.

The next item is agenda item 2.

Can we all approve the meetings from 8 July 2025 meetings?

Agenda item 3, the recommendation and procedure for hiring, objection and meeting guidance.

I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development management planning and building control to

present the guidance.

Thank you, Paul.

Thank you, chair.

Hopefully everybody can hear me.

Thank you.

Good evening, chair, good evening members, members of the public and officers who are

joining the meeting this evening.

So this item on the agenda sets out the standing orders 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 and recommendations and procedure for public speaking

will go in the following order.

I will introduce the application with a brief description and a summary of the recommendation.

Officers will present the report and then we'll hear from those who are registered to

speak in objection and any Councillors who are registered to speak.

We would normally also hear from any supporters or the applicant, but I understand Justine

and none are registered this evening.

Then the Committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers and will consider the officer's

recommendation including any further questions and debate.

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

to the Chamber.

If the committee proposed changes to aspects of the officer recommendation, for example

to add, delete or amend planning conditions or reasons for refusal, the task of formalising

those changes is delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control and in the

event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation, they must state their

planning reasons, propose and agree an alternative course of action.

The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the

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

and Building Control.

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

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

for further report dealing with those matters.

Chair, if I may, the applications on the agenda this evening have a particular procedural

context which I think all the members are aware of.

So I just thought it might be helpful just to clarify that for everybody.

So all the applications on the agenda this evening are now subject to appeals against

non -determination.

What that means is the Council won't make the planning decision.

That will be made by a planning inspector once they've held a public inquiry in October

and heard all the evidence and listened to the arguments.

The reason we're here this evening is the Committee has a role given that these applications

would normally have come to the Committee.

So the Committee has a role in helping officers determine the stance that should be taken

at the public inquiry in October.

The reason we've called this particular meeting on this particular date, if you have a look

at the screen, then we are working to a very strict and tight timetable which is imposed

on the council and on the appellant by the planning inspectorate.

So if you can see there, we need to agree the council's statement of case literally

in a matter of weeks on the 16th of August.

And then the inquiry will open on the 14th of October and is scheduled to sit for around

12 days.

So I just thought, Chair, that would be helpful in setting the scene.

Otherwise, the committee will consider the applications in exactly the same way that

they would do normally with material planning considerations and consideration against the

development plan policies.

Thank you.

Now we are moving on to Agenda 4.

We have no deferred item to consider.

Agenda 5, the planning application for decision.

We have three applications to consider this evening.

I will ask a question.

Sorry, Paul.

Just for a little bit more clarity, so it doesn't matter what decision we make here

today, given the fact that it's going to the planning expector anyway.

So what decision we make here, what does that mean for us as a panel?

Thank you, Councillor, if I may, I will respond to that.

So it does matter, but in a slightly different way in the sense that this is not the final

decision on the application.

What we're asking the committee to do is to confirm how the council should approach the

public inquiry.

So in essence, what is our case for the inspector?

Are we telling the inspector on each individual site, are we saying that the council's view

is had it had the opportunity to determine the applications it would have granted?

Or had it had the opportunity to determine applications it would have refused and the

reasons for refusal.

So it is still a very important consideration for us because we need to take your view into

account in then conducting the appeal on behalf of the Council.

So given that we've got a lot of the community that are present here for this committee,

How do they participate going further with this agenda item?

So we have allocated public speaking rights in the same way that we would do with a decision

making committee.

So that you can hear what people have to say about the various specific issues on each

application.

Also all the responses that the Council has received in respect to the applications have

been forwarded to the planning inspectors so they are aware of what people have said

at the application stage.

There are also provisions if people wish to ask to be heard in front of the planning inspector

at the inquiry should they wish to do so.

And there's a separate arrangement for that.

Thank you.

Agenda item 5, the planning application for decision, we have three applications to consider

this evening.

I would like to remind officers, councillors and members of the public registered to speak

that all statements and questions should pattern to application they are speaking on and should

be concise as we have several applications to consider tonight.

Agenda item 5 .1 is a planning application PA24 forward slash 01450 at land at the corner

of Grey Eagle Street and Kelvin Street E1.

And now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

So as the Chair has said, this is a planning application affecting land at the corner of

Grey Eagle Street and Kelvin Street.

The application is for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction

of a new building comprising 5200 square metres of floor space to provide a data centre, reaching

a maximum height of approximately 29 metres.

And the application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment.

This application, Chair, is recommend is had you had the opportunity to determine the application,

officers would recommend that the application would have been refused for reasons set out

in the report.

Just if I may, there is an update report that deals with some matters that have come up

since the agenda was published.

So on this particular application we did receive an additional representation on behalf of

residents who lived nearby to the site.

And that was raising some issues concerning daylight and sunlight analysis carried out

by the applicants and also noise impacts from the proposed data centre.

Officers are satisfied that the daylight and sunlight impacts have been properly assessed

as set out in the report.

The noise issues we have asked for some advice from our environmental health colleagues who

again, I'll satisfy that the way that the application addresses noise impacts is satisfactory.

However, depending on the determination this evening, should those residents still wish

to raise those matters, they can, of course, raise those at the public inquiry through

written submissions or asking to be heard.

So I think that's all I have to say.

Sorry, Chair, just one more thing.

We have received some additional representations including an updated petition which now has

2 ,313 signatories and those are actually across all of the applications that you're considering

this evening and also additional representation from Spitalfields Trust setting out an alternative

master plan for the area.

That alternative master plan isn't the subject of a planning application so it has no formal

status and it's simply their articulation of an alternative development.

However, it's not something that your committee is allowed to take into account in its considerations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

I will now invite Kevin, planning case officer, to present the application.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, Chair, members of the committee.

This presentation should take approximately 10 minutes.

I'll begin first by providing an overview of the development site including photographs of the existing site and the surrounding context.

The application site is located at the corner of Grey Eagle Street and Calvin Street.

This is Grey Eagle Street here and this is Calvin Street.

It's within the Brook Lane and Fournier Street conservation area just to help orientate members and provide some site context.

Next, the plan on your screen also highlights the other application sites being considered separately by the committee this evening.

Namely, Elly Shard, which is here, adjacent to the application sites.

And the site referred to as Truman East, which is in two parts.

The northern part located here and the southern part here.

Here is just a bird's eye view showing the application site and the surrounding context.

The application site is located here on the screen where my pointer is.

It is currently occupied by a derelict former brewery building.

It has been vacant for approximately 30 years.

The structure is roofless, overgrown with vegetation and is partially collapsed.

The site is adjacent to residential buildings.

You've got Alpha Court here to the north and 12 -14 Calvin Street.

There's two existing data centres here and here.

There's an existing bridge between the application site and the first data centre here.

The existing site is dominated by blank frontages and suffers from poor natural surveillance

and anti -social behaviour along Grey Eagle Street.

This is an existing view looking north on Grey Eagle Street.

The application site is this building here.

As you can see there's a blank frontage and a proactivation on the street frontage.

And here are two more views.

So on the left is a view down Grey Eagle Street with the existing building and the bridge

across, just shown here, and that's the existing building on the right.

And then the photograph on the right is on Calvin Street, you can see the existing bridge

and the side of the application building here, and that's the neighbouring building across

the road which you can see also presents quite a blank frontage.

This final view is looking at the front elevation of the site along Great Eagle Street, and

That gives you a view of the whole building.

In terms of site designations, the site is within the Brick Lane Conservation Area and also within the Tarr Almonds Activity Area and the City Fringe Opportunity Area.

The Activity Area and Opportunity Area promote active ground floor uses and mixed use developments that would enhance street fatality and support employment growth and contribute to a vibrant and safe public realm.

In terms of planning history, as mentioned previously the site has been derelict for some time, with the last active use being B8 storage for the brewery.

The current proposals are part of the wider redevelopment of the Truman Estate and are being considered separately by the other applications tonight.

I just thought I would put in this slide just to give a short explanation of what a data

centre is.

A data centre is a secure facility for storing and managing digital data.

It includes servers, cooling systems, backup generators and is usually quite high security

but with minimal on -site staff.

While they are essential for digital infrastructure, data centres often have quite blank and accurate

and active frontages and don't contribute to street life or local vibrancy.

This could be a drawback in urban areas such as this where active ground floor uses are encouraged.

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing derelict building and construction of a 5000 square metre data centre.

The building will be approximately 29 metres tall

with a brick base and a ribbed metal upper floor set back.

You'll see from the screen here.

Design features include the step back upper levels with roof planting,

full windows along Calvin Street and blank frontages along both elevations,

with the exception of a security office and loading bay.

So this illustrated view shows the corner of the building, Calvin Street and Grey Eagle Street.

This is a view of the proposed data centre shown on the left hand side.

You will be able to see the scale of the building from this view and the blank front leads that it will present along Great Eagle Street.

In terms of public consultation, the proposal generated a number of responses with the majority

of responses expressing concerns about the proposal.

The key issues raised include the building's compatibility with surrounding residential

context, environmental impacts and the perceived limited contribution to local economy.

The key issues for consideration are the land use, design and conservation and biodiversity.

With regards to land use, the proposed data centre use is an acceptable use in principle as it aligns with national and regional policies supporting digital infrastructure and industrial uses.

However the scheme offers limited employment and community benefits and its land use potential may be better realised through a more mixed use development that contributes more meaningfully to the local area.

In terms of design, the proposed building design has been shaped by the operational needs of the data centre.

It is resulting in a tall, largely windowless structure with minimal street level activity.

This approach conflicts with local planning policies that emphasise active frontages and

high quality public realm.

I think it is also important to point members towards London Plan Policy D3.

D3 emphasises a design led approach that optimises site capacity while enhancing public realm

and responding to local character.

Officers conclusions as set out in the Officers Report

are that this proposal does not meet these expectations.

Its scale and inactive frontages

don't support a safe or vibrant street environment.

The design is shaped by the operational needs

rather than the site's urban context

or the needs of the community

and therefore it does not represent that design led approach.

From a heritage perspective, the site lies within a sensitive conservation area known for its fine grain historic character.

The proposed scale amassing along with the lack of architectural articulation at street level are also considered harmful to the area's character.

While the harm is assessed as less than substantial in the officer's report, it is not considered justified by the limited public benefits offered by the scheme.

Another issue raised by officers is in relation to biodiversity.

The proposal includes some biodiversity and greening measures such as rooftop planting but falls short in key areas.

The Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment suggests a 12 % improvement, but this figure was not agreed with the Council's environmental consultants and it is unclear whether the scheme would meet the statutory 10 % requirement.

Overall the biodiversity strategy is constrained by the building's use and design and further clarification would be needed to confirm full compliance with these policies and legal requirements.

Therefore this issue has been included as a recommended reason for refusal by officers.

Just to summarise the recommendations.

Officers conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal, particularly in terms of the design, time -scape and heritage, outweigh the modest public benefits derived from the development.

The proposal is flawed in its design response to the urban context and it fails to deliver active frontages and contribute to public safety, despite in principle acceptance of the land use.

The proposed data centre's design requirements, the blank facades and the large scale make it inherently unsuitable for this location.

Therefore, officer's recommendation is that committee resolves to inform the planning

inspector that if it were in a position to determine the planning application, the council

would have refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Thanks.

I will now be calling up objectors.

When I call out the names, please, if you could come up here and give your views.

The first objector I will be inviting is Alec Forshaw from Spietafil Trust to address the

committee in objection to the application you have up to three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I speak on behalf of the Spitalfields Trust.

My comments apply to this and the other two applications which were submitted concurrently

as part of an overall scheme by the applicant.

The proposals overall cover a large area, once occupied by houses and a small brewery

which expanded, demolished the houses and incorporated once public streets into its

estate.

After the brewery closed, its land and buildings were purchased cheaply by the applicant.

The brewery buildings were adapted at modest cost for start -up businesses and a tourist market.

Much of the site, once loading yards and parking, remains open or covered with sheds,

or left derelict like the site of the Great Eagle Street.

The proposals are for something very different.

Whatever the applicant says, this will not be more of the same.

New buildings are expensive,

will require high rents. The scheme is almost entirely commercial.

A data centre at Grayfield Street

elsewhere offices on top of market shops and restaurants on the ground floor.

Just six social housing units are provided in one block.

Setting aside the lack of housing, there are sound planning reasons to refuse this and the other applications against existing policies.

The bulk massing and design of all three applications harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings,

harm which is not outweighed by public benefits.

The proposals result in a gated development without 24 -7 public access.

The proposals provide inadequate public realm, green space or community facilities.

Tower Hamlets has a housing crisis and has identified the brewery, including this site,

as a place where substantial amounts of social housing could and should be built,

as set out in its site allocation for Brick Lane in the draught local plan.

The Trust strongly supports this vision.

It's even produced a model to show what it might look like.

There would be generous public open space and community facilities.

Original roads would be reinstated as public streets again.

Such a vision can only be achieved if the current applications are refused.

Thank you.

I now invite Jonathan Morbily to address the committee in objection to the application.

You also have three minutes.

I live at the top of Brick Lane and I'm a member of Save Brick Lane.

We've campaigned for years against inappropriate development in the area, focusing closely

on the impact of huge upcoming developments such as the Bishopsgate goods yard and Truman

Brewery sites. Here is a petition objecting to the proposal before you today. We now have

over 2 ,600 signatures and over 750 petitioners have also written in contributing specific

objections of their own. In 2021 Truman came forward with their plan for a shopping mall

along Woodseer Street. We voiced concerns about harm to the conservation area, to the character

of the townscape around Brick Lane and the detrimental effect on surrounding residents

and businesses. Over 7 ,000 objected. We called for a community -led master plan as it was clear

that this was Truman's first step in a wide -ranging development proposal across the entire brewery

estate. Our calls were heeded by the council who consulted at length delivering a master plan SPD

which was adopted last September.

A detailed site allocation is now in the draught local plan.

The SPD and local plan call for a housing -led scheme across the brewery site.

Truman Estates have since forced the Council to withdraw the Master Plan through legal challenge,

and have come forward with today's proposals of an office -led plan with a data centre,

which runs counter to the Council's vision.

These hostile actions show starkly how the developer will pursue self -interest regardless of the needs of the community.

They haven't even, as far as I know, they haven't even bothered to turn up today, revealing their utter content for local democracy.

The emerging local plan calls for a mixed -use residential scheme, with the yield of 95 homes on the sites to the west of Brick Lane, which includes the area covered by this proposal.

But today we are offered a large tin box with no windows, few employees, no active frontages,

a deadening effect on an already abandoned street and no homes at all.

Meagre public benefits of just 20 employees do nothing to offset the lost opportunity

and harm to this conservation area of such an overbearing and lifeless structure.

Nothing here will mitigate the well -known ASB issues on Great Eagle Street.

There are no reasons to approve this scheme.

What weight can a draught local plan carry in decision making?

The National Planning Policy Framework states that decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in draught plans according to their stage of preparation,

their level of agreement and their degree of consistency with national policy.

I can't find any actual guidelines on the Tower Hamlets website, but I have found guidance from Ealing Council,

which states that an emerging local plan at Regulation 19 stage should be afforded substantial weight.

The draught local plan is completing a second Reg 19 consultation tomorrow.

With regard to the site allocation for Brick Lane, there don't seem to be any unresolved objections.

Section 7 .13 of the Officer's Report here states that no material weight can be attributed to the draught local plan.

We ask that you, as members, question that opinion.

Given that the matter is going to the planning inspector, it is ultimately there that a matter of weight should be decided.

As local councillors, you should heed local opinion, apply significant weight to the draught local plan,

and for this reason reject both this application and the other applications before you tonight.

Thank you.

Just to let both the objectors know, there will be some questions councillors might want

to ask you.

So if you would like to come back here, both of you guys.

So just to let you know how it works, every time you ask a question, you press the button,

speak and switch the mic off.

Is that okay?

I have been informed that the applicant has not made a request to speak in support of

the application.

Now do members have questions for officers or objectors?

Councillor Iqbal Singh.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, petitioner.

Thank you for bringing this pressing issue to your attention this evening.

I just wanted to ask how do you feel about the consultation, the depth of consultation

took place?

How do you respond to that?

Are you happy with the consultation, the way the consultation took place?

Thank you.

So are you referring to the level of consultation by the Council or by the developers?

Both the Council and applicants.

Thank you.

the developer to order the council an applicant.

The usual way this works is from the developer's point of view, they are required to do a consultation

before submitting an application. They are what I call vanity consultations. We certainly

have no confidence at all that any of our views are taken into account by the developer

and there is no way to order that process. We have got photographs of post -it notes that

we wrote on their boards during those consultations.

And we're not, we're not, we don't believe any of that,

any of our feedback was taken into account at all.

So no, we're not really happy with that.

As regards the council's consultation,

we're not, so when it came to the master plan

and the local plan, that was a very good process.

And we actively did our best

to help get the community involved.

Now, when it comes to actual planning applications,

the consultation process as put out by the council

is very, very poor.

So, for example, a few years ago the rule was that anyone living within a 20 metre distance

from the perimeter of a site would get a letter to be consulted on.

A few years ago that was reduced from 20 metres to 10 metres, citing the cost of postage.

I mean that is an insult to the local community.

The letters that go out are in highly technical planning speak that no local resident should

expected to understand. We've seen the letters that went out to residents of Magoshen House.

They're incomprehensible. I couldn't make sense of them. So there's a lot of work to

be done on the part of the Council in the future to improve on that process. We've done

what we can to get the message out there and I think we've done a fairly good job. We can

always do better, but we are where we are.

Thank you. Councillor Said, Ahmad.

Thank you, chair.

My question really is around the site itself, because it's clear from the residents we have

today and the objectors that it's quite precious where it is to give up this precious land

to a data centre.

But I want to understand from the objectors, what precedence do you think it would set

by having a data centre in a place like where it is proposed?

Or do you think there's an alternative option to take a site rather than in a residential

area like that?

I think you have to be very careful about where you put data centres for all sorts of

reasons.

They're pretty antisocial buildings, as you can see.

They're horrible to look at.

They don't give anything back to the public.

They don't employ many people.

They use huge amounts of water, huge amounts of electricity, give off a massive amount

of heat.

Some huge data centres have been approved on grey land site in green belts recently,

out in Hertfordshire and whatever.

That's probably the best place to put them, rather than in the middle of the inner city.

Councillor Chaudry.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question to the officers. There is a data centre nearby proposed

development. Was any consideration given to the existing data centre as a townscape of

the context, or was this proposal assessed entirely on its own?

So I think in terms of the land use, I think in terms of the context, each development

takes consideration of the surrounding context.

I think it was noted that there is data centres in the neighbouring area.

I don't think that would be a refusal reason per se, but I think we were concerned that

The blank frontages and the hostile environment that it would create would be exacerbated

by an additional data centre given that there is already a neighbouring data centre that

presents a blank frontage onto the street.

So yes, I think in terms of the character and the blank frontages, it was a consideration

that there is neighbouring data centres.

I wanted to ask Jonathan, you mentioned the master plan, SBD.

You mentioned the master plan.

I wanted to know why it was removed.

My understanding, it was adopted in September.

By December we'd heard that it was forced to be withdrawn by the council.

The developer, Truman Brewery, threatened a judicial review.

This is what I've been told, is that the council got independent advice from two KCs

who informed them that they would not win the case in court.

The reason given by the Truman Brewery is that it was too specific

and it had the level of detail that it would be appropriate for a local plan that goes out for examination

but it hadn't gone out for examination.

That was the reason to withdraw it.

I mean, luckily, the content of the master plan is in the upcoming local plan.

In fact, in more detail.

The problem is the time scale of that is further back.

And the Truman Brewery, in fact, by calling, by preempting this meeting

and calling for an appeal before this meeting could take place,

I think they're gaining the system because by doing that,

They managed to get a public inquiry date for the autumn.

If they had waited for the council to make a proper decision and had then appealed, they

wouldn't be seeing any inquiry till the spring, where the local plan would be at a much further

state on the path of adoption.

Before you come back, do you want to come in?

Yes, just to confirm, the master plan was adopted by council.

Council, it was challenged by the brewery pretty much on the grounds outlined by the

objectors.

The advice was very strong that it is too specific and contains too much detail for

a master plan.

The Council was left with no option but to concede and withdraw the plan.

Otherwise we would have been faced with a High Court case that we would have lost at

the cost of many thousands of pounds.

Just to add to that, it's my belief that if the Master Plan had been in place it would

have been a very, very strong tool at this meeting to reject the application.

And I didn't quite catch your name. Alex. Mr Alec, I wanted to ask, you said you were

me how did you feel that you were consulted or your organisation was consulted?

Yes we were consulted and we put in very full objections to all the applications, a full

appraisal of the scheme which was submitted to the planning department. So yes we have

been engaged very much with the Save Brook Lane campaign.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

You can take a seat now.

Would members like to share their thoughts or debates on the application?

Thank you, chair.

So I think from what we have heard, and especially with the officer recommendations, I think

it's clear that it is more residential that we want.

It is the strategy of the council that we want more homes.

We have housing crisis.

We have a lot of people on our waiting list.

And I think in the heart of Spitalfields, where it is in Brick Lane, there is a dire

need for more houses in that area.

We have seen the number of objectives we have and the number of residents who have raised

and come in person to show the support in the officer's recommendation.

I think I am in line with that, Chair, and I believe this is something that we can agree

with the officer recommendation, go with the refusal and hopefully come with a better plan

going forward for more residential homes in that area.

Thank you.

Thank you chair.

I'm going to echo with my colleague Councillor Siedemann.

As the officer's report, it says this development actually offers limited opportunity and benefit

to the local employment plus already there is a data centre nearby.

I am in line with the official recommendation as well.

Thank you, chair.

So a data centre in the pro -pensaplication and non -industrial location would pose potential

health and safety risk to the local community and also with the comments by the British

heritage, the proposal in the line in the planning application would be substantially

harmful to the significance of the conservation area.

So I'm in line with the recommendation to refuse the application.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

We need data centre and everything but not at the cost of our affordable housing.

We need more affordable housing.

Thank you.

Councillor Aspa.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the objectors Jonathan and Alec for coming and objecting

to this development.

I think it would have been great to have seen the master plan, is the first I've heard of

it here.

It would have been great to come and actually see the master plan before it was ditched

before this came to this committee.

I think I echo with what colleagues have already said around officers' recommendation for refusal.

Development should enhance the community and the area and this seems to be doing totally

the opposite.

It's not building a community and it's not supporting the community and therefore I think

I am minded to support the officers' recommendations.

I share the same view as everyone else.

Councillor Lilie.

I am same on this.

I said I'm in line with whatever my colleagues have said.

Same for me as well.

Thank you.

It comes to me now.

I will be supporting the officer's recommendation to refuse this application as well.

For me, the design was wrong for this area.

The building was too tall, too bulky and outside walls were too plain.

It doesn't fit the character of the street or the conversational area.

The public is clearly against it.

We received over hundreds of objections, letters and petitions, more than 500 names.

People are worried about how this will change the area.

I agree with them.

There is no real local benefit.

It's a data centre.

It may create some jobs, but they are not likely to be local jobs for local people.

It doesn't give anything back to the community.

No affordable space.

No public access.

Nothing.

For all those reasons, I believe this is a wrong kind of development in a wrong place.

So I will vote to refuse this application as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Now before we move to the vote, I would like to ask Paul and Ian

to share final advice before we move to the vote.

Thank you, chair, thank you members for your consideration

and the contributions from those who are objecting.

economy and the modern way of life in that sense.

That doesn't mean that other planning considerations are material to where they should be located.

And I think as you've heard and you've read in the officer report, this is in the heart

of an activity area.

It's right adjacent to Brit Lane town centre.

If this site came forward as a data centre, then it wouldn't contribute anything in terms

of vitality and viability of the town centre.

the job creation is very, very limited and also the design and the scale and the bulk

would harm the conservation area.

So with that in mind, we have considered public benefits as we always would do when there

are heritage harms.

We haven't identified public benefits that would outweigh those harms and for that reason

we have recommended that had we been able to make a decision, we would have refused

planning permission and we've set out reasons in the report that we believe would be defendable

at the appeal.

Chair, if I can just touch very briefly on the comments made about land uses.

So you've heard a little bit from Ian in terms of what happened with the proposed supplementary

planning document, the master plan.

Unfortunately that has now been quashed, so it isn't a consideration.

But the work that went into that has been carried forward into the council's draught local

plan.

The issue is how much weight can be placed on that

and the advice that we've been given by Council

is only limited weight can be placed

on the draught local plan at this point in time.

The reason behind that is because the site allocation

in there for this part of Brook Lane and this area

and Pedley Street as well is still subject

to outstanding objections.

So they would need to be dealt with

through an examination in public.

Mr. Mobley actually summarised quite well the difference in the time scale.

So that is unlikely to happen until the new year.

So as we sit here now, our advice is that only limited weight can be placed on the draught

local plan.

But that's just to give you a wider context, Chair.

Thank you.

»» Chair, yes, Paul has effectively summed everything up.

One thing I would remind the committee to do, you are dealing with three applications

tonight on Brick Lane and one listed building consent application. Some of the representations

made to you tonight spoke on the lines of I am saying this in respect to this application

and the other two. I would urge you to philtre through the comments made by the objectors

and lift what was relevant from what they said and apply it to this application only.

It may be other things were said which apply to other applications. You should ignore that

for the purposes of these applications.

Additionally, the comments Paul has made about land use,

I would back those up.

You are determining the application in front of you

for a data centre, so whilst I appreciate,

and whilst we all fully understand,

around this table in this room,

the need for housing, you are not looking

at that application.

Hence, I would back Paul in saying you have reasons

which we believe are defendable at inquiry.

I urge you to adopt those should you vote

for refusal.

Now moving on to the vote, can I see all those in support of recommendation 1 and 2 detailed

in the report?

Recommendation 1 and 2 is voting for refusal.

That's unanimous.

Paul, can you please confirm committee decision, please?

»» Thank you, Chair.

So the Committee, just for clarification, the Committee has voted unanimously to adopt

the officer recommendation that had we had the opportunity to make a formal decision,

we would have refused planning permission for the reasons set out in Item 5 .A in the

agenda.

Those will form the basis of the Council's case at the forthcoming public inquiry.

Thank you, Chair.

All right.

Now thank you.

Thank you, guys, everyone in the gallery.

We now move on to the second item, 5 .2, which is PA forward slash 24 forward slash 01431

at land boundary by grey eagle street and Derrywalk, Ellie's yard, grey eagle street,

London E1, Ellie's yard.

Mr Paul Beckenham, will you introduce the application for consideration?

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

So as the chair said, this is a planning application affecting a site that's described as land

bounded by Grey Eagle Street and Dre Walk,

known as, I think it's pronounced Eli's Yard.

And this is for construction of a part four,

part five and part six storey building.

Maximum height 29 metres to provide market space,

a ground floor and 4 ,500 square metres of office space

on the upper floors, along with the creation

of new landscaping and a pedestrian link.

This is also accompanied by an environmental impact

assessment and the recommendation, chair, to your committee this evening is that had

you had the opportunity, officers would recommend that planning permission is granted subject

to planning conditions and planning obligations to be secured in a section 106 agreement.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Paul.

Can I ask Kevin, planning case officer, to present the application.

Thank you.

Good evening, chair, members of the committee.

This presentation should take approximately ten minutes.

I will begin first by providing an overview of this development site and include some photographs of the existing site and the surrounding context.

The application site is Eli's Yard, which is a yard within the Truman Estate, which is located here.

The site is next to Dray Walk.

This route runs north -south through the estate and connects Hanbury Street in the south to Quaker Street in the north.

To the west of the application site is Grey Eagle Street which is located here on the map.

There is a brick wall that separates the site from Grey Eagle Street.

You will also see the site in relation to the neighbouring data centre site, which we have previously spoken about.

Here is a bird's eye view showing the application site and the wider context.

From this view you will see the existing food trucks, toilet block and bins located at the north of the site.

So that's where my pointer is here.

Existing food trucks.

And at the south of the site, there's some permanent seating.

That serves an adjacent bar here.

And an area of hard standing that is used for car parking during the week.

And at weekends this area is sometimes laid out for more seating for visitors to the market.

This is an existing street view looking north from Hambray Street entrance towards Elows Yard.

So just a little bit of background, Elows Yard was previously occupied by a brewery building

until the 1980s and then for car parking and servicing. In the past 10 to 15 years the yard

has evolved into a space used for food trucks and outdoor seating. It's also a popular spill

out space related to the weekend market for the shops and restaurants on the Truman Estate.

During the week this yard is used for paid car parking and the yard continues to also

be a location for delivery and servicing of the estate.

The site again, site designations, the site is within the Brickline Conservation Area,

the district centre and the Tower Hamlets activity area and City Fringe.

Site's designation actively encourages commercial development.

These policies support an office -led scheme with active ground floor uses.

In terms of planning history,

the application site has received planning permission for retail units to occupy

part of the yard in 2012. This permission was not

implemented. The buildings next to the yard are used for a popular weekend

market. In 2018 the market received planning permission to include Saturdays

in addition to Sundays for the market. And again these proposals are part of

the broader redevelopment strategy for the Trumanbury estate and the other

applications that are being considered separately at committee this evening.

So moving on to the proposal. The proposal is for the construction of a new

commercial building up to six storeys in height with a market space at ground floor and an office space on the upper floors which would include some affordable work space.

The proposed building would be located on the northern half of Eile's yard which is currently occupied by the food trucks and toilet block and the bin storage area.

The southern part of the yard would remain as an open area and multifunctional space.

The yard would be used for outdoor seating, it would continue to be a spill out space and it would be used for servicing and delivery.

The proposal would be subject to a planning condition that there would no longer be any paid for car parking on the yard.

On the screen now we have a proposed ground floor plan.

This plan shows the main market space here opening out onto the square.

It also shows a new connexion from Eli's yard onto Great Eagle Street.

And the addition of a commercial unit along Great Eagle Street to activate this frontage.

This is a visualisation of the proposed building from Dray Walk looking south.

So you'll see this is the existing data centre building and this is the proposed building located next to it with the yard beyond that.

This is just a visualisation from within the new food market space at ground floor.

You will also be able to see the proposed affordable work space at first floor level just above.

This is a townscape view looking north at the junction of Wilkes Street and Princes Street.

This is an important view as you will see the Grade 2 listed houses that line this street.

At the north end there is an existing modern office block which you can see here.

And then beyond it you can see the proposed building which sits within the frame of that building.

In terms of public consultation, the proposal generated a number of responses and objections.

as part of submissions objecting to the wider Truman development.

The objections are mainly concerned with heritage, affordable housing and access.

There were support responses which addressed the proposal for improved safety,

the economic benefits of the scheme and the revitalisation of the area.

The key issues for members to consider are the principle of the land use, the impact

on open space, design and heritage and the affordable work space and new job creation.

In terms of the principle of the land use, as previously stated the application site

is within the district centre, it's in the activity area and the city fringe opportunity

The site is part of an existing cluster of office, market and retail businesses.

The proposed land use are fully in accordance with the local plan and the London plan.

Officers have not raised any issues with the principle of the land use.

Turning next to the open space, the proposals would result in a loss of open space as defined by planning policy.

This definition includes land with immediate value regardless of whether there is public access or not.

However this is not designated public open space and there are no legal obligations required that the yard is remained open.

The area proposed for development is currently occupied by the food trucks, toilet block and the bin stores.

These functions would be re -provided in a more orderly way within the building.

The proposal would also end the weekday car parking within the yard.

Officers are of the view that there would be an enhanced pedestrian experience and would maintain the yard's role as a vibrant and multifunctional space.

In terms of design and heritage, the proposal has been designed to respect the conservation area and the industrial character of the area.

The proposal is to introduce a new pedestrian link from Eli's Yard onto Grey Eagle Street.

This street, as we previously mentioned, suffers from low levels of activity and reported anti -social behaviour issues.

Fronting onto Grey Eagle Street, the building would also have ground floor commercial units, upper floor windows and balconies.

Lighting strategy is proposed to help improve safety along this street.

Overall the design is considered appropriate in scale and character and would contribute positively to the area's urban fabric without causing harm to heritage assets.

In terms of the regenerative benefits of the scheme, the ELA's yard development delivers significant commercial benefits for tower hamlets.

It would create 260 jobs with a portion reserved for local residents and would contribute 25 million in economic output as an estimate.

The scheme includes affordable work space at a 45 % discount, supporting creative and

independent businesses that are vital for Bricklains identity.

The development responds to clear local need for flexible, high quality work space, especially

for small enterprises, and would help to address the shortage of suitable space within the

city fringe.

It would also boost local spending and footfall, supporting retail and food sectors, and contribute

to the area's night -time economy.

Overall, the proposals aligned with the strategic planning policies

and would secure the future of the Truman Brewery as a creative hub.

In terms of planning obligations,

as previously mentioned, the scheme would secure affordable work space and local employment benefits,

including apprenticeships and training funds.

It would support sustainability through carbon offset and future proofing for energy networks.

The transport impacts are managed via the permit free status and a travel plan.

There would also be both Merrill and Tarhamlet sill payments which are shown on the screen.

In conclusion the proposal fully accords with the land use requirements for the application site.

The proposal would respond appropriately to the conservation area and the surrounding character.

The new building and pedestrian link to Great Eagle Street would improve the natural surveillance and activity over part of this street.

The proposals would deliver significant commercial benefits to the area and contribute towards the fatality of the Truman estate.

The new jobs and proposed affordable work space are also welcome benefits.

Therefore officers' advice are that the proposal is in general accordance with the development plan.

The recommendation is that the committee resolves to inform the planning and spectra that if it were in a position to determine this application

The council would have granted planning permission subject to the conditions and obligations

as set out in the officer's report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

And I invite Jonathan Burrell to the Spitafield Trust to address the committee in objection.

To the application you have up to three minutes.

Thank you. My name is John Byerly, I'm a trustee of the East Peterfields Trust. I'd also like

to mention that I'm an architect and also have been involved with engagement with local

communities for quite a long time, in terms of this area, since 2004 and the estates,

and I think it's relevant to mention that because some of the comments I can make about

this site specifically have already been echoed by Alec Forshaw and Jonathan Mobley in terms

of it's part of a context of the whole area.

Many of the things that apply on other sites apply to this one in terms of height, bulk,

and in particular the use of the building.

I think also it's worth mentioning that the way this has been justified in terms of ticking

the boxes from the plan application is that the site is coming from a very low zero base.

There's no public space, there's open space, but it's not public.

The biodiversity is zero, and so anything you do there, and even the uses, if you add uses, you're going to increase those numbers.

So it looks perfectly good. But it's different to, as conceived on the master plan, which has been worked on,

and I have to mention this, since about 2019, by the community through engagement in terms of what should happen to this site.

It's part of the bigger context and these sites, the data centre, this site and the

other sites, if they get taken up, you lose the potential to make something which makes

more sense on the site.

So one of the issues which is said to be addressed by this building is the antisocial behaviour.

But the reason it's antisocial behaviour is the site for 14, 20 years has been derelict

and it hasn't been overlooked by anyone, no one lives there basically, and it's interesting to see that the balconies included in the office development,

like Juliet balconies, which you get on housing because they overlook street spaces, but here what happens at night, people won't be working through the night I imagine,

So potentially those issues will carry on.

The planning report also talks about this building being fine for future growth.

Well growth doesn't just mean adding to things, it means how cities adapt.

And this building and other buildings on the proposals in the planning application

are of such a bulk in depth and height that in terms of the future

and growth and change, they would not really be suitable for any other uses than office

uses or some other sort of function, particularly they won't convert to residential.

Is that my three minutes?

So it really falls into the category of another example on this site where...

That's your time up sir, thank you very much.

I now invite Susan from the Save Brooklyn Coalition to address the committee in objection

to the application. You have three minutes as well, Susan. Thank you.

Right. Firstly, I would like to share that I wish the Council would spend the thousands

of pounds to challenge the validity of the master plan. If we as a campaign group can

and bring a case of Tumour Brewery up the way to Supreme Court, you can do the same.

Because this land is valuable, okay?

This Eli yard actually has got zero housing.

It gives itself a Class E space, which means it's a broad category,

which means more nighttime economy.

Broad category means they can do anything they want in the Class E.

Okay, a lot of drinking.

Is that what residents need? Absolutely not.

Is that what the developer needs? Absolutely yes, as you can see currently.

It contravenes with the local plan, so I'm surprised that officers recommend approval.

The local plan wants more housing on this site. This has got zero housing.

And as for Eli's yard, it extends onto the other side of Grey Eagle Street.

You have just refused the data centre on grounds that it is not compliant to conservation.

This is on the other side and if you imagine building more social housing on one side,

the other side building lots of amenities for local residents.

Library, schools, doctors, surgery, imagine the lovely bridge there connecting residents to open spaces.

In this case, the Eli's yard said they will give us open spaces. That's bullshit, sorry.

They didn't say how they're going to give that, okay.

In fact, we are quite sure they will lock it up and open it, and only, in fact, we know that they are opening it up only at 2am, or closing at 2am.

So it's to capture the night time economy, more ASB, more night time ASB and more crime.

The 1910 map shows that the whole area was residential. Currently, Quaker Street and

Kelvin Street as well as Great Eagle Street, Kelvin Street and Quaker Street, they are

currently residential. There are residential houses around it.

Not forgetting that if you have night time economy, you have office space, you will have light pollution.

How does that work for residents who have to sleep at night?

Not forgetting noise pollution for the fact that lots of party and drinking and late night,

like what is happening in Boundary Estate because we share it with Shoreditch.

It does not address ASB, it's going to worsen it.

It's a poor use of such a big piece of land as you could see.

As for this thing about offering affordable workspace, the current market places that they are offering is for tourists.

The market store, I've spoken to the independent restaurant, they told me their business is affected by the market store of Truman Brewery.

I invite the council to spend a few thousand pounds to challenge this.

Why are we allowing a developer to take away a very important piece of land?

Do members have any further questions for officers and objectors?

I will start off with a question for the officer first one.

The proposal is entirely commercial and just market and office space.

But the local plan supports mixed use development, especially on sites of this size.

Given the serious housing pressure in our borough and the shortage of genuine affordable

homes. Why has no residential element practically affordable housing being proposed here? Do

officers consider this is a missed opportunity to deliver the kind of mixed balance development

the local plan expects?

So I think as I said in the officer's report, it is in compliance with land use policies within

the current plan. I know there's been some discussion about the emerging plan and the weight that we can give to that.

But I think given the site's location in the activity area

and the

opportunity area, a mix of commercial uses is entirely appropriate

and in line with policy. And I think from a development management point of view

our role is to assess the schemes put in front of us.

It's not our position to mandate whether there is

additional housing that comes forward. I think that how you sort of shape those uses is through

the local plan process which is what is happening separately. I think our role is to assess

the scheme that we have in front of us against the current policies and the current policies

encourage commercial uses and mix of uses exactly as what's being proposed here and

we've made that assessment, we've said it clearly in our report and that is why we find

no conflict with the current plan. I don't think it can be any clearer than that in terms

of our assessment. I understand there is a desire for more housing and the way to shape

that is through the new and emerging local plan and that is happening but at present

times we have to assess it against current policy and as we say in our report, what's

proposed here is in line with current policies.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

You are not allowed to talk from the public gallery.

Thank you, sir.

Councillor Lake, Bob.

Thank you, chair.

My question probably goes to the opposite.

Because we don't have the applicant here.

How does the design and scale of the proposed development respect?

How does the design and scale of the proposed development

respect and enhance the history character

of this conservation area?

Thank you.

Could you just repeat that?

Yes.

How does the design and scale of this proposed development

respect and enhance the history character

of this conservation area?

I'm the principal officer, so I deal with heritage and design issues.

I think the scheme reflects the character of the adjoining industrial buildings.

I think it's of an appropriate scale.

I think the design has been carefully worked to ensure that it has a base, a middle and top.

It's got a chamfered corner. I think the fact that it produces a cut through into Grey Eagle Street

and that's a very useful thing and it creates a positive active environment on Grey Eagle Street

which should improve the public environment there.

So I think it is a positive thing.

Councillor Jayachalri.

Thank you, Chair. My question is to the officers.

Knowing the ethnic diversity of the Brick Lane area

and this part of the Great Plains is already,

has its own problem with the nighttime economy.

How do you think this proposal

is going to enhance the diversity plus,

that's you know, related ASB issues?

How, is there any study done or anything,

any proposal with this, in a proposal that,

how are you going to affect the ASB issues plus it?

If I may come in here.

Would you like to introduce yourself first?

I'm Gareth Gwynne, I'm the West Area Manager in Development Management at Alhamlets.

So as Kevin said, the upper floors are all office developments, so they may be actively

taking place in those offices, but it's not those activities that we associate with antisocial

behaviour.

In terms of the ground floor, that is a market hall, and I think there is a discussion about

whether we control limit there is a general use class, class E which is quite open, yes,

and I think on reflection we could invite if members were minded to support the scheme

we could look to make a recommendation for the planning inspector to limit that condition,

to limit it to what we call retail uses.

In terms of drinking establishments, they do not fall in Class E, so there would be

no drinking establishments.

The potential could be food and restaurant where drinking could take place, but again,

we could reflect on that in terms of the limit in the use class.

But it is a market provision on the ground floor and the rest of it is residential, so

We officers are comfortable that there won't be any undue

Antisocial behaviour arises from a nighttime economy in this context. Thank you

Lilloo, Councillor Lilloo childhood

My question to the objector

So Jana do you feel design and the size of the building

suitable for the area and conservation zone.

I seriously do not. I disagree with Vicky. I think it already shows that it affects the conservation area, the Fournier Street.

It's definitely out of place with the design and heritage of the area.

Thank you, Councillor Sayeed Ahmad.

Thank you, chair.

I think it's a question to the objectors first, because we know the sort of tourist attraction

we get in the area, the heritage behind the area, and that specific development proposal

isn't sort of in line with that.

But what alternative or design changes would you propose that would better align with the

character and the heritage of Brick Lane for this area for this development site?

Councillor with the greatest respect, I don't think that question can be asked.

We are not here to design the scheme.

You have the scheme in front of you and that is the scheme you are adjudicating on.

So to ask how the design could be improved, altered is not appropriate for this committee.

I apologise.

Councillor Szybozic.

Thank you, chair.

I wanted to ask, you mentioned 10 % of the work space is for discounted for the local

community.

Could you clarify what's the numbers of that 10 % are and what is the total number, if it's

in terms of 100 % and what's the 10 % we're getting out of it?

10 % of the work space would be approximately 350 square metres and that would be a 45 %

discount below market rate for 15 years.

So in terms of when you compare that to what our policy requirement is, our policy requirement

is a 10 % discount for 10 years. So in terms of what is being proposed, it is significantly

over and above what our policy requires. So that is why we have highlighted that as an

additional benefit. I am so sorry, I am trying to visualise it

in terms of the number of units that the local community could potentially get if it is supporting

local SMEs?

I mean the as Kevin said out, that's the overall concept

I mean the arrangement in terms of how it's broken down into small. I mean obviously yeah

We would look for that to as you say support small small immediate smaller micro enterprises here, so we wouldn't

We wouldn't want that to be occupied by one individual

operator, we would look to break it down into a series of small units that would serve micro

enterprises that might only be employing three, four, five people and so forth.

Can I ask, in terms of, I wrote it down, you mentioned there's about 36 odd K coming in

for carbon offsetting as it doesn't meet the carbon reduction target.

Do you think the offset payment is enough to make up for that?

The offset payment is a formula -based contribution made so where it falls short of the total

offset we would seek as a financial contribution, we are bound by that formula.

Thank you.

Councillor Calabria,

Thank you, chair.

Thank you.

My question to the officers, the area is already experiencing significant pressure on its infrastructure

with congested pavement, busy roads, limited public amenities.

This proposal would increase footfall and traffic, placing further strain on already

to the detriment of both residents and visitors.

How do you justify this?

In terms of infrastructure payments, as we said,

the proposal would be required to play Meryl Sill and Tarhammett Sill.

As I said, there would be other payments towards construction training and end user training.

So there is financial payments towards infrastructure as part of the application.

In terms of dealing with some of the increased footfalls, I think it's part of this application.

It is proposed that the area of hard standing outside the new English Yard building is no longer used for car parking during the week.

This would be available more for pedestrians to use as a route through without being used

for car parking.

That is another benefit of the scheme that would deal with some increased footfall.

I have a question for the objectors.

Can you describe how the proposed market space would fail to benefit the local community?

Who would use it?

and who benefits from it.

Well it's interesting, just picking up on the last point that was made about the space

and the fact that it won't be used for car parking, but in the landscape proposals

there's obviously an issue, a problem about landscaping that space

because it's got to be available for servicing and it'll be servicing, as far as I can see,

it'll be servicing businesses, I mean, catering businesses, you have to buy things to go there,

that sort of open space, not somewhere you can sit and contemplate or as a garden or

square or with trees which you can park around. So I think it's still seen as a servicing

car, a servicing space rather than car parking, but it's like a commercial outside space effectively

and that doesn't really benefit, it'll be busy with more pedestrians probably and more

servicing vehicles. So in terms of families and children and other people who want to

use the space, it could be incredibly intensive. So I think that's where the benefit starts

to decline and it becomes a problem.

To also answer your question, the market spaces is actually a reproduction of that tourist

food places that they have currently. You will see if you walk through, it's all tourists.

I live near there, I don't buy any food there. And as I said just now, I spoke to the small

They said their business lunchtime is really badly affected by this market space.

So we will lead to more closure of the restaurant surrounding it.

And there is no benefit to residents. We don't eat there, do we?

The little market stores, do we? No.

Mr Chaudry.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question to Buckingham.

The SPD was questioned by the High Court on 19 February 2025.

The SPD has no weight in the assessment of the planning application.

We are listening objections and we are asking different questions.

Can you explain this?

The SPD has no weight in the assessment of the planning application

Thank You counsellor, I mean that's just corrected it doesn't have any weight it what it was

challenged through

My colleague has explained

third -party challenge on the legal basis that it was trying to allocate land uses to sites

And the advice that the council had from two different

Council was that we would not succeed.

So what has happened is the work that went into that SPD

hasn't gone in vain and that work has formed part

of the evidence base for the Council's draught local plan,

which is in preparation.

The issue, as I explained earlier, however,

is the weight to be given to that local plan

is probably limited at best,

simply because there are outstanding objections to the site allocation.

And those won't be resolved now.

They won't be resolved until the local plan goes through its examination at some point

in the new year.

I have a question for the officer, if possible.

Can you provide evidence that the ground floor market space and office floors would be accessible

and affordable for local businesses and residents?

So I think we are securing affordable work space at a 45 % discount which is way beyond

what our policy requires so that would be secured.

So yes I think we can, that evidence that there would be affordable work space in terms

of the market space, that would provide commercial spaces that are open and accessible to residents

and visitors.

We are not in control of how they are actually operated but they will be accessible.

Do you mean accessible in terms of just physically accessible?

Can you provide evidence for that?

Do you know exactly?

Is that possible?

No.

I am unsure of the premise of the question but if you are talking about physical accessibility,

the ground floor will be physically accessible, there will be an accessible lift to the office spaces.

If you're talking about if there's access to affordable employment space,

as I've said that is evidenced in terms of what we're securing through the Affordable Workspace Programme.

So I'm not sure if that answers your question.

This is to Mr Bickenham.

Throughout this meeting I have been hearing plans, master plans, community plans, housing

plans, many plans, but clearly it seems, I don't know how long the council has spent

on this planning, there is clearly no planning there.

The plan mentioned housing but now there is no housing in this development.

Could you clarify how long have you spent on these planning?

the council is working on.

We have a plan for the planning and

And the new local plan does set a slightly different tone

in terms of land use for this area,

because it looks to introduce more of an emphasis

on housing than there currently is at the moment.

However, if you were to place weight on that,

then my advice would be that weight is only very limited

at the moment, and it may be extremely difficult

to advance an argument and appeal

that more weight should be placed on that.

The master plan was a precursor to that work.

However, unfortunately, there was a third party legal challenge and the adoption of

that master plan was subsequently quashed.

So that doesn't exist, unfortunately.

So we spent a lot of time and planning only for it to start over again?

Time and resource was spent on the SBD because that was a policy decision to do that.

However, as I said earlier, what's happening is the work that went into that instead is

being used as the evidence base for the new local plan.

So yes, it is always disappointing when scenarios like that happen, it's incredibly rare I would

say, however that work hasn't been in vain because it's feeding into the draught local

plan. Question for objectors. Do you believe the

proposed building would overshadow or dominate existing open space in Ellie's yard and if

so how would that affect your character of the area?

It's a large building and quite narrow streets. In this particular building it does actually

overshadow and it does actually affect the lighting around those areas. Elsewhere on

the site it's very acute on the other sites and this is just one of a number of buildings.

It's mirroring the scale of the industrial heritage of this site, which is slightly up -mode

this form of building. It's convenient to build to an industrial scale because it gives

you lots of floor plates, but it isn't necessarily what's appropriate to the immediate context.

The officer's report mentions 50 to 70 metres to an hour, the nearest homes won't be affected,

but there should be more homes nearer that building anyway as part of a balanced master plan

and it would seriously affect the amenity.

If I can also add to that, because of the type of building, it's not easily convertible in future.

If you allow this to go through, you can't in future convert it to a housing or anything.

So it's a very inflexible type of building in terms of design.

I disagree, sorry Paul, I have to say that E -Link Council say that substantial weight can be given, especially when we are at the regulatory 19 stage.

So I think the Council ought to cheque why we are saying very little weight can be given to all these plants.

And I, as a resident, turn up at every consultation, given every input into that. I'm totally disappointed.

It has been a consultation, that was raised earlier, was it satisfactory that residents

have been very good at doing five years of consultation on this and there is a plan and

it's being ignored.

Councillor Said.

Ahmed.

Thank you, chair.

I've got a question for the officers around the delivery and servicing.

Normally we see a lot more detailed breakdown on how the delivery and surfacing will take

place.

This is more just not even a page.

So could you please clarify a little bit more on how we would go about sorting out the waste

in the area, clearing up the waste, especially focusing on 8 .132 when it says that there

There would no longer be a visitor paid car parking.

The main relationship to be managed between pedestrians visiting the site and the delivery

of servicing activities.

This would be managed in a similar way to the existing.

How is that, though?

Because there's going to be a much larger building in place.

So how does it come with the existing sort of agreement?

Do you know what page that is?

In terms of servicing the new building there would be a delivery and service and management plan that would set exactly how it would be serviced.

It is proposed that deliveries to the new building would stop directly outside the building and vehicles would be able to turn around on Draywalk and leave the site in a forward gear.

This approach has been in consultation with our highways officers and there would be a condition securing the servicing prior to the buildings operating.

If I just make a minute, chair.

Behind this application there is an extensive transport assessment here and there has been

extended discussions between our transport officers and the applicant and we are satisfied

that the arrangements would be more than adequate to provide safe provision.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

I just wanted to know a bit more about the heritage, if that's OK.

What independent heritage advice supports the conclusion of no harm to the listed buildings

and how robust is the less than substantial harm assessment?

Historic England have commented on the scheme but I don't know whether they actually took

all of the applications apart.

So as an overall package they're saying that they are recognising that there are harms.

My recollection is that they haven't identified Ely's Yard as harmful.

They were looking more at the buildings on Buxton Street and some of the other proposals.

Just to add to that, specifically on this application, Historic Amman had no comments to make

Because they didn't consider there to be anything for them to comment on in relation to this specific building

And they did provide additional comments on the main application but specific to this one and they had no comments

If if I may just come in here chair, I've asked Kevin to bring this view up

So this is looking into Ella's yard with the proposed developments sitting in the in the backdrop as it were and

This is Wilkes Street, which is one of the finest buildings. I think Vicki will confirm in the conservation area

The buildings were many of the buildings and certainly I think the majority of the buildings you see on the left of the street are

Listed buildings so it is very sensitive both both in conservation area terms and indeed

Strategy listed buildings and you say it's a jewel if you like in the conservation area. I think it's safe to say and

Yes, the building is tall but as you can see in this view, officers of the view that it

sits comfortably in that context.

So I would, again, Vicky is a far better, can provide better advice than myself on this,

but I would suggest this is probably the most sensitive view, if you will, of the development

in its context.

And officers collectively are certainly comfortable that this scheme is not carrying any harm

to that setting of the list of buildings or indeed the conservation area more generally.

Thank you.

Do members have any more questions?

Take a seat.

Thank you.

Would members like to share their thoughts or debate on this report?

Go for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

The scale and bulk of the proposed developments are not in keeping with the historic and architectural

character of the Spital Field and Bitling.

The scheme would cause considerable harm to the conservation area and the setting of nearby

listed buildings, undermining the unique cultural and heritage value that defines the area.

So I am refusing to speak.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

Asko.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to share that I'm very disappointed that the applicants are not here.

I had a lot of questions for the applicant, particularly around their consultation.

On page 85 it would have been unfair to ask officers to answer why they got professional

consultants to fill out the consultation and put in those approvals.

It would have been really good for them to come here and speak to us and give us an opportunity

to ask them questions about the development.

I think for that particular reason, I am minded to not approve this application.

I think in terms of A, it doesn't follow guidance and B, it's not in line with the master plan.

Thank you.

My opinion as well.

I'm not approved.

Thank you, chair.

I think there isn't, the area isn't suitable for the sort of proposal we have here at the

moment.

Although it's not partly connected, but the lack of residential proposal is very disheartening,

although I understand it isn't one that we can base our opinion on.

But that said, I think the design itself isn't really suitable for that area.

And given that heritage of the zone and the listed buildings close by, I am also minded

not to accept.

Thank you, chair.

I am going to echo my colleague.

I think the proposed development, the size of the development is not suitable for the

free -clean area, minding the ethnic.

Sir, it's not fair.

Please.

For me, I don't think this proposal is beneficial to the local people.

The size of the proposal should think about more local people and more diversity.

Unfortunately I will disagree with the official recommendation.

Thank you.

Councillor Aikbo.

Thank you, chair.

I have similar views like the proposed 6 -3 building would like to have a significant impact

on the history, character and appearance of this conservation area, which is kind of contrary

to the local and national planning policies that seek to protect and preserve the culture

and heritage.

Thank you.

I would like to just to let you know I will be voting to refuse this application as well.

I think the designs to me are too large and dominant.

The public benefits are weak and speculative.

I feel like the policy for employment doesn't justify harm while employment use is welcome.

The scheme fails to offer real inclusive local jobs or community access.

So these are my reasons as well.

Thank you.

I will now ask Mr Paul, excuse me, sir, please, can I ask Mr Paul Beckenham and Ian to give

your final thoughts before we move on to votes.

Thank you, Chair.

Again, thank you to the committee for your consideration and for those objecting for

their contribution as well.

Maybe, Chair, just to perhaps it would be worth me just sort of summarising why we felt

we should recommend approval, just so that you're clear.

Eli's Yard is an important site within the conservation area and within the wider Truman

Estate.

It's currently got that mix of parking, servicing and outdoor food and beverage, and the scheme

is an opportunity and a way to consolidate those uses, but in a more sort of formal way

and in a more controlled way indeed in terms of the various conditions that we've recommended.

We have placed considerable weight on the affordable work space because the 45 % discount

as colleagues have already said is significantly beyond what the current local plan requires

and that's all about making the scheme as inclusive as possible.

In terms of the conservation area, we feel that yes, a lot of views have been expressed

around height and design, however, we feel in the wider context it does sit comfortably

and then weighing up that against the public benefits, we felt that it was appropriate

to support it.

Obviously, Chair, I've heard what members have said around their reasoning.

So and finally, I would just urge you to tread very carefully in terms of any weight to be

forwarded to the emerging local plan, however disappointing that may seem, that's just more

of a technical legal advice for you, because that would be the position at the inquiry

in terms of the appellant and the inspector.

Thank you.

Yes, Chair, thank you.

Simply to confirm again that you have the London local plan, you have our own development

plan, they are your documents that you are looking at when considering this application.

It does tick the boxes in that respect.

However you are looking at all the other material considerations.

And I know there has been talk and Paul has spoken about this, about the nature of the

application coming through with no housing.

It is up to the applicant, the scheme they put forward and the scheme has been judged

as ticking the relevant land use policies in respect to the local plan.

And we have to assess it on that particular basis.

Members, I am perhaps saying this is a foregone conclusion.

I'm anticipating the vote.

But what we will have to do after the vote if it is moving towards a rejection is we

will have to firm up your reasons for refusal so that Paul and I can consider those against

the local plan and perhaps put some weight on the flesh.

Moving on to the vote.

Can I see all those in favour of the application?

All those against?

Can you please confirm to the committee the decision?

Thank you, chair.

So the officer recommendation that permission would have been granted hasn't been accepted

And on the unanimous vote, sorry, the Committee has voted unanimously not to accept that recommendation.

I'm just going to defer to my colleague for a moment, Ian, should there now be a formal

vote on refusal or just seek your advice on that?

»» Chair, ordinarily in this situation we would suggest to you other reasons to defer

the application, given the timescales that we are against.

That is, I would suggest unrealistic.

I would suggest it's appropriate, therefore, to look at the question of refuse.

My apologies.

I guess talking to the chair, he's virtually next to me.

Ordinarily in a situation like this we would move to a deferral.

Are there reasons why the matter should be postponed to get further information for the

committee to help them make a decision for or against?

Given the time scale we are up against in respect to the planning inspector requiring

information from us by the 15th of August that is impractical I would

suggest we simply move to the question of refusal but again I think on that

chair we would invite an idea of reasons first and foremost so that we can guide

you and give advice in that respect I will say chair if I may at this very

early stage concentrate on your best reasons for refusal do not throw the

kitchen sink at it, we as officers would like reasons we can defend and the

Constitution, the code of conduct you've all signed up to, says that if we if we

as officers can't defend it then you as councillors may be asked to come along

to do that job for us.

Anyone like to start off why you would like to give your reasonings for

I will give you a reason.

This is the unique character.

This proposed development will undermine this cultural and heritage value that defines

the area.

Anyone else?

I could give a few reasons, if you like.

For me, the design scale and massing are inappropriate, failing to respect the low -rise historical

character of Ellie's yard and the surrounding buildings.

Contrary with the policy D .H2, D .H1, less than substantial heritage harm identified

but not justified by significant public benefits, contrary to policy SDH3.

I will also say lack of mindful community and public benefit, especially regarding the

affordable work space and local access country, policy SEMP1 and DEMP2.

Did you want to say something else?

I think you covered it in terms of lack of affordable space.

but I think there is a serious issue around if the developers were here there

would have been a lot of questions which they could have simply answered for us

in terms of the lack of affordable space, the consultation, you know, given us some

reassurance in what they are proposing to develop here and given that that's

not been the case here I think that I think what you said, Chair, kind of sums it all up.

Thank you.

So a number of members have given reasons why permission would have been refused.

And, Chair, I think you summed up at the end there the impact around scale, height, massing,

the impact on the heritage asset in terms of the conservation area and that not being

outweighed by public benefits, which is something the MPPF policy asks us to think about.

So just to confirm business, if the committee are satisfied around those reasons, perhaps

we can just confirm that permission your views that permission would have been refused and

that would be the reason for it.

So perhaps, Chair, if you could ask for a vote on that.

With the reasons I have given and the committee has given, do we agree to all that?

All those in favour?

Now, just to let everyone know, we are going to be taking a short break and come back to

the Tumen Brewery, the final application.

It's a ten minute break.

Guys, just to let you know, the time is 42.

We want to come back at 52.

Any members who come late, we will start the application, just to let you know.

Thank you.

Would everyone like to take a seat, please?

Thank you.

Would everyone like to take a seat?

Thank you.

Would everyone like to take a seat?

We're going to start the meeting.

Hi, everyone.

can everyone take a seat please yeah go for it man you're the guy man

ladies and gents please take seats we're starting in 10 seconds and silent please

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Bury, Land, Fonting, Brick Lane, Buxton Street, Spital Street, Woodserve Street and Henry

Street E1.

We can ask Mr Paul Beckenham will you introduce the application.

Thank you, Paul.

Thank you, Chair.

So as the Chair said, this is actually two applications.

So application for planning permission and then application for building consent affecting

the land on the east side of the Truman Brewery estate, as the chair has read out.

In terms of the description of development, there's quite a long description in your report

pack.

I don't propose to go through that word for word because you can see that, but if I give

you the summary, so the proposals of a demolition of existing structures and buildings, not

including the Boiler House and Cooperage buildings, as those will be refurbished, and then construction

of five new buildings comprising approximately 35 ,000 square metres of residential, office,

retail, food and beverage, community uses, supermarket, microbrewery, market space and

event space and ancillary facilities, various heights reaching a maximum height of 29 metres

and then the application for listed building consent is solely for consent to carry out

works for the external and internal alterations to the Boiler House in connexion with a proposed

extension and other works.

The recommendation to your committee, Chair, is that had we had the opportunity to determine

the application, officers recommend that Planning Commission would have been granted subject

to conditions and planning obligations and similarly that listed building consent would

have been granted subject to conditions.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll ask Kevin Planning Case Officer to present the application.

Thank you Kevin.

Good evening Chair and members of the committee.

This presentation should take approximately 15 minutes.

I'll begin first by providing an overview again of this development site and include

photographs of the existing site and the surrounding context.

This application site forms part of the Historic Truman's Brewery Estate.

It's bound by Spittlespruit and Brick Lane to the east and west, Buxton Street to the north and Hanbury Street to the south.

The application site is currently a mix of hard standing, warehouse sheds and brick buildings with limited greenery.

The site is in two parts, you'll see the northern part here and the southern part here, which is where the Cash and Carry is located on the south of Woodser Street.

You'll be able to see the application site in the context of the two previous schemes that we've already discussed this evening,

the Eloise Yard and the Proposed Data Centre.

This slide shows a bird's eye view of the northern part of the site.

The site includes several important buildings that reflect the industrial heritage and the current mixed use character of the area.

The first building that I will highlight is Building A, which is the Boiler House, which is a Grade II listed former stable block.

Later converted into the Boiler House in the 1930s and it features the iconic Truman Chimney.

This is currently used for events and exhibition space.

Another building of note on the site is the one highlighted in E here.

This is the two -storey, 19th century, Cooberage building, historically used for barrel making.

Although this isn't a listed building, officers consider it a valued heritage asset and as part of this application it would be retained and refurbished.

Another important element is highlighted B here at the top of the site, the side of the gardens.

It's the Buxton Street wall which forms part of the site's northern boundary.

It's a single storey structure with a graffiti covered facade and it's considered to contribute towards the area's industrial character.

Finally, another important building to note is outside the site is the building highlighted G, which is the five storey residential block adjacent to the site.

It has some windows facing onto the brewery site which are sensitive to changes in daylight and outlook.

This slide shows the southern section of the application site to the south of Woodseare Street

and includes this building J which is the existing Bangalow Town Cash and Carry.

This is a single storey retail warehouse and has off -street parking.

It's proposed redevelopment into a mixed use building with new homes, a supermarket to replace the Cash and Carry, office space and a community space.

Also shown at R here is Hanbury Street. It's a vibrant local high street with a mix of shops, restaurants and other services.

Here are some existing views of the site. On the left of your screen is the Coopridge building.

This is a view from within the yard, looking towards the rear of the cooperage.

On the right is the perimeter wall on Buxton Street, taken from the corner of Buxton Street and Allen Gardens.

Here is another existing view of the backyard market in the front of the building.

In the image on the left here.

And on the right, two views of the same building from the rear within the yard.

So it's this darker building here.

On the slide we've highlighted some of the buildings within the yard that will be removed as part of the redevelopment.

In the bottom left is the backyard market building that was on the previous slide.

So that's scheduled to be demolished.

In the top left is block B and N which are located towards the north of the yard and would also both be demolished.

Finally one of the other buildings to be demolished is the Cash and Carry building, building J.

The proposed scheme is a comprehensive, mixed -use redevelopment of the brewery site.

It includes demolition of most of the existing structures, with the exception of the Boiler House, the listed Boiler House and the Coopridge building, which will both be retained and refurbished.

This slide shows the location of the new buildings proposed which are in grey.

The yellow buildings are the two buildings being retained.

The boiler house here in the top left hand corner and the Cooperage building.

The proposed development.

This will deliver five new buildings ranging in height from three to eight storeys.

It would provide approximately 35 square metres of floor space.

It would include a commercial led mix of offices, retail, food and beverage, event space and a microbrewery.

There would be 44 new residential homes, 36 % of which would be affordable by hab room.

There would be two new public squares in Chimney Yard and Crippridge Yard with new pedestrian routes and landscaping through the site.

It would also include affordable workspace, community facilities and financial contribution towards improvements to Allen Gardens.

Next I will take members through some visuals of each of the new buildings and explain what each new building will be proposed for.

So on the screen here I'll start with first block 3A and 3B.

So this is a view of 3A and 3B looking south from Allen Gardens.

So 3A is on the right hand side here and 3B is on the corner.

So 3A is Franzbuchten Street and is split into two parts, ranging from two to eight storeys in height.

The two storey element is closest to the Truman's chimney and is stepping down towards this listed building.

It is proposed to include a café, restaurant and cinema at ground floor level, with offices above.

The design uses that varied massing and materials to break up this frontage.

Block 3A together with 3B forms a significant part of the commercial floor space,

contributing approximately 15 ,000 square metres of the office floor space of the scheme.

Block 3B is in the corner of Buckland Street and Spital Street.

It ranges in height from 3 storeys to 8 storeys.

It features this distinctive angled corner with semi -circular windows.

The ground floor houses a servicing yard, it has the entrance and retail with the upper floors for offices.

The second building is Block O, which is the Grade 2 listed boiler house, located next to Building 3A.

This will be retained, refurbished and extended.

The extension will be clad in cordoned steel and it will include a gallery and viewing terrace at the base of the chimney.

Internally the partitions will be removed to create a flexible event and exhibition space

which would enhance the public access to this landmark building.

Here we've just got an elevation view of Buxton Street

showing the proposed building 3A and 3B

alongside the boiler house and the extension.

You'll also note new routes through the site here.

This is a new route into the site which is Coopridge Passage.

This other one is called Chimney Lane.

Between Lot 3A and the Boiler House.

Moving on to the Coopridge.

This is a view of the Coopridge.

As I said, historic 19th century building.

It had been retained and was lightly refurbished.

Internally it would house a microbrewery, an event space and would retain existing art studios.

The central passage through the building would become a public route into the site.

The building would be a key feature of the new Coopridge Yard which is located behind.

This is a visualisation of the Coopridge Building from the rear.

Here from within Coopridge Yard you will see the route through as previously described.

This is the internal yard space known as Coopridge Yard.

This is another visual from within Coopridge Yard.

This time looking north towards buildings 3A which is on the left where my pointer is.

And 3B on the right.

The new route through, as I previously mentioned, Coopridge Passage is located here.

And the Coopridge building is on the right here with the route through where my cursor is now.

Next we have a visualisation of Spital Street looking south. This shows the Kewbie's building in the foreground.

again with the new Block 1 which is a new building in the mid -ground here where my pointer is.

Block 1 is a new building, part 1, part 3 storey and is located between the Coopridge and the existing residential building at 35 Woodser Street.

It is proposed to provide retail at ground floor with office spaces above.

This is another view of block 1, this time from the rear, from within the coverage yard.

In terms of the design of this building, it is proposed to reference the industrial warehouse architecture style, with tiled frames and deep set windows.

It is proposed to step down at each side to respond to the neighbouring buildings.

This next building is block 2, which is located within the site.

It replaces the Black Yard Market, the building we previously showed.

With a new 5 to 7 storey building, reaching a height of 29 metres.

This will provide a market space, retail food and drink uses at ground floor level, with offices above.

The building features this chamfered corner design with lighter brickward and a galvanised steel base.

This is just a visualisation showing the internal ground floor market space.

Moving on, this is the last building which is block J.

This is a new building which replaces the Banglatown Cash and Carry with a new four to seven storey mixed use building.

It would deliver 44 new homes with 36 % affordable housing by habitable room.

So that's six affordable rented homes which are all three and four beds and five intermediate homes.

There would be a supermarket at ground floor to allow the cash and carry to return to this location.

Alongside approximately 1000 square metres of office space and a small community space on Hanbury Street.

This is a view of the proposed building looking west along Hanbury Street.

This is just another view of the front of Building J at the corner of Spital Street and Woodser Street.

The design of the building uses red brick and a varied massing to try and respond to the character and scale of surrounding streets.

The homes are arranged around a podium guarding with play space with a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 beds.

This is just another view along Hanbury Street of the residential block showing the transition in scale from the taller element to the lower element of the proposed building to transition to the lower buildings along Hanbury Street.

And finally this is just another view from Woodser Street looking down Woodser Street with the proposed building J on the left and 35 Woodser Street on the right.

In terms of public consultation, the council received significant objections and petitions focused on the scale, massing, impacts on heritage, the limited affordable housing and concerns about pedestrian congestion and loss of local character.

In terms of key issues for consideration, these are land use, design and heritage impacts,

daylight impacts, public access and permeability, and housing and delivery.

Turning first to land use, so the site is located within the Britley and District Centre,

It's in the City Fringe activity area and the opportunity area.

These designations support mixed use employment led development with active ground floor uses.

The scheme is commercially led with 86 % of the floor space dedicated to commercial uses

and 14 % to residential.

This includes a wide mix of offices, shops, restaurants, market space, event space and

and a microbrewery alongside two community spaces.

The land use strategies align with both the London Plan and the entire Hamlets Local Plan

which encourages employment growth and town centre fatality in this area.

The scheme includes 10 % affordable work space at a 45 % discount, secured for 15 years

which would support local enterprise and creative industry.

In terms of the affordable homes, so the 44 new homes are proposed with 36 % affordable.

There are two community spaces, one in the commercial core and one in the residential block

with discounted or free access for local residents.

The scheme does deliver other public benefits.

The conclusions officers had in terms of land use were that this aligned with local plan and London plan policies

and that's why there was no land use issues.

Moving on to design heritage.

The site is located within the Brick Lane Conservation Area.

As previously mentioned, it has the listed boiler house and the Truman chimney,

both of which are being retained and refurbished in these proposals.

Also the coverage building, which although not listed, is still a valuable asset.

It's being sensitively refurbished and integrated into the new coverage yard.

In terms of design and heritage, the main concerns as are set out in the officer's report lie with the scale and massing of block 3A and 3B and with block J.

So the officer's report, when considering these, consider that they cause less substantial harm to the conservation area.

and particularly in views from Allen Gardens in relation to Block 3A and 3B

and along Spital Street in relation to Block J.

Historic England and the GLA acknowledged some harm as well

but supported the schemes overall, noting that the chimney retains its landmark status

and the proposals bring public benefits as previously mentioned.

In terms of daylight and sunlight impacts, the assessment submitted with the application

follows the BRE guidance. Most neighbouring properties retain acceptable daylight levels,

however 35 Woodser Street is notably affected with 16 windows experiencing high magnitude

losses and some dropping to single digit VSC values. 63 Hanbury Street also sees impacts,

particularly a poorly designed rear -facing studio unit that relies heavily on light from

the development site. Other buildings like Daniel Gilbert House and Stuttle House show

moderate impacts but retain daylight levels within acceptable urban normals.

Overall while some localised impacts are significant they are considered typical for a dense inner

London setting and have been weighed up in the planning balance.

The proposed scheme delivers a significant improvement in terms of accessibility across

the site. It introduces six new pedestrian routes which are highlighted in yellow on the screen.

So there are six new routes to the site and two publically accessible squares in Chimney Yard and Pupridge Yard

which are designed to reflect the historic character of the area. Where access was previously restricted or entirely closed off

the development opens up the site to the public and creates new connexions and improved overall walkability.

A key feature of the proposal is the inclusion of the fully fitted community space in Block 3A.

This space will be secured for long term use at a discounted rate, ensuring affordability and availability for local communities.

Together with the public access secured to the planning obligations, these measures will help establish the site as a more open, inclusive and community oriented environment.

In terms of housing, the scheme as I said previously delivers 44 homes.

The affordable rental units are all family sized to address key local need.

The proposed housing would meet the necessary space standards and layout standards offering a mix of units sizes with good levels of privacy and outlook.

This slide shows the ground floor of building J which I will just talk through in a little bit more detail.

At the front we have the replacement of the existing BLC and CARI.

This unit has been designed in consultation with the current operator.

We will have a first right of refusal to return once it has been constructed.

There is also another retail unit proposed on Woodseer Street here.

A small community space for residents located on Hanbury Street.

Dedicated residential entrances and a separate office entrance.

A servicing and loading bay accessed from Woodser Street to support the supermarket.

This arrangement ensures the vibrant functionality of the ground floor.

Moving on to the upper floor of block J.

It's arranged around, as I said previously, a central podium space.

This podium includes communal seating areas and a dedicated play space for children under five.

On the residential side, the first floor accommodation is a mix of affordable and market housing.

On the north side here where my cursor is, this is occupied by the office space which is accessed separately and does not connect into the residential areas.

While the office units overlook the podium they are visually separated and do not share any access with the residents.

This is just an illustrative view showing the podium and the residential units to the rear.

This is from within the podium area.

Moving on to summarising officers assessment and the recommendations of setting report.

Officers did identify some heritage harm from the proposals.

This included low levels of harm from the demolition of the Barringree Wall on Buxton Street,

low to moderate harm from the scale of massing of blocks 3a and 3b and block j,

which affect the character of the Brick Lane Conservation Area.

Overall it was considered the proposals would cause less than substantial harm to the Brick Lane Conservation Area.

There would also be some amenity impacts, with daylight impacts to some neighbouring residents.

In terms of benefits, the scheme would represent a comprehensive redevelopment of a large and

underused Brownfields site in the heart of the Bricklian District Centre.

It would deliver significant economic and regenerative benefits, including approximately

1 ,500 jobs, significant spending both local and from visitors.

Development improves public access through the site, with six new pedestrian rates and

two new public squares, transforming a previously closed off area into a permeable and inclusive

environment.

To conclude, while the scheme results in some less than substantial heritage harm, this

is outweighed by the significant public benefits of the scheme.

Officers' recommendation is that the committee resolves to inform the planning inspector

If it were in a position to determine the planning application, the council would have

granted both the planning permission and the list of building consent subject to the conditions

and obligations as set out in the officer's report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

Thank you, Kevin, for the presentation and for everything you are doing tonight.

You have had three presentations.

So you have done really well.

So thank you for that.

Just to let everyone know, the time is 9 .20.

We need to extend the meeting for about maybe another hour.

I'm hoping not that long, but maybe another hour to come to a decision.

Because it is a large application.

So last committee members to vote to extend the timing of this application.

Can I see all those in favour to extend it to another hour so we could finish the application

tonight?

All those in favour?

That's fine.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Any abstention?

Paul, do you want to?

Let's see.

It is a big application.

We want to say an hour just in case.

We don't want to rush through it.

So Shubho and Councillor Lilloo don't want to extend the hours.

Can I just ask everyone?

Is everyone okay?

It's just me.

I'm just hungry.

Majority.

So we will be extending.

Thank you.

Now I'm going to ask the objectors the same way.

Can I ask, invite Faisal Ahmad to address the committee in objection?

Before I do that, I'd just like to say...

I invite Saif Osmani from the Bengal Eastern Heritage Society to address the committee

in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

Thank you very much.

My name is Saif Osmani. I was born in the East End and grew up on Woodsea Street.

I'm a co -founder of the Bengali East End Heritage Society, which works to protect our community's cultural and built heritage.

Despite our deep involvement in the most recent

community plan and master plan, which proposed to retain a listed building and another historic building on site,

we were not consulted properly by the Truman estate or the council about these latest plans.

Our democratic input is now being further ignored and overridden.

And this is not a genuine consultation, this is a takeover.

On Brick Lane I often take global university students on heritage walks.

They come to learn about the real lived urban history, not glass office blocks for corporate companies.

The proposed development by architects Buckley, Grey, Yeoman looks like something out of a bland,

AI -generated cityscape, oversized, light -blocking structures with no sense of place.

It would overwhelm surrounding local homes, saturate existing green spaces, cut daylight

to family residences, and contribute nothing inspiring for local people.

It's a corporate land grab disguised as regeneration.

You cannot replicate Brooklyn.

It is a living, breathing, historic place shaped by centuries of migration, the first

in the global west.

Huguenot, Irish, black, Jewish, Bangladesh and Somali communities have all contributed

to making this a vibrant cultural landscape.

Now rising rents and gentrification are pushing these communities out.

There has been no serious equalities impact assessment to understand or address this.

Developers, landowners and politicians continue to lobby and scheme behind closed doors while

affected communities are given just three minutes to speak.

Today we are joined by an audience of distinguished people from the community who have helped

with the inception of Banglatan, fighting racism in the 1970s and now have to fight

structural racism in the planning system.

Local organiser and mother, Diba Malik, was denied the opportunity to speak and be heard.

She lives nearby with her child, whose existing health inequalities are likely to be worsened

by these proposals.

British Bangladeshi is one of the most entrepreneurial self -employed ethnic groups in the UK and

this development offers nothing meaningful, just the bare minimum to let a cash and carry

survive, offering no car space, failing to account for the economic impacts of relocation

and disruption. Environmental concerns are being ignored too. Bats roost in the Truman

Brewery chimney and Grey Eagle Street under the Habitats Regulation 2017 and Wildlife

and Countryside Act of 1981, disturbing or obstructing their habitat is a criminal offence,

but the Batsa Venn Ecology reports fails to properly assess the impacts of years of disruption and building works.

The air quality assessment is incomplete, missing daily mean nitrogen and hourly mean nitrogen dioxide data.

The Truman Buhier states have profited for years. Save Brick Lane, the UK planning system is broken, we demand better.

Thank you, chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak today against these planning applications.

I'm a local resident, born and bred in Brick Lane.

My family, like many others you see in the gallery today, have laid down our roots 50

years ago. We come to you today to urge you to reject these planning

applications. The Truman Brewery site has much potential but in reality these

planning applications offer very little to the people who live, work and

struggle here on a day -to -day basis. We have heard the Truman's promises of

economic growth, regeneration and investment but what does it really mean?

Luxury apartments that no locals will ever be able to afford. Thousands of

of office space which will stand half empty while families sleep on the floor just a street away.

Less than 1 % of the site is dedicated to community space.

Controlled access to the estate, Truman will decide who can enter and when.

More high street retail chains that will drive out small businesses already struggling to survive.

More nightlife economy including bars and clubs which will add to the already high levels of anti -social behaviour

we see in the immediate vicinity of the Truman estate, including Cold Street, Allen Gardens

and Quaker Street.

But most insulting of all, just six social homes.

Six social homes on a site totaling ten acres is a slap on the face of everyone in this

community and of the Council's own emerging local plan.

These proposals by the Truman Brewery offer no real solution to the housing crisis or

to the needs of the local residents.

instead offer segregation, gentrification and displacement of the local working -class people.

Councillors, approval of these plans would be a betrayal of your duty towards the community,

especially when there's another option. An alternative proposal by local campaign groups,

such as the Safe Brick Lane, as well as independent planning experts, concluded that

Truman Brewery site has potential for up to 350 homes including 44 family -sized

social units, more public squares and green spaces, more community

facilities for local residents, a 24 -7 through route open tour and

preservation of the local character and heritage of the Brickland conservation

area. In summary the Truman's proposal does not offer an adequate amount of

social homes or green spaces, it will adversely impact the heritage of the area, increases

antisocial behaviour and will most certainly drive out local families and businesses in

and around the Brick Lane area.

It is for these reasons and more that I urge members of the committee to reject these applications.

The fact that Truman's couldn't even be bothered to attend today proves just how much contempt

and little regard they have for this community.

Please say no to private developers and investors who prioritise profit at the expense of our community.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

There are three councillors who have registered their wish to speak.

Please declare your personal or prejudiced interests.

You may have and whether there has been any contact with any interested parties in respect

to this application. I now invite Councillor Asma Islam to address the committee. You have

three minutes.

Would you like me to do my DPI first? I'm Councillor for Weaver's Ward, which is the

name in borough. I have no contact with any of the developers or anyone interested parties

in this scheme. However, I have been in touch with those campaigners and local residents

that do oppose this scheme.

Sorry, because you gave that declaration.

I'm starting the time now.

So I speak today as the elected Councillor for Weavers' Board

in objection to this scheme

and I have four grounds for my objection.

Loss of public realm and gated development is my first one.

The proposal covers a large area once occupied

by homes and public streets.

Over time, the brewery expanded, demolished those homes and absorbed public routes into those estates.

Now, instead of restoring the public realm, the applicant proposes a gated development with restricted access and minimal green or community space.

This is a missed opportunity to reconnect our communities.

Second ground, commercialisation and lack of affordable housing.

The scheme is almost entirely commercial.

Offices above high -end shops and restaurants.

Just six social housing units are proposed in one block.

That's not just inadequate.

It's unacceptable.

In a borough facing a housing crisis, the draught local plan identifies this site as suitable

for substantial social housing.

Block 1 on Spital Street proposes return office space.

But there's already a surplus of underused office space locally,

with many businesses shifting to remote or hybrid models.

This is not a priority need.

What is urgently needed is housing, especially generally affordable homes

that meet the needs of our residents.

My third ground is heritage and design harm.

The bulk, massing and design of all three applications undermine the character

of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings, without sufficient public

benefit to justify the harm.

The Brewery site once supported a thriving, low -cost hub for start -ups and markets.

What's now proposed is a complete departure, high -cost buildings likely to displace local

enterprise.

The developer could have brought forward a scheme that respected local character, met

foreign needs and remained financially viable.

My fourth ground is accessibility and overspill.

Even the seasonal outdoor seating proposed in item 5C contributes to this shift.

It may seem minor, but it adds to the commercial expansion and raises real concerns about pedestrians' flow and accessibility,

especially for disabled residents, parents with prams and older people.

My ward already experiences overspill from neighbouring developments and the scheme will exacerbate that.

In closing, I urge the community to refuse this application and others linked to it.

These proposals overlook the real needs of the R borough, especially the urgent demand

for affordable housing and accessible public spaces.

This is a chance to champion planning that reflects our community values and priorities.

Let's send a clear message.

Tower Hamlets deserves development that is inclusive, balanced and built around the people

who live here.

Thank you.

Councillor Peter Gold's, you have three minutes.

Peter Gold, please declare any interest.

Decorations of interest.

I have absolutely no contact with Truman whatsoever. I wouldn't even attend the exhibition and

actually allow them to count me in as going in. I do know local people and I have contested

and if people are talking about the borough, I mean, just as an amusing point of interest

just because I come from, descended from large families and my mother was the 13th out of

14 children, both my grandfathers were actually around in this area when Jack the Ripper was

bumping off Annie Chapman in the Truman Brewery entrance in Hanbury Street. Now to my contribution

for my three minutes. Chair, housing, housing, housing, I understand that's the policy of

government. Turn over to page 193 of the report we have before us. Whole section on housing,

the local plan. Housing growth will be primarily delivered in location, the need for housing.

Then turn, and I ask everybody, to page 133 of the report our officers have delivered.

Paragraph 0 .6. There is a critical need for new homes in Tower Hamlets. The borough has

the highest housing target in London and has a housing waiting list in excess of 20 ,000

people. The proposed new homes would make a contribution to the housing demand in the

borough. That will be six homes. Six! Six! All I would say, colleagues, everybody in

the gallery, if you want to put out a fire, get a teaspoon and throw it in a bucket, because

that's the equivalent of building six homes for 20 ,000 people. I'm not necessarily,

I'm not a supporter of the current government, but we've been told to be very careful on

planning. The Deputy Prime Minister no less has written to every planning authority in

the country and has said build, build, build. But here we are going with a planning application

that says six new homes for 20 ,000 people.

And what have we got locally?

The City of London, one of the most

rapacious development organisations

on the face of this planet,

has suddenly turning around from office development,

it is announced in the last two weeks

they're gonna start building residents

within the square mile.

The first development since they were forced

to build the Barbican.

Canary Wharf are entering into the housing market.

Go down Commercial Road and you can see building after building with housing developed and

underneath is what the planning application, this is going to be shops, it was going to

be something.

What is it?

It's boarded up waiting for the developer to come through and say, can we convert this

to housing?

There is not the need for much of what is on here, but there is the need for housing.

and I say we have an emerging plan, we have an emerging London plan, and we have the government

directive. That is surely firm enough for our evidence to go to the Inspector when we

have the inquiry. I've been through a lot of this report and I'm going to put in to

speak of the inquiry and hopefully I won't have only just three minutes because there's

an awful lot. I want to pull it to pieces on that.

We need so much to do in our borough, but most of all in an area that has a glut of

business, a glut of premises for retail, a glut of premises. The one thing we do need

is housing for our people. So let us say again, page 133, naught point six, there is a critical

new home, critical need for new homes in Townhammers. The borough has the highest housing target

in London has a housing waiting list of excess of 20 ,000 people. There it is. Six homes.

Thank you. I now invite Councillor Abu Talal Chaudhry to address the committee.

Thank you. I've got nothing to declare. I've not been in touch with them. I've not visited

the site but I will say I have signed the petition. So I just saved the Brookline petition.

So to start Mr Chair, it's the first time being here at STC. It seems totally appropriate

that I attend today as a resident of the Chicksend estate, a counsellor of a neighbouring ward

and from a family deeply rooted in Brookline. My grandfather came to Brookline in 1962.

My mother lived in 100 Brookline for years and the area is still what I call home so

this application is of great interest. To make my position clear I'm not against

any development in the area but it has to be right for our community. My

objections to the scheme are primarily focused on three key areas housing,

heritage and business. To help everyone visualise the 10 acre estate it is

nearly the size of seven and a half football pitches. Let that sink in.

Imagine West Ham Stadium times seven all lined up for development. What potential

that would bring. Why Imagine Chair? When the former home of West Ham United, Upton

Park, just one stadium, had 842 units developed on it recently. So how can one pitch provide

842 properties, whereas seven and a half only provide 44? To start off with housing, I acknowledge

it's a commercially led development, but with only 14 % residential floor space, it is nowhere

near ambitious enough to meet the housing demand in Tower Hamlets.

The report itself in 0 .6 as Councillor Gose said, describes a critical need for new homes

with nearly 30 ,000 people on the waiting list.

However, what response will you be giving to residents when only six family sized homes

are being proposed in this application?

The same paragraph states that the proposed new homes would make the quote unquote contribution

to the housing demand in the borough.

But come on chair, is this the contribution this committee wants to make?

As per paragraph 2 .28 of the report, the scheme proposes 36 % by habitable rooms with a 73 -27

affordable and intermediate split.

That's simply not good enough.

Given that the council's own emerging local plan prioritises 40 % affordable with 85 -15

split we feel that more homes specifically affordable homes should be

included on the site so no because we want more housing in terms of heritage I

know in paragraph 0 .17 officers raised concerns regarding the impact the design

could have on the heritage and cultural character of the area in paragraph 0 .11

officers raised similar concerns with the scale and mass of blocks 3a and 3b

likewise paragraph 0 .12 confirms that both officers and Heritage England fear

that Buxton Street's character could be impacted by the development.

So no, because we want to preserve local heritage.

Finally, another concern is the impact on existing businesses.

There is a fear that there could be loss of earnings, services and even potential closures

due to the application.

As outlined in 4 .32 of the report, there are concerns of soaring rents of ethnic minority

businesses in Brick Lane, with more than half the Bangladeshi restaurants closing in the

last decade as rents and business rates have soared.

So colleagues, if you believe in more housing, protecting the heritage of Brick Lane and

supporting local businesses, there's only one choice tonight.

Please reject the application.

Thank you.

Objectors, just to let you know, you will be asked questions from the committee councillors,

so if you do want to come up here and take questions, that would be very good.

You can do, yeah.

Share the mic around.

Please.

I understand that, but what I'm saying to you is many people wanted to speak in objection.

I get it. I understand this is a major thing for everyone.

My point is I can only take a required amount. This is my job.

It's not like I'm being personal to you. I would have loved everyone to speak, but it doesn't work like that.

You have heard what

Justin said.

Please.

Thank you, sir.

The problem is you have been disturbing

the whole night.

You need to calm down.

Please, sir.

I won't be asking you again.

Please.

It's OK.

Saif and Foyse,

would you like to come up?

Councillors

could pass the mic around

if they want.

I have been informed that applicant has not made requests to speak in support to this

application.

Now, moving on, do members have any further questions for officers and objectors?

Councillor Igbo.

Thank you, chair.

I am disappointed that there is a massive application the applicant couldn't turn up.

I agree with one of the objectives expressed disappointment.

Understandably, the officer cannot dictate the nature of the application.

Most of the questions have been asked was objected to the applicant, but all the questions

have to go to the officers to reply.

Again, I don't know who to ask this question.

How does this proposed development align with the residential led approach outlined in the

and the local development plan.

Sorry, the local plan draught.

There's a question for officer, I'm guessing, yeah?

Yeah, Paul, you can take the question.

Thank you chair, thank you councillor for your question.

I suppose my advice is similar to what we've talked

about previously, so we have to determine applications based on the current local plan

policies, current London plan policies, and whilst everybody, you know, I think completely

understands the desire to see more housing, the policies as written at the moment for

this particular location, I'm not specifying that.

They're talking about town centre uses and commercially led development.

The draught local plan, as I said earlier, is in preparation, but I said previously our

advice is that only very limited weight can be placed on that, because there are still

outstanding objections to the direction of travel within the draught local plan.

So that's really, I guess, a matter for the Committee to reflect on.

But our opinion is that the scheme is in line with the current local plan policies.

Councillor Lilloo.

Thank you, Chair.

The special things that the Chair, I now got to know your body today and the special way

My question to the officer, thank you officer, you have a good presentation.

My question is, was this site ever in public ownership?

And if so, why we are not getting at least 50 % affordable homes?

Short answer is no, it has never been public ownership.

And as such, there's no requirements that we can ask for 50 % affordable housing.

I think more generally, the question about the land use and housing, I think it's useful

probably there are questions of matter of planning facts and then there's

questions of planning judgement yeah and it's a planning fact that obviously

there's a series of land uses that a landowner could put on this site yeah

and we have to assess each of any of those applications any of those proposals

against the development plan in terms of first principles of land use yeah so

residential would be an accessible use in a town centre like this yeah but so

words office or commercial. The site is historically obviously been an

industrial site, a brewery site, more recently it served as an employment and

a commercial space for food and beverage and so forth and it's in a town centre

location and within within the context for town centre designation it's a

matter of fact that the proposed development, I'm sure the residents

officers and members were all on the same page, would we like to see

residential on this more residential than what's in this proposal today, I'm sure we

would.

But we it's the response both as officers and as the strategic development, as the planning

committee, you have to assess the application against the development plan.

And in terms of the land use, the proposed land uses are consistent with the development

plan.

There's other matters, obviously, of judgement in terms of the harm, the impacts of the scheme

has in terms of heritage, where the urban design aspects of it and whether that's producing

good placement, there's judgements about the impact of daylight, and obviously officers

have set out their position on those judgements, but there's other judgements that it would

be not unreasonable for a different planning judgement to be reached by the officers, but

there's a distinction between planning facts and the planning judgements, and in terms

of the land use, I think Ian or Paul might want to come in, but it's just a matter of

fact it's consistent with the development plan.

I appreciate that's not a kind of palatable kind of fact, but it is, that is the case.

Thank you, Gareth.

We've got to be very mindful of timing, guys, yes?

Just to let everyone know.

Councillor Said.

Thank you, Chair.

And I think let me thank the objectors who spoke very, from the heart and made it very

personal.

Thank you for that.

and I think it was really interesting to see all cross -party councillors come up and speak very well from Aspire Labour and the Conservative.

I've got two questions. One's around the local businesses.

So what safeguarding, what elements of protection do you have for the local traders for not being priced out by higher commercial rents?

Secondly, what challenge around the affordable homes, what remits do you have to challenge the proposal when it comes to you initially, whether you agree with six affordable units at three bedroom and four bedroom or is it something you just have to bring to the committee?

I just want to understand that as well.

Thank you, Chair.

So I'll maybe take your second point first. So in terms of the affordable housing, as Gath said, and as I mentioned on one of the previous items,

it's the Development Management Team. It's for us to assess what's before us. We can't mandate or specify types of uses.

as we said, housing on this site is an acceptable use but as are other uses and

we cannot, it's the development plan and development plan policies which shape

what uses can come forward on that site and if the applicant can come forward

with a lot more housing on that site that was something that we would

assess and we would find acceptable but it's also, the applicant can also come

forward with other uses that meet the development plan in terms of land

policies and we need to make that assessment based on those policies.

So in terms, and then just going back to the affordable, or the homes that were provided,

so in terms of the six affordable rented units, so that does meet our current policy in terms

of the percentage number of affordable homes, so that is policy compliant in terms of being

more than 35%.

So that's something that we would assess and then we present to committee, but we can't

and mandate additional beyond policy compliance.

And then your first question was around existing businesses.

So there are existing businesses obviously on site and there is relocation strategy proposed

so that they can be decanted and moved and have first option to return to the site as well.

So that will be secured as part of the proposed development

and as with the previous Eli's Yard scheme, this is also offering 10 % of the new commercial office space

as affordable work space at a 45 % discount.

So there is opportunities for employment space at a discounted rate.

It can be for local residents as well, they will have access to that.

So that's secured.

I have a question for the objectors.

You have had more than 600 people sign the petition against the application.

Do you feel the community voice has been mindfully considered in the development in the scheme?

No I think the community plan and the master plan was a sensitive approach and I have been

through quite a lot of this.

I come from an architecture background and I thought it was quite hopeful a few years

ago.

At the moment we're not seeing any of that.

For Truman estates to even threaten that and to then threaten the council on it, it impacts

the democracy itself.

Why take us through this process if you're just going to make a joke out of the entire

process?

I don't understand.

Also, I just want to clarify, there's actually 2 ,600 signatures on petition and 700 objections.

I just wanted to correct it.

Councillor Jai Chavri.

Thank you, chair.

I was really disappointed that the applicant decided not to turn up.

We could have asked a number of questions.

My question is not a question, it's just to understand.

You said that you weren't concerned properly.

Can you just elaborate on that please?

Usually it's a tick box exercise isn't it?

If you look at the way that if you're really impacting communities where there's been no

equalities impact assessment at all, hardly done properly, especially the long term impacts

of rents, which if this is a commercial area, then why has that not been massively factored

in?

I mean you can factor that in, you can create sustainable areas.

it's been proved across the globe. So why are you not doing that? If this is a

global city and this is an area where there's a lot of migrants who have

different sorts of needs, why is that not be considered in planning? You people are

the elected representatives. You are supposed to be enacting these policies

and changing these policies. Why are you not doing that? Why do people have to

fight this hard and continue to fight for that to happen? So I think you know

If you look at it, we're asking for sustainable long -term rents for small businesses and for

the community as well and appropriate housing.

Is that too much to ask for?

People have made Tohamtous what it is.

Thank you, Shavu.

My guess to the officers, Historic England and Spitalful Trust consider this to have

upper to mid range harm. If the harm is acknowledged, what public benefits are quantified and are

they sufficient to outweigh this level of harm?

I'm just going to try and get to the page on my slide that sets out the benefits of the scheme.

I set out an office report in detail. We've identified harm in several areas, which are Building 3A and 3B, Block J and to the Buxton Wall.

I think in terms of the benefits, we've also set those out quite detailed in the report and also set out the planning balance

which balances those benefits against the harm.

We came to the conclusion that there were significant benefits that did outweigh that harm.

Members may take a different view on that and that's perfectly reasonable to balance it in a different way.

But I think, in my setting of the report, we did consider that there are significant benefits in terms of employment,

the regenerative benefits of the scheme, in terms of the new routes through, in terms of the affordable homes.

So we did attach weight to that and weighed that against the harm and considered that they did outweigh the harm.

But as I said, members can make their own judgement on that.

I was actually planning to ask the same question, but can officers explain how much sunlight

will be lost to nearby homes and whether that meets our planning guidelines?

Are any nearby homes being affected with the loss of sunlight?

Thank you.

With a lot of inner land developments there is always some sort of daylight and sunlight impact and we try and minimise those where possible.

I think with this scheme what it tried to do was, if you can see on the screen, building J, the way it's been designed with that cutback was to try and minimise the impact on 35 Woodser Street across the way.

It has been designed to try and minimise those impacts.

It didn't remove them completely so there are some significant impacts.

We have balanced them against the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme

and we have considered that those impacts are acceptable.

As I said to your colleague, councillors may have a different view on that balancing exercise.

Councillor Lillie?

No?

Okay.

Goolam Jhaveri?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

In paragraph 3 .16, page number 170, I want to understand this.

The judicial review failed and was dismissed by the High Court in a judgement dated 31st

of August, 2022.

The claimant appealed this decision.

the appeal was dismissed in judgement by the court of April 20th of July 2023 and the Supreme Court

26th March 2025. Thank you.

I'll explain to him.

Comment.

Yeah.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Councillor.

So this is actually referring just in the history of nearby sites.

I don't know whether perhaps, Kevin, if you were able to just bring up the wider site

plan on the screen.

So this was a planning application that was considered some years ago, and it's for sites

on Woodseer Street, which we can probably show you on the map.

And it's just to advise kind of what happened there.

So if I can try and cut a long storey short, it was considered by previous development

committee who deferred it seeking further changes to the application.

Ultimately they granted permission, however there were some procedural issues that were

questioned by a third party, because around the composition of the committee and who was

able to vote or not vote.

So they sought a challenge through the courts all the way through to the appeal court and

the Supreme Court attempting to quash the decision, to quash the Planning Commission.

Those challenges were heard by the courts but they weren't accepted so that Planning

still stands. And just for reference, so it's on your screen. I don't know whether, Kevin,

if you were able to use your cursor, just so it's not part of what we're considering

tonight but it's right next door. So it's on the northern side of Woodseer Street.

Thank you. I'll give a question to the officer. I know you have raised concern in the report

paragraph 1 .11, 1 .12 and 1 .17 about the impact on the heritage and cultural character of

Spitalfields and Bangalowtown. Can you confirm whether in your view the application adequately

protects the character and if not, why are we being asked to support it?

I think it does protect the character of the conservation area. I think there are some

elements of harm that the proposals bring.

I think those have been recognised by Historic England

and by officers, but that overall the benefits

to the heritage in terms of the repair of the boiler house,

the extension to the boiler house,

and the repair of the cooperage.

There are various other public realm benefits as well,

but I mean Historic England actually concluded

that they had no objections to the applications on heritage grounds.

I think we would go along with that.

Would anyone like to ask any more questions?

Councillor Said.

Thank you, chair.

My question was to the objectors.

because you know the local area very well and what kind of impact this site or this

sort of development will bring to the area.

How do you feel about what you've heard so far around the antisocial behaviour, what

kind of safeguards have been put in place?

Are you content?

What does it look like for residents around the area?

I mean, perhaps Councillor Talha, who is the

community safety lead, will be a better place to answer this, but as a resident who is still

in the borough, and I travel to Brooklyn every day, we see the amount of antisocial behaviour,

especially around that area.

I mean, the opening of more bars and clubs and whatever you call it, is only going to

I think the problem is that the

problem is that the

social behaviour is not

I am not aware of any contingency plans.

I'm sorry, please, excuse me.

Please, please.

Thank you.

In terms of being consulted, many of us residents actually didn't know this was going on.

I mean, the Save Brick Lane campaign has been running for five years.

In terms of the many people in the community who wasn't aware, myself included, it's only

fairly recently that we were aware of what's happening.

So in terms of consultation, I think they definitely could have done more to consult

the local people and I think there was no desire on their part to do so.

Because then they would have heard our kind of needs, they would have had to listen to

So I need housing and the rest.

Just a quick point about the ASB.

I think you can't really neglect historic sites.

And I think there's been managed neglect by Truman Estates, that's my viewpoint, from

what I've seen over decades.

And then say, oh, there's ASB and there's drug dealing and so forth in the area and

somehow that means that you should have full scale redevelopment and shutter shops and gated communities away from the local communities.

It creates a them and us mentality and planning should not be doing that.

I think historically if you look at what London has done, it has kept rich and poor people together and the East End has done that as well.

However, what we're seeing now is large scale international financing coming over.

In the case of Truman Estates, they're based in a tax haven and yet they're willing, they're

able to somehow dictate to us at some point what the rent hikes will be.

So I think there are tangible impacts that are affecting our communities and if that

means that certain people are hard done by, that's been created by your planning system.

So that's something that you as an elected representative should be able to address and

something about.

Thank you.

I have a question for the audience.

officer, Spitafield in Bangalatown is one of the most historical and cultural distinct

area in Hamlet.

How does the proposal reflect or protect the identity in a meaningful way, especially in

a design and use?

I think it's worth just, I think the plan on site is useful to look at.

Obviously the main application site is essentially a courtyard and a series of industrial sheds.

It's not part of the Truman's Brewery that's generally accessible to the public.

And what the scheme is proposing to do is put forward a series of buildings that will

A open the Truman's Brewery which obviously was historically was a kind of a walled development

here and given opportunity for the public to move through it.

I know the Spittyfields neighbourhood plan no longer exists but that very much invited

more routes through to Allen Gardens and through the Truman's Brewery estate itself and this

scheme provides that.

There's obviously the Truman's Brewery is a series of industrial buildings and this

scheme seeks to build on that kind of aesthetic and there's a series of kind of narrow, relatively

narrow passageways.

It is introducing two courtyards which are open to the public and the public can enjoy,

where presently there is none.

I say I draw attention again to what Historic England said in paragraph 5 .33 on page 179

of the committee report.

We consider that they have no objection to the application on heritage grounds and welcome

aspects of the proposal.

In fact, the main harm that they identify is in terms of the housing development on

block J and it being somewhat overbearing in the context of the conservation area.

So I appreciate there is a challenge there, but that is the scheme that's providing housing.

The applicant is rather than a point one architect, as we often see on these large scale schemes,

They have chosen to select five architects.

They have got a good reputation.

They have brought forward developments within the borough.

And I think it provides kind of more variety and distinctiveness to it.

Ultimately as I say, this is a plan in judgement in terms of the success of the design.

And I say officers are set out, I think, in the committee report at length where we think

think it is. Vicky can say more I'm sure but members can reach a different

decision in terms of the success of the place making and the urban design but

certainly it does it does opt to redevelop a pit of the Truman's brewery

that really is not really very well used at the moment. It will provide

10 times more jobs on the site than currently.

Thank you.

Any more questions for objectors or the officers?

No.

You take a seat.

Thank you.

Would members like to share their thoughts or debate the report?

Councillor Haciade?

Thank you, chair.

I think we have heard so much from the residents, from the objectives, councillors and we have

asked a lot of questions.

My main factor that I took back from this is that the antisocial behaviour would be

a huge impact in that area.

Although the council is doing what it can to protect the residents and control the level

of antisocial behaviour we have across the borough, but that in particular in that site,

where it's based, it is something that will create a lot of nuisance for the local residents

there.

More importantly, the lack of homes offered in this application, it's actually laughable.

and our officers have sort of clarified that it meets the threshold but look we

sit here as with an open mind but as elected members of our residents

where we need to be mindful of how we approach this and for myself

individually I don't think it's adequate so because of those reasons I'm

off the opinion to refuse this application. Thank you chair.

For me, the development like this, I think, thank you again for the objectives and officers

as well.

But what I have heard from the objectives, development like this wasn't properly consulted.

I find this unbelievable.

The applicant is not present for all the three applications as well.

So and I quote my colleagues. I just we are elected council does I know it's made the threshold

But we have to think about the decisions plus we have to think about the equity

shortage with and

We are suffering in in our hundreds more than 30 ,000 people are waiting in the waiting list and the development like this offering six

home

Sorry, I cannot support it and I think this is

for me as well

Thank you, Chair.

Page 193, under local plan and residential use, it says under the London local plan 2021,

the council has the highest housing targets for any London borough.

This commercial and office spaces led proposed application or development, whatever you say,

doesn't sufficiently address the borough's housing need and therefore it is not considered

an appropriate use for this site.

Only six family units is simply unacceptable.

So regrettably I cannot support this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

This is a massive development and this development fails to meet the local needs, addressing

the local.

Furthermore, it does not adequately provide affordable housing and also is undermining

our heritage bill.

I am also refusing this application.

Thank you, Chair.

I think I heard from the resident objector and there is 2 ,600 signatures and I think

about 2 ,000 objections as well.

and there is various complex and I think the individual behaviour, those things are said.

And my colleague, the side also said, and the other side said, there is more than 30 ,000 people in the queue waiting for the housing.

and we are representing for the Bara,

Bara people of our Bara.

There are many residents, so I think that we need

the social house for our residents to homeless

to settle them in prison.

I strongly reject this application.

I say I strongly reject this application.

So I'll start off with the, obviously throughout the whole committee today, obviously I spoke

about the plan, the master plan, the local plan, and I think it shows some of our weakness

as well as a local authority and next time we should be planning better to have better

plans. But most importantly I think based on the scale, massing and the poor integration

with the local landscape and heritage setting, I do not believe this proposal meets the design

and expectation of our local plan. Especially I think my colleagues have mentioned with

nearly 30 ,000 people on our housing waiting list and the minimal number of new homes that

going to be affordable to our local residents.

I recommend we refuse this application on design, height and failure to address the

local housing priorities.

So I would recommend we refuse this application.

Thank you, Chair.

So the unacceptable harm to the character of the conservation area has been a key concern

for me here, particularly the scale, the height and the massing of block 3A, 3B and J and

the substantial visual and contextual harm it would bring to Fournier Street, Brick Lane,

which are two of the conservation areas.

Then the other issue I had is around the inadequate provision of housing, of affordable housing.

in this scheme doesn't seem acceptable.

You know, we should be looking at 200 to 300 in a scheme this big.

In terms of public benefit, I was just reading on page my laptop switched off, but on page

I think it's 134 around community assets and how that would be managed.

It's a real shocker when I was just reading it just now saying one of the community buildings

will be given out for free to the residents that live in the building, which is about

six social residents, I would assume, in six properties.

So it's not very good at all.

And for those particular reasons, I am minded to disagree with the officer's recommendation.

Thank you.

I have carefully considered the officer's report, the petitioner's concerns and the

policy context, particularly as it relates to Spitalfield and Bangalow town.

This is one of the most historical, cultural, rich areas in the Hamlet.

Any developments here need to be sensitive and balanced and community led.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this application meets that standard.

Officers themselves raised concern in paragraph 1 .11, 1 .12 and 1 .17 about the potential harm

in their areas, heritage and cultural character.

The design and massing proposed are in my views visually dominated and harmful to Bricklaine's

conservation area.

There is a very limited affordable housing offered despite our local planning settings,

a character expectation of 40 % mostly for social rent.

This offer does not meet local needs.

There has been serious concerns from petitioners and councillors about effects and existing

small businesses, including potential closure of loss of earnings and displacements.

This application may promise economic growth, but the cost of heritage, affordability and

community stability is too high.

For those reasons, I will be refusing this application as well.

Can we ask Paul and Ian to give your final views on this application?

Thank you, Chair and thank you, members, for again very detailed consideration and also

for the views that we have heard from the councillors and the objectors.

I mean, really, you've read the report.

There are matters of, I thought Gareth said it quite well, there are matters of planning

facts and matters of planning judgement, and hopefully you can discern where those balances

lie.

Perhaps just to highlight why we recommended approval of both the planning and list of

building consent applications was, yes, we have identified areas of harm, as members

have also done.

However, the balancing exercise with the range of different public benefits we felt did actually

tip in favour of granting planning permission.

Amongst those are the various contributions to the wider area, the provision of affordable

work space, the contribution towards improvements of Alan Gardens which will help make that

a better space for the local area and deal with some of the impacts and social behaviour.

and obviously the provision of affordable housing, although I hear what members say

about the difference between percentage of affordable housing and actual number of units,

which we accept is relatively low.

I just wanted, if I may, to comment on one brief matter.

So I've heard social behaviours mentioned a few times.

I would just draw members' attention to the fact that the Barca scheme has a lot of commercial

floor space within it.

it only proposes one additional area of floor space

that would be used for as a drinking establishment,

so there isn't a huge concentration

of drinking establishments being proposed.

In terms of the wider area, there could be an argument

that any developments on this site could actually improve

anti -social behaviour in the wider area,

because we've got a relatively derelict part of the brewery,

and it would introduce more natural surveillance,

and indeed, as I mentioned, the financial contribution

towards improving Allen Gardens which we know does sometimes suffer from antisocial behaviour.

So there potentially could be some benefits around that and I would be perhaps steering

members away from trying to evidence that as a reason for refusal.

I think it could be quite complicated, absolutely honest, but at the end of the day it's your

decision.

So I think that's probably all I have to say, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, there was some mention, if I may briefly touch up on the equalities duty.

The report does say in 7 .5 .42 there was an equality impact assessment undertaken and

that report has fed into our conclusions.

Sorry, are you struggling?

Sorry, I'll pull it a bit closer.

There was some mention during the discussion about equalities and an equalities assessment.

The report does say I think in paragraph 7 .542 that one has been undertaken that has fed

into the conclusions and the recommendations in front of the committee and that has been

summarised so the committee has had that in mind when reaching its conclusions today.

Again members, I get the feeling that we are moving for a refusal on this.

Again, I would urge you to look at your strongest reasons if that is the case.

One thing I would also remind you of, the application does tick planning policy land

use.

It is up to the applicant how it is submitted.

I, and Paula hasn't mentioned this, she may disagree with me, I would hesitate to advise

you to look at housing, affordable housing as a reason for refusal.

It is being provided at 36%, which I think is above current policy.

I know it is only six units but it is the scheme in front of you that is being assessed

and that will be assessed by the inspector.

If the inspector turns around at the end of the day and says permission should be granted,

there's absolutely no reason to complain about affordable housing because you are getting

36 % and you're getting three bedroom and four bedroom affordable housing.

What's the problem he will say.

We had a similar situation at the old offices, one of the sites they're going for development

where permission was refused because the affordable housing wasn't sufficient.

The inspector took the view there, you're only one house short, that's not a problem.

I would say be realistic and if it is movement of refusal, give us the strong reasons that we can mount a case on.

Thank you Ian and Paul. Before we move to the votes tonight, I just want to thank everyone in the gallery for coming tonight.

Also, I just want to make this very clear to everyone.

Officers work hard on applications.

Justina works very hard on who comes on the night.

It's not the committee decision, it's not mine as well as the chair.

Justina doesn't pick anyone's name who she likes, it's a random pick.

So anyone in the gallery tonight who is upset that they weren't able to talk, it's not Justina's

It's not the committee fault, I promise you that.

We don't choose no names.

Justina doesn't have any personal views on this.

She just randomly picks names.

So I'm really, really sorry.

However, first come, first serve.

However, in the future, do look out for it.

There is an option where there is timing

where you can register to speak.

And if you don't meet the timing,

it's not Justina's fault or anyone's fault

to come back and pick the public members to come and speak.

So please do respect Justina, do respect us.

It is not our fault.

I get that.

Like I said to you, we don't choose to do that, honestly.

Thank you.

We are not taking no questions from the audience.

Thank you.

Moving on to the votes.

Can I see all those in favour of the application?

All those against the application?

Who can you please confirm to the committee decision?

Thank you, chair.

The committee has voted unanimously not to accept the officer recommendation to grant

the planning commission.

So, chair, a bit like with the last item, if you could, I suppose, consolidate the reasons

that you would want to be advanced and adopted in advance at the forthcoming public inquiry

and then vote and agree those reasons, please.

Councillors, do you want to give your reasoning?

Do you want to put your mic on?

I think I mentioned earlier when I raised my concerns on the massing and scaling.

Shall I round it?

Heritage as well.

I will round it up for everyone.

Heritage harm, like my colleague has said, S .DH3, D .DH2 and SDH1.

Affordable housing, like everyone has mentioned, S .H1, D .H2 and SSG1.

Negative impact on local businesses.

We will say S .EMP1, D .EMP2 and S .F1.

Failure to respect the culture, identity.

The proposal fails.

That's why we carry on with that one.

S .F1, SDH1 and London plan policy HC1.

Thank you very much, everyone.

and we will have to take another vote on this.

We'll have to take a vote.

To vote on this.

Does everyone agree?

I'm not finished guys.

Does everyone agree to...

Can I see all those in favour?

Those against?

Paul, do you want to tell the committee the decision?

Thank you, chair. The committee has voted unanimously to adopt a number of reasons in

favour of refusing planning permission, as summed up by the chair.

Chair, if I may, just in terms of the heritage heart.

Can we share the meeting?

Guys can you be quiet please we're not finished yet.

Please, everyone please.

Ladies and gents can you please be quiet we haven't yet finished the meeting.

Thank you, we're trying to talk.

Meeting's still ongoing please.

Guys, can we have everyone to be quiet?

I don't have it.

Everyone, please.

Thank you.

Chair, if I may, just on the heritage harm, obviously there's lots of different aspects to the development,

but I'm just reminded of, I think Councillor Bagan summed up in particular that it was buildings 3A, 3B and J,

which are the largest ones and also the ones that Historic England did refer to, although

ultimately they didn't object but they did refer to in their response.

Is the committee happy that any arguments are based largely around those?

They are the tallest and most impactful buildings in the scheme.

So it was just because obviously there are some lower buildings which maybe would be

hard to articulate harm whereas those buildings are the ones that face Allen Gardens and also

the building on the corner of Hanbury Street which is the red brick building which is eight

storeys in height.

I'm getting nods so it was just yes.

Just for clarification should we just take the vote again yeah is that okay everyone?

Do we agree with what we have given to the legal for that?

Thank you very much.

Thank you guys.

That concludes the business for this meeting.

The next meeting will take place on Wednesday, 3 September 2025.

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.

Strategic Development Committee - Thursday 31 July 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development CommitteeThursday, 31st July 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Strategic Development Committee
Thursday, 31st July 2025 at 6:30pm