Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 3 September 2025, 6:30pm

Strategic Development Committee
Wednesday, 3rd September 2025 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Thank you.

Good evening, 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 being held in person.

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

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

Other persons may also attend remotely.

Committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely

have been advised that committee officer that should technical difficulty

prevent the full participation in the meeting,

it may proceed in that 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

and addressing the meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair.

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

you must contact the Democratic Service Officer as soon as possible via email.

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

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

Please do not use the meeting chat facility.

Any information added to the chat facility will be disregarded.

If you are experiencing any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Dramocratic

Service Officer 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 in the agenda

items in the nature of their interest. Just to let you know, I have been contacted regarding

Orchard, the first agenda, through emails and I received one phone call which I didn't

talk about at all. As soon as I said Orchard, I ended the conversation and just emails,

no response back to the emails. Thank you.

very much, and when you see the

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

This is Councillor Iqbal Hussain, represent Lansbury Ward.

I have nothing to declare apart from I received several emails which I didn't respond to.

And I also attended the site visit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening, everyone.

My name is Councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudhury, Popular Ward.

I have received lots of emails but I did not respond.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Councillor Lilo Ahmed from Myland Ward.

Nothing to declare.

I got several emails as well, but I didn't respond to anything.

Councillor Shabir Hussain, Bromley South.

Nothing to declare other than pretty much whatever else said.

I have received emails but I have not responded to any.

Councillor Lecce, I have received emails but I have not responded to any.

Thank you everyone.

Now to apologies.

Jack, have we received any apologies for absence?

Thank you, Chair.

We have received apologies for absence from Councillor Syed Ahmed, where Councillor Ahmed

Dukhan is substituting.

And we've also had apologies from Councillor Kabir Hussain.

Thank you, Jack.

Agenda item 2 is missing.

minutes from previous meeting, however, the minutes are not with me from the Thursday,

31 July 2025.

The minutes will be with me on the next meeting.

Agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objection and meeting guidance.

I will now ask Paul Beckenham, Head of Development Management, to present the guidance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening.

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

evening.

This item sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications, including

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

plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.

The process for considering report of recommendations will run as follows.

So I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and summary of the recommendation.

And then officers will present the report.

And then those registered to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three

minutes each.

And those registered to speak in support, including the applicant, can also address

the committee for up to three minutes each.

Any councillors registered to speak can also address the committee.

And then the committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers and officers.

and then we'll go on to consider the recommendation, including any further questions, debate or

advice from officers.

And the committee will reach their decision based on a majority vote and I'll confirm

that decision back to everybody in the Chamber and joining online.

In the event that the committee proposes changes to aspects of the officer recommendation,

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

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

In the event that the Committee did not accept the Office of Recommendation, they must give

their planning reasons and 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 any other legal implications, then we may recommend

item is deferred for further reports from officers dealing with the issues arising.

There is an update report that's been published this evening which deals with some clarifications

and additional representations on one of the items.

So we'll come to that, Chair, in due course.

And that's also published online.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

Agenda item 5, the planning application for decision.

Then we have two applications to consider this evening.

Agenda item 6 .1 is PA forward slash 24 forward slash 00821 forward slash A1 Orchard Wharf

Orchard Place London E14 page.

Pages 19 to 140.

And now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

So this item on the agenda, as the Chair has said, is a planning application affecting

lander orchard, wharf orchard place and the planning application is proposing the redevelopment

of the site following the demolition of all the existing buildings and structures and

enabling works to provide a mixed use development comprising of the basement and the erection

of new buildings connected to it situated above a safeguarded wharf box which would

to deliver purpose -built student accommodation and ancillary accommodation,

residential dwellings, general industrial storage and distribution,

floor space and ancillary accommodation within the safeguarded wharf box,

external infrastructure and all other related works,

including marine works for waterborne freight handling

and flexible commercial and community floor space.

There's a range of other ancillary supporting works

that are described in the application

and also just to highlight this application is accompanied by an environmental impact

assessment.

And the recommendation, Chair, to your committee this evening is to grant planning permission

with conditions and planning obligations.

Chair, I mentioned earlier there is an update report and it does concern this particular

report.

So if I just highlight some of the matters that have arisen.

So in terms of clarifications and corrections,

there's some corrections relating mainly to,

well firstly, correct number of purpose -built

student accommodation units.

One of the paragraphs erroneously says 1 ,325.

The correct number is 1 ,365,

and that's correct in all the other paragraphs.

It's just one where it's incorrect.

Then there's also a series of clarifications

relating to the daylight testing,

which just deals with some of the statistics there in terms of the daylight and sunlight assessments.

In some cases it actually shows an improvement of the impacts.

In terms of the affordable housing, just to clarify that the proposed affordable housing would be affordable rent products,

So it would be split 50 % as London affordable rent

and 50 % as Tower Hamlets living rent,

which is in accordance with the Tower Hamlets

current local plan.

Finally, there has been an additional representation

from a resident at number 44, Orchard Place,

and their objections are summarised in the update report.

Just to conclude, Chair, taking all that into account,

While it's important to highlight for accuracy, none of that changes our recommendation to

you, Chair, so the recommendation stays the same to grant planning commissions subject

to conditions and obligations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

I will now invite Fran Hansen, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Paul.

The proposed development comprises of a wharf box, an associated marine infrastructure,

flexible commercial community space, 208 affordable homes and 1365 student accommodation units.

New public realm is also proposed at ground.

The site is located at the east of the borough within the Leamouth Peninsula.

The site is outlined here on the right in red.

To the north and east of the application site sits the mixed use redevelopment known as

Good Luck Hope.

Adjoining the west of the site is the East India Dock Basin, which is designated Metropolitan

Open Land, forming the Southern Gateway to the Lee Valley Regional Park and is a site

of interest of nature conservation.

The recently completed London City Island development is located further to the north.

Directly to the south is the River Thames.

The East India DLR station is located approximately 600 metres to the west of the site and Canning

Town underground station is located approximately 750 metres to the north. The nearest bus stop

is located on Orchard Place. Here is the existing site layout shown in aerial view and on plan

form. The site is currently occupied by two warehouses, a number of small building structures

areas of hard and soft landscaping and a woodland to the west of the site.

Here are some images of the proposed site layout to Bassing. At ground there'll be a wharf logistic box shown here in blue.

Located above this will be

seven buildings ranging from 8 to 24 storeys.

Residential amenity space and tile place space will be located on top of the wharf box at podium level.

The flexible commercial unit is located in this northwest corner of the site.

And then surrounding the ground floor is fully accessible public ground,

comprising of hard and soft landscaping.

Here are some photos of the site showing the extent of the site frontage along the River Thames.

Douglas Tower, which is this one, is located in the Good Luck Hope development,

and is the existing tall building behind.

The photo on the left here shows the site as you approach from the northwest along Orchard

Place.

And on the right are two existing warehouse buildings located in the northwest corner

of the site.

These buildings have been considered as non -designated heritage assets by the Council for British

Archaeology.

These photos just demonstrate some of the existing structures from within the site.

In terms of designations, the primary designation for the site is a safeguarded wharf.

The site was designated as a wharf first in 1997, then reconfirmed in 2005 and 2020 to retain its purpose as a wharf to meet the future forecast demand for waterborne freight.

The site is designated and safeguarded by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities

and Local Government.

As designated by the local plan, the site is also located in a tall building zone.

The site sits within the Islay Dogs and South Popular Opportunity Area.

The site is also in flood zone 3, but the site and its surroundings benefit from the

Thames tidal flood defences.

The council's statutory consultation involved displaying site notice in the local area,

a press notice and sending letters to neighbouring properties.

The council received 51 letters of objection and 4 letters of support.

The main objections raised relate to the reactivation of the wharf and the impact this would have

on noise, air quality and local transport.

Objections were also raised regarding the daylight and sunlight impacts as well as the

principle of student accommodation in this area.

Residents raised concerns that local services were already overwhelmed and would not be able to support this additional population.

The applicant carried out their own pre -application, non -statutory consultation and various methods of engagement were carried out over a five -month period,

including distribution of newsletters, launching a website, in -person public exhibitions, public webinars and a community forum.

So moving on to the proposals and starting with the provision of the wharf box.

So this floor plan demonstrates the ground floor and the extent of the wharf box is shown

in blue.

The proposed wharf would represent a logistics centre situated across the majority of the

site's ground area.

The proposed facility has been designed to initially handle light freight goods and operate

is a last mile logistics facility with Thames Clipper as the identified initial operator.

Whilst Thames Clipper are the identified initial end user, the wharf box and associated marine

infrastructure has been designed to accommodate a range of commodities and end users. The Port of

London Authority are content that the wharf box has been designed to ensure a range of operators

could use the facility and the PLA have confirmed that they are supportive of the scheme.

This image here is a CGI of how the wharf box may operate internally with Thames Clipper

as the operator.

As part of the Thames Clipper business model freight would be transported along the River

Thames and then distributed throughout the local area by road vehicle.

The increasing trend for same day or next day delivery services is increasing the demand

for appropriate well -connected logistics space to provide such service.

To enable fast deliveries, stock needs to be held or available near the end customer

before it is picked up for the last mile.

This requires warehouse and a distribution hub space close to the population it serves

and Thames Clipper would carry out this service.

Here are some CGI showing indicative operational spaces of the wharf box internally.

Thames Clipper would handle light freight goods such as parcels.

The PLA are satisfied that there is sufficient capacity of other wharves in the sub -region

to cater for the demand of other aggregates and heavy freight that may not be achieved

at the outset at Orchard Wharf.

Here are some further CGIs of the wharf box when viewed externally.

As shown on the image on the right, there is marine infrastructure to enable vessels

to arrive at the site, unload and before goods are taken up the jetty into the wharf box.

The image on the left shows the wharf box with the two residential blocks located above.

Policy E7 of the London Plan supports mixed use development on industrial sites, providing

that appropriate design mitigation is included.

To ensure the long -term viability of the wharf, it is therefore essential that the scheme

includes measures to ensure residential uses are suitably protected from noise impacts.

The application has been supported by noise assessments which looked at worst case scenarios

whereby a different wharf operator using louder processes occupies the wharf.

The proposed mitigation measures include triple glazing for residential units, the provision

of winter gardens and improving the internal partitions and floor specification within

the wharf box.

The applicant has gone beyond what was deemed necessary to ensure the noise impacts are

acceptable for residents.

The Port of London Authority is satisfied with the proposed approach to noise management

and considered that the scheme has been designed to be future proof for appropriate mitigation

measures.

The Council's Environmental Health Noise Officer has not raised any objections to the scheme

but has recommended a condition restricting the number of vessels arriving at the site

overnight.

Moving on to the affordable housing provision.

Located above the wharf box will be two affordable housing blocks which are shown here on the

in purple.

Plot two would be 22 storeys and plot seven would be 18 storeys.

The scheme will deliver 143 affordable rent homes and 65 shared ownership homes across

the two blocks.

The image on the right here shows a typical floor plan of the affordable blocks.

When considering the total number of habitable rooms across the site, the scheme delivers

35 % affordable housing by habitable room.

The affordable housing would satisfy local policy requirements by 70 to 30 split in favour

of affordable rented.

The affordable rent element will be split 50 -50 between London affordable rent and Tower

Hamlets living rent, therefore satisfying the local plan policy requirements.

This table shows a breakdown of the proposed housing mix.

The scheme does not include any market tenure housing, instead the private residential element

will be delivered entirely as student accommodation.

The scheme would deliver 65 family sized affordable homes,

of which 52 would be within the affordable rent tenure.

As demonstrated in this table,

there are some shortfalls in meeting the policy targets.

The slight shortfalls in affordable rent

are mainly due to the need to place

wheelchair accessible homes at or below the fifth floor,

as requested during the application process,

as well as site constraints.

The affordable rented mix broadly accords with policy targets.

Although there are shortfalls in the four bedroom affordable rented homes, the scheme

still provides a good number of larger family homes, with the larger three bed five person

and four bed six person proposed, which meets local demand.

The intermediate tenure will be delivered as shared ownership.

Overall, the officers are satisfied with the proposed housing mix for the scheme.

In terms of the quality of the accommodation proposed, all homes will even meet or exceed minimum space standards.

71 .5 % of homes will be dual aspect, with residents benefiting from views of the River Thames and or East India Dock Basin.

The site layout is supported as it ensures that affordable housing is integrated into

the prominent parts of the development.

The development will provide 21 wheelchair accessible homes of which 19 would be within

the affordable rent tenure.

As discussed previously, the scheme has been designed to include robust noise mitigation

measures to ensure residents are not impacted by the wharf operations.

This image here demonstrates the distribution of child play space and residential amenity

space.

The residential communal amenity space

is outlined here in orange.

In yellow is the new public ground.

And there's various hard and soft landscaping within this.

Here in pink is the 0 to 4 and 5 to 11 podium level child play

spaces.

The scheme will meet the quantum of play space required

for these age groups.

Given the competing priorities for the site,

the remainder of the child play space for the 12 plus age group

cannot be accommodated on site. The development will instead secure a financial contribution

towards improvements to the immediately adjacent East India Dock Basin. Given its close proximity

to the site, the East India Dock Basin represents a more logical and accessible recreational

resource for older children and young people living in the development.

These CGIs show some of the podium level play spaces and amenity spaces. There will be wind

mitigation measures included within the design to ensure that the environmental conditions

are acceptable for residents and children.

These images here demonstrate the extent of the student accommodation.

The image on the left shows the five student blocks in blue.

1 ,365 student rooms are proposed, comprising of self -contained studios and traditional

student cluster units where occupants share communal facilities.

A range of internal and external amenity spaces are proposed for students.

The principle of student accommodation is supported on this site.

As required by policy, the proposals do not compromise land allocated for housing and

the site is located in an area with good transport connexions to a range of higher education

providers.

Student accommodation helps to meet local housing targets.

Using the London Plan ratio of 2 .5 student units being equal to one home, the scheme equates to 546 residential units.

Student accommodation eases housing demand both directly through housing students and indirectly through helping to alleviate pressure on traditional rented homes.

In terms of the quality of the student accommodation, the cluster rooms and individual studios have

all been designed to provide functional and comfortable private living spaces for future

residents. Each unit features an efficient and well -considered layout that maximises

usable space. A generous provision of internal and external amenity space is provided for

students. Arranged around the atrium space on levels 0 to 4 will be a variety of internal

amenity spaces dedicated to students. Students will also have access to gated courtyards

as well as shared amenity space with the C3 residents.

The applicant is in discussions with universities to secure a nominations agreement before the

development is occupied. However, due to economic conditions, universities are delaying commitments

to new student housing until later in the process.

If no university signs on to a nominations agreement prior to occupation, then a sufficient

cascade mechanism within the section 106 will ensure that a private operator manages the

student accommodation.

The GLA have confirmed that they are supportive of this approach.

There will be no affordable student element as part of this scheme, which, although contrary

to policy, is considered acceptable in this instance, as the affordable element is delivered

entirely as affordable, sea -free housing, in which there is an acute need for in the

borough. A student plan management plan will be secured through planning condition to ensure

enforceable procedures are in place. This will protect neighbours by minimising noise,

antisocial behaviour and any servicing issues. The plan will also set out the operator's

responsibilities and include clear systems for monitoring and enforcement. The proposals

Examples also include flexible commercial slash community space located in the ground

floor of plot one shown here in green.

The end user of this space is currently unknown.

Local plan policy requires major commercial or mixed use developments to include at least

10 % affordable work space with rents at least 10 % market rates for 10 years.

The flexible commercial community space will be secured at a 20 % discount for 20 years

which exceeds the policy requirements and is seen as a great benefit of this scheme.

In terms of the proposal's design, the development will range from 8 to 24 storeys in height.

As shown here, the central building is the tallest element of the proposal. The taller

building behind is Douglas Tower which forms part of the Good Luck Hope development. The

site is located within the Lee Mital Building Zone where proposals are expected to step

down towards the River Thames and ensure glimpses and views

across the zone.

The image on the left shows the development in place

when viewed from the Greenwich Peninsula.

The built heritage, townscape, visual impact assessment

concluded that the proposed buildings

would appear as a natural extension of the existing

tall, high density developments, such as Good Luck Hope

and London City Island.

The development would contribute positively

and would complete the Leameth Peninsula.

On the right shows the proposals when viewed from the East India Dock Basin.

The Built Heritage Townscape Visual Impact Assessment concluded that although the proposals

would be visible from the basin, the height distribution is not considered to overwhelm

or create an overbearing effect.

Here is a CGI image of the proposed development when approaching the site from Orchard Place.

The ground floor will be activated by the wharf user, the student atrium and the commercial

unit, all of which Front Orchard Place.

Officers are satisfied that the proposed materials

enable the scheme to integrate well

into the immediate context.

High quality landscaping is proposed at ground,

which will further enhance the development,

with new publicly accessible routes down to the River Thames

unlocked.

In terms of the impact on neighbouring sites,

the properties outlined here in red

would receive major adverse impacts

to their daylight and sunlight.

This includes Good Luck Hope Block A, which has not yet been constructed, and Good Luck

Hope Block B. Of the 286 windows assessed at Good Luck Hope Block B, 30 windows would

receive major adverse impacts to their daylight.

The most impacted windows are located on the lower floors of the building.

The properties outlined in yellow would receive moderate adverse impacts to their daylight

and sunlight.

The impacts of neighbouring properties are outlined in detail in the committee report.

It should be noted that the site is currently underdeveloped and the proposed buildings

would add a height and massing in line with the surrounding area.

Because the site has little existing development, the impacted neighbouring buildings currently

receive high levels of daylight and sunlight.

As a result of the development, blocks A and B at Good Luck Hope would be most affected,

particularly the south facing windows and rooms,

which currently benefit from open views across the site.

The application site is located in

Lemith tall building zone,

with the expectation that there will be

high density development and tall buildings

would be accepted in principle in this location.

The impacts on neighbouring properties

should be considered in the context

of the wider benefits of the scheme.

The impacts on neighbouring sites

are not uncharacteristic for an area

undergoing significant regeneration,

and officers consider the impacts to be acceptable and balanced.

Moving on to transport and access, this image here shows the different access arrangements.

So the arrows here in red show the residential entrances, the yellow arrow shows the wharf

box vehicle entrance and the blue and pink show the student atrium access points.

Shown here in purple is the location of the zebra crossing on Aultree Place, which officers

have secured to ensure pedestrian safety is not compromised by the vehicles entering and

leaving the wharf box.

The location of the zebra crossing will ensure that traffic calming measures are located

in the development and pedestrians are prioritised.

Based on the initial end user of the wharf box, which is Thames Clipper, it is expected

that there would be a total of 676 two -way van trips and 900 two -way cargo e -bike trips

per day. It is expected that the majority, if not all vehicles using the wharf box would

be electric by the time the development is built out and operational. The transport impacts

have been reviewed by officers and are found to be acceptable. This image here shows the

extent of the basement which will be located beneath the wharf box and accessed from Orchard

All deliveries and servicing associated with the student and residential elements will

take place from within the basement.

Cycle stores, blue badge parking and bin stores for the residential and student accommodation

are all contained within the basement level.

All cycle stores will be accessed via lift from the ground floor and the cycle provision

meets the policy requirements in terms of quantum.

In terms of environmental considerations, the scheme has been designed to include various

energy efficiency measures to reduce carbon emissions, including air source heat pumps

and solar panels. The image here on the right shows the extent of the solar panels on the

roof. The proposed landscaping and biodiversity measures will contribute towards biodiversity

net gain on the site. The Environment Agency were consulted on the proposals and following

submission of further information, they were satisfied that the Riverwall frontage would

Outlined here are the financial contributions that we will be securing through the section

106 agreement.

Besides our standard employment related contributions, of note is the contribution towards the East

India Dock Basin and contributions to improve the local bus stop and Lower Lee Valley crossing

as requested by TfL.

The application has been assessed against the development plan policy framework and

of irrelevant material planning considerations.

The development will deliver the reactivation

of the safeguarded wharf alongside the provision

of new affordable, sea -free homes and purpose -built student

accommodation.

Reactivating the safeguarded wharf

is a strategic priority, both at borough level and at London

wide level, representing a significant economic

and logistical benefit.

The wharf will create jobs in logistics and freight,

boost the local economy, and support London's shift

towards sustainable river transport.

The development will also provide commercial space

as affordable workspace offered at a 20 % discount.

Significant weight is given to the provision

of 208 affordable homes, which represents

a meaningful contribution to Tower Hamlets housing supply.

Notably, these affordable homes will benefit

from prime riverside views offering high quality living

environments for future residents.

In addition, the delivery of purpose built student

accommodation will contribute towards the borough's housing targets equating

to 546 residential units. The development will cause some level of harm to

residential amenity of some neighbouring properties however the scheme is

considered to comply with the development plan as a whole and these

impacts await against the wider benefits of the proposal.

Officers are therefore recommending this application for

approval subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the completion of a

legal agreement and the conditions set out in the committee report.

Thank you Fran for the presentation. Very helpful.

We have two objectors tonight. Would the objectors like to come and sit here please?

One of the objectors are online and we have one in present.

And now invite Ashley Ulamsson to address the committee in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, councillors.

My name is Ashley Lumsden, I chair the London City, Ireland and Good Luck Hope Residence Association.

We have 2 ,000 properties and more neighbouring the site.

You've heard a great deal of contributions so far, so I only want to address three things in my three minutes.

Firstly, the question of student housing. Is that what's needed?

What we hear is that the market is not demanding that because no university wants to take on that provision at the moment.

In fact, students will have to travel 30 minutes, apparently, across London to access a further and higher education.

And it's not of the quality demanded because 30 % of the units don't have the daylight and sunlight needed.

Secondly, is the social housing.

What quality is being provided?

This is above an industrial site, which might be parcel delivery, but it could be a completely

different industrial use.

And it's going to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, underneath the homes of these

200 households.

So I'm not convinced that this is good quality social housing.

It also doesn't come with any parking at all.

There's no space on the street, none provided on the site.

That's not realistic for social housing.

And we're told that it will have triple glazed windows,

but the only ventilation, if it gets too hot in the summer,

will be to open those windows to that 24 -hour noise.

And finally, the question of loss of housing from the site.

You've heard this evening that if this were homes, not student housing, it would be 546 homes.

That would mean a site for 749 homes.

If they were affordable homes meeting your policy, that would be 337 family -sized affordable homes.

But instead you're getting 65.

It is a huge missed opportunity to give away this site for student housing and low quality

affordable housing.

So I ask you, committee, please reject this application.

It is not policy compliant in loads of areas in terms of noise, neighbourhood amenity,

transport environment, habitat loss, the list goes on.

You have seen it in the report.

There are plenty of reasons that would allow you to come to a different conclusion of the

If you are not willing to do so, then I ask you to make some additional conditions to try and improve the situation.

I think you should demand more family housing as is in your policy.

I think you should stop the overnight works at the wharf.

Curiously, the construction hours prevent overnight working.

But once it's opened, they do allow overnight working, even when there are residents living upstairs.

I ask you to use your common sense.

London City Airport closes at 10pm each night.

I think at the very worst these hours should match City Airport and I think you should

condition it to be parcel delivery only.

Thank you, Chair, but I do ask you to reject the application and come to your own view

about the planning matters.

Thank you very much.

I now invite Akshita Mehta to address the committee in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

Just bear with me one second.

Yep, go for it.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, councillors.

Thank you so much for giving me the time to speak here today.

I'm here to urge you to refuse this application and instead consider what our community truly needs, public green spaces.

Tower Hamlets has some of the lowest green space per resident in London.

Meanwhile, we continue providing endless residential towers and private developments that serve wealthy investors rather than local community.

Tower Hamlets has seen massive residential development but very little

heritage preservation or green space creation. This site presents a rare

opportunity to address that specific imbalance. This isn't just any

development site. It is the historically significant location of the Thames

Ironwork and Shipbuilding Company. During World War II, the East End was devastated.

Over 70 ,000 buildings were completely destroyed throughout London and the East End suffered

some of the worst damage.

With so little of our original heritage remaining after this wartime destruction, every historically

significant site must be precious to us.

The Iron Works area was pivotal to London's maritime history.

I'm sure you know that this was the place where the HMS Warrior was built, the world's

first iron warship, and it contributed to the Brunel's Royal Albert Bridge as well.

This location represents generations of local workers and contribution to Britain's industrial

success.

Once we cover this site with private housing, this connexion to our past is going to be

lost forever.

Instead of private housing and student accommodation, imagine a heritage park.

That would create a memorial of our industrial past while serving current

residents with desperately needed green space. I believe that the applicant while

they were talking referred to this site as an asset. I think it's an

archeological priority area which tells us that it's already got historical

significance and this proposal fails to serve the public interest. It prioritises private

profit over community needs and adds density without providing the green infrastructure

our residents desperately require. Councillors, you are choosing between private gain and

public good, between erasing the history for expensive housing or preserving it within

green space that serves everybody. Tower Hamlets residents need parks more than they need another

private development. I urge you to refuse this application and work with the community

to create a heritage park that preserves our past while serving our future. Thank you very

much.

I will now invite the applicant, Will Edmonds of Montague Events to address the Committee

in support of the application.

You have up to six minutes.

CHAIRMAN WILLIAM EDMUNDS.

Thank you very much for your time tonight.

My name is Will Edmonds.

I'm a partner in the planning team Montague Evans and have been leading on the planning

application for this site.

Tonight represents an important milestone in the development of the Montague Events

for the future of this strategically important site.

The scheme you are being asked to consider represents a bold, forward -thinking development

that would not only ensure reactivation of this safeguarded wharf, but deliver a truly

unique co -location development making optimum use of the site, delivering meaningful planning

and public benefits for the existing and future residents.

I am also particularly proud of how the exemplar public engagement strategy, both pre and post

submission has helped inform the scheme and limited objections to only 51 which

is very low for a scheme of this scale and complexity. The proposals have

benefited from the involvement of Thames Clippers, an existing Tower Hamlets

business who have been involved for inception. Thames Clippers as you've

heard will operate the Wharf Box as a new last -mile logistics facility as part

of their business expansion. The development also delivers 208 affordable

homes in the intermediate and affordable rent tenures. In addition, the 1 ,365 high -quality

purpose -built student bedspaces will help reduce pressure on general market rented accommodation

across the borough. 70 % of the affordable homes are for rent, responding directly to

acute local demands, particularly from families in the borough. This supports mixed and balanced

communities, helps reduce overcrowding and provides long -term stability for families

who might otherwise be priced out of the area.

These affordable homes will benefit from outstanding views over the River Thames that have been

designed to an exemplary standard that meet the latest fire safety legislation and provides

generous living spaces and private outdoor areas.

I just wanted to correct one observation from the first speaker in objection in terms of

all the units benefit from mechanical ventilation contrary to what was otherwise suggested.

Importantly, Regal, the applicant, is both a developer and contractor.

This is fully committed to delivering the scheme in early 2026 if planning commission

is approved, such that there can be certainty over the delivery of the 208 affordable homes.

As you've heard, the scheme steps down in height to respect the surrounding context.

It is of a very high design quality with materials referencing local character and the architectural

language drawing from the industrial heritage of the Leamouth Peninsula.

Significant improvements to public realm and landscaping will be delivered with a new pedestrian

access creating a welcoming space with active frontages on to Orchard Place.

Landscape spaces, tree planting and high quality materials will transform the site's permeability

and character, encouraging walking, social interaction and connexion to nature.

The residential element of the development is car -free, with the exception of blue -bad

spaces.

A policy -compliant level of long -stay and short -stay cycle storage is provided for all,

encouraging greener travel choices for residents, workers and visitors.

All environmental impacts have been thoroughly assessed, with any required mitigation secured

through the proposed planning conditions. The scheme also includes enhancements to on -site

biodiversity and greening and supports improvements to the adjacent East India Dock Basin,

enhancing the ecological and recreational value of the Levemouth Peninsula.

The development will deliver Section 186 financial contributions of in excess of

£2 million, with a further £30 million payable through community infrastructure levy.

These funds will support local skills and training, services and infrastructure provision,

and are in addition to the on -site affordable workspace.

In conclusion, this scheme not only secures the reactivation of this safeguarded wharf,

but also puts the needs of Tower Hamlets and London's people first, respects its context

and creates a thriving accessible future for this part of London.

We trust you will support your officer's recommendation this evening and grant planning

permission.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I will now move on to members' questions.

Do members have any questions?

Thank you, chair.

My first question to you.

Will the applicant ensure the controlled post restriction number of vessels passing overnight?

So it says in the, one of the concerns raised by the objectors or concerns raised by the

community was that number vessel touristic environmental on page

Will it restrict the number of vessels passing overnight to control the noise pollution?

Hi, Councillor, my name is Steve Harrington, I am from Regal, the applicant.

I think a couple of things to point out, we have mentioned that Thames Clipper will be

the operator of the facility.

There are two things to consider here, Clipper will be the initial operator of the facility

as the case officers outlined this evening, but because the site is a safeguard at Wharf,

we have also had to consider what is considered or called worst case scenarios through the

The wharf is proposed to be capable of operating 24 hours a day on a seven days a week basis.

That's been considered through the environmental impact assessment.

That includes assessing the movement of vessels at night time to ensure there's no noise implications for residents.

That's been considered acceptable.

64 vessels in that 24 hour period is what's considered appropriate and will be the subject of the planning condition.

The likelihood, based on the Thames slipper operation, is that most of those marine vessel activities will happen between the hours of 6am and 10pm.

That's anticipated to be the equivalent of 3285 vessels per annum, equating to around 9 vessels a day unloading.

So it's the likelihood that most of the vessels will operate in the hours between 6am and 10pm.

But for the purposes of the environmental impact assessment we have had to assess things right through the night

And because the site is a safeguarded wharf we've had to maintain the ability for it to operate like that in the future

but our

certainty around the operation day one is that we will have a lease with Thames Clipper

There is a lease with Thames Clipper that lease runs for an initial

40 plus year period so it's very likely that that Clipper are the

The operator of the facility through the through the lifetime. So hope that clarifies but happy to come back if needed. Thank you

Thank You Shubha the same counsellor

Officer you mentioned there's going to be

Some sort of effect to some of the neighbouring residents. Could you maybe run through them again, please?

Is that in terms of the daylight, sunlight impacts?

So there's, should I share my screen again?

Actually that might help.

So shown here in red are the two neighbouring blocks

that would receive major adverse impacts.

These are largely contained to the lower floors

of the properties.

There are 30 identified windows that would receive

major adverse impacts to their daylight,

and that's predominantly the lower windows here.

Whilst we acknowledge that there are impacts, at the moment they kind of look onto no development

at all, so any development on this site would result in some kind of impacts to these properties.

And as I said, it's in a tall building zone, it's in an opportunity area, it's expected

that there will be high density development in this area and the benefits of the scheme

considered to outweigh the harm which we consider to be quite isolated in this

circumstance.

Councillor Graham -Chowder. Thank you chair. You already

acknowledged the impact of daylight and sunlight for neighbouring properties. My

question is to you does it comply with BRE guidelines? We have BRE guidelines in

relation to daylight and sunlight. So in the committee report I have outlined

where there are failures in terms of the guidelines. The impacted properties will

be the ones shown here in red and there are failures and those are spelled out in

the report. Officers overall consider the impacts to be outweighed by the benefits

of the scheme.

Thank you. I've got a question for the officers. We've had applications like that in the past,

you know, that student recommendations and we have in the past rejected it because of

antisocial behaviour issues. What sort of measures does this one have? Can you please

tell us?

So we'll be securing a student management plan by condition. That's something that's

commonly secured for student schemes.

And we will be, within that plan it will be detailing

who the operator is and how they're going to manage

any impacts in terms of noise, antisocial behaviour.

We expect students when they arrive to the site

to be given kind of guidelines on how they should be

treating the area and their surroundings.

That's kind of what's included as part

It is common for us to include that condition for student accommodation applications and

we're satisfied that a student management plan would ensure we could enforce if students

aren't complying with the guidelines that are set.

Councillor Ahmadou Kwan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions.

The first one is, we can see that there will be

21 wheelchairs

and there will be some blue beds

bay for use. I wanted to know

that not only the wheelchairs,

the parking is an issue in Tower Hamlets, because as Councillors

Most people come to us for parking.

So there will be an affordable home, 208 affordable home as well.

So most of the residents will come to the borough, live in the borough, and they expect

to park their car because they are allowed, if they go from two bedroom to three bedroom,

they are allowed to carry on with their existing parking, resident parking.

Could you can you please tell me that how many extra parking bay or space will be available for the residents to park their car?

And those blue page parking arrangement is it within the development or is there from the council?

So I wanted to kill you then I'll ask another question of the applicant. Thank you

So the blue badge parking bays will be contained within the basement

and it's a 3 % provision of

the overall

Otherwise the scheme is car free for long blue badge holders.

That is a policy requirement for developments to be car free.

So there is no additional parking.

But it's not a policy requirement for us to request that.

Those bull -based parking spaces in the basement will be able to offer to the people who like

living in wheelchairs or affordable homes. So they will only be allocated to blue badge

holders within the affordable homes? I'm coming again because we can see as a

they were given a blue beige bay for disabled parking

and after one year they take it from them

and they were like, after one year of using those bays

the developer who were managing this site

they take this bay away so there is no blue beige parking

or disabled parking for the residents.

That we are suffering.

So what's the guarantee that those bays will give to those people

will remain there until as long as they wanted to?

So through condition we're securing a parking management plan and that will ensure that

the blue badge bays are designated to the correct individuals within the development

so it will go to those that need accessible bays only.

And if you're concerned that in the future maybe the developer might take them away,

if they were to do that they'd be in contrary to any planning commission and we'd be able

to take planning enforcement action to make sure that they put the parking spaces back.

and this parking space will be free.

Another question from the applicant.

What transportation like bus or train, what is the arrangement for the resident who is going to live there for the student?

and the people living there, what arrangement do you have there?

Do they have any extra bus service along with the development or train service?

What the travelling facilities for those people living in this both state, please?

Yes, absolutely.

So as I explained, there is Section 106 obligations that come with the scheme

and that includes a number of initiatives that support enhanced use of public transport.

So for example one of those is a £40 ,000 contribution towards the existing bus stop by a facility on Orchard Place.

As you'll appreciate that's now on the Superloop route etc. so there's enhanced services.

So there's a lot of those types of initiatives that are really there to help improve those services

which therefore are to the benefit not only of these residents but the residents in the wider area.

Thank you, sir. No more questions.

Thank you.

Councillor Chavousy?

Or Councillor Jayad Chaudhuri?

Thank you, sir. I have two questions to the officers.

It's a large student development and you said on your report there is no nomination from the university yet.

how likely you think the university will nominate

providing the current recommendation.

And another point the object raised about the noise level

and during the summertime when the student recommendation

or the resident recommendation, when they open the window

because of the nature of the development,

the 24 -hour usage of the work,

how do you mitigate the noise pollution on this occasion

when they open the windows.

So in terms of the first question

we can't really say how likely is the student providers going to come on board.

What we do know is that

universities

aren't really keen to sign on to a planning permission until it's

further along in the development process, so they've got some certainty that is coming forward.

This is what we understand is the case across London.

There are numerous universities within commuting distance of this site, so we consider the

principal acceptable.

And in the Section 106 agreement we will be securing mechanisms to ensure that a private

operator can take over the management of the student accommodation units in the event that

a higher education provider decides not to sign up for whatever reason.

So we're confident that the Section 106 will be able to control those, that there will

be an operator.

In terms of the second question, was that related to ventilation within the student

units?

So I believe there's mechanical ventilation installed within the units across the scheme.

So they can either have windows open or they can use mechanical ventilation instead.

A question for the applicant.

If the development was to go ahead, how quick will you be starting and are you doing it

in phases or are you planning to do it?

Yeah, I can answer that.

Thank you for the question, Chair.

With all of these things, if you were to pass the application this evening, we will need to secure the section 106 agreement with your officers and move through the Greater London Authority stage to process the referral to the Mayor given the nature of the application.

Normally from tonight onwards, our business is a construction business, as we said, so our pre -construction period is around about six months or so.

So we think we will be on site by early 2026.

That's how we operate as a business.

We don't hold on to kind of development sites.

We get them moving forward in that way.

So that will be the normal period.

There's lots to be done, of course, as part of that.

But the site has a long history and we know a lot about the site.

It's ready to move forward in that basis.

So early 2026, we think development would start on site,

subject to finishing through the rest of the planning process, including the referral to

the Mayor's office.

Sorry, your question about phasing, apologies.

Because of the nature of the scheme with the way the uses work, effectively the development

will be built out in a single phase, but buildings will be finished and become available at certain

times.

So the first thing we need to do is excavate the site, then we need to create what's been

all the wharf box then the residential development which is the cores come up

around the sides of that so all things considered it's about a five -year

construction project it's complex but our proposition is that the affordable

housing becomes available early earliest because it's at the front of the site on

the wharf site so we will build that in the in the earliest phase and then kind

work our way back towards courtship to place.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Would members like to share their thoughts or debate their application?

So if you feel to receive to the applicant, my question is, the nomination from the universities,

what is your plan B with the accommodation, student accommodation, that's question one.

And another question is, will the development restrict public access to the waterfront?

Thanks for your questions, Councillor.

So to the first question around nominations, so the requirement of the London plan in your

own policies is that the majority of the student beds are nominated, so the majority means

51 % of the beds, so the operation here will always have a private operator involved, this

is the normal way in which student housing is now delivered and operated across London,

so there will always be a company, Regal is a company that operates student housing by

The nominations aspect of that relates to how the university will say we will effectively take a lease on 51 % of the bedrooms.

If we don't secure that lease from the university or higher education provider, those rooms will continue to be provided

and all 100 % of the rooms will simply be provided through what you call the open market.

So prior to the academic year and people moving in normally in early September, we would market

the rooms over the summer period so people will move out probably in May and the rooms

will then become available for rent and over the summer period the operator will rent up

the rooms again in the usual way.

So the lack of a nominations agreement from a higher education provider wouldn't stop

the development from coming forward.

it's something we need to try to secure and use endeavours and that's recognising them

in your policies and the GLA policies. So we would do that.

The second question, just remind me, sorry, public access to the front, thank you.

So the nature of the Wharf operation as I outlined is that

Thames Slipper think they will be likely to operate the facility during the hours of 6am to 10pm.

They're likely to do that probably six days a week, but that is to be confirmed

The scheme is designed in such a way that the infrastructure of the wharf is

barges and bolts and a shed in a warehouse and

If there's times when the wharf is not being used then there's no reason the front of the site cannot be

publicly accessible, but it's just a point that we need to work out the full detail of with the Port of London Authority and

and others. So there is no commitment, we can't unfortunately commit to public access

at all times, but when the facility is not operating or closed, then there is no reason

why there couldn't be public access at certain points in time.

Thank you.

Would members like to debate the application or share their final thoughts before we move

on to vote?

Anyone?

No?

Before we move on to the vote, I would like to say, normally with applications like this,

I do refuse it.

I'll be honest with you.

I've been sitting on this SDC chair for a very long time.

But with this application, I think

with the affordable homes that are given,

it's quite difficult for me to refuse the application.

So I do like what you have produced.

And so for that reason, I will be supporting the application

with the officers.

Other than that, we'll move to the vote now.

Before we move to the vote, Ian and Paul,

would you like to discuss, give any last thoughts before we move to the votes?

Thank you, Chair.

I just want, well, first of all, just one clarification that came up.

So Councillor Hussain, I think it was, asked about sort of the overnight vehicle movements

and that's, sorry, vessel movements, and that's an important point of our assessment and indeed

have raised that as a concern.

I just wanted to clarify because I think

a particular number was mentioned by the applicant,

but I just wanted to clarify with colleagues

because I think our Environmental Health Officer

has actually recommended a condition with a lower number

and that's what's in our report,

so I just want to make sure that we're all clear

on what that is.

So if I can just defer to Simon.

If I may, so one of the applicants mentioned

the figure of 64 vessels and that being conditioned.

In discussions with the applicant team and our environmental consultants, that was an initial figure that was suggested.

However, what the condition actually says is it restricts the number of vessel movements overnight, so that's between the hours of 11pm and 7am to a maximum of 24.

So that's all the condition says at the moment and that's on the basis of a recommendation by our Environmental Health and Noise Officer.

So that's the only condition of restricted vessel movement at the moment.

So just thought that was worth clarifying.

Thank you Paul. Ian, would you like to comment?

Unusually chair, no, not now, thank you.

I think I've been too quiet on this, but I think I should actually say something positive about it.

I've been looking at the child play space particularly and the fact that you've provided more than the required

in certain places but then a contribution. I think the, I wanted to say that that's a positive and that's great

to see that developments are coming through with more than required child play space but also making a contribution

to the bit that you, there's a shortfall on the 12 to 18. I guess on that I would say how would you ensure

that it is spent wisely on the 12 to 18 year olds and I guess a little bit thought around

that instead of just being a cash contribution it would be good to see but you know it's

really good to see that there is more than adequate child play space provided within

this document.

We're going to move to the vote because we've already, otherwise we'll have to take another

vote for everyone to put their comments in now.

Is that alright, yeah?

It's difficult.

No, because I've, yeah, we've had that in the past haven't we?

The chair, sorry, the chair there, the chair has moved down to the vote and the debate's gone, the final comments have been made so we're moving to the vote.

But, Douglas, what you've said is in the public domain so people are aware of it and planning officers have heard it,

Paul's heard it and it will be captured in the 106 anyway so you've managed to make the point, which is good news.

Can I see all those in favour of the application?

Paul, I think it's unanimous, but can you please confirm the committee the decision,

please?

»» Thank you, Chair.

So the committee has basically unanimously to grant planning permission for the redevelopment

of Orchard Wharf is set out in the committee report, subject to conditions, planning obligations

and as we mentioned earlier the outcome of the referral process to the Mayor of London

at stage 2.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't have anything more to add.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Agenda item 6 .2.

Thank you.

Item 6 .2 is PA forward slash 25 forward slash 00457 forward slash NCA 2729, Thomas More

Square London E1W1A1YW pages 141 to 174.

I now invite Paul to introduce the application.

As the chair said, this is a planning application affecting 27 -29 Thomas More Square and the

planning application is proposing a part change of use to higher and further education uses,

which is falls within use class F1A.

For a temporary period and also for a temporary period, a change of use of the units at 27 -29

Thomas more streets building seven for class f2 community purposes and amendments the existing car cycle parking provision

So when you see the presentation

chair remembers that there's

Not really any physical development. This is really about

Land use issues and the change of use is coming to your committee because it's technically a departure from

development plan policies and the amount of floor space involved in the change of views

is over 2 ,500 square metres.

The recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning commissions, subjective

conditions and planning obligations to be secured in the Section 106 legal agreement

and there are no updates to report, Chair.

And I also believe no registered speakers as well.

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

Thank you, Mr Buckingham.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Committee.

This presentation should take approximately five minutes.

And the application site is located at 27 to 29 Thomas Mill Square.

The proposals for a change of use of 25 % of the estate, which would be 17 ,698 square metres

of the total floor space of 70 ,791 square metres from offices to further and higher

education. The proposal also includes the temporary use of half of Building 7 from retail

to a community use. This application, as Paul said, is being considered a Strategic Development

Committee due to not be in accordance with the Development Plan, in this case Policy

DEMP3 of the local plan and it involves a gross floor space exceeding 2 ,500 square metres.

27 to 29 Thomas Mall Square comprises a state known as Maultown. Maultown features a cluster

of office, retail, public house and gym uses. There are six multi -storey office buildings,

some of which feature an active use at ground floor. All buildings are laboured on the map

that you can see on the screen. The seventh building is one storey and comprises four

retail units. As also seen from the map, the estate is bound by three roads and a

waitrose supermarket. The site is also flanked by a grade two list of all to

the western site boundary. The majority of buildings on site were constructed in

the 1980s and have been used as offices ever since. The owner of More Town

acquired the site back in 2016 and it's currently managed by the applicant

Resolution Property. The application site has a public transport accessibility

level between 4 and 6a across the entire site. It's 700 metres from both

Tower Gateway DLR station and Tower Hill Underground station.

The entire site is within the Central Activities Zone designated by the London Plan and it's

also within a secondary preferred office location known as Tower Gateway South which is outlined

in Navy on the plan here. This is designated by the Local Plan. The site is also within

the City Fringe Opportunity Area and buildings 5 to 7 fall within the Thomas More Neighbourhood

centre which is the shaded yellow bit on that plan. I now invite members to look

at some photos of the site that we've just got going through here so this is

looking south down Thomas Moore Street, buildings four, five and six so

this is sort of looking inwards towards the site. Again inwards towards the site

this is around the back of building five and then this is looking towards

building three on site. As you can see from this slide, objections relate to

to the education demand, neighbouring amenity, community use in terms of both what that use

may be and what the engagement and lack of consultation pre -submission.

His officers review that these two objections and the matters raised within them have been

addressed by the proposal as detailed in the committee report.

The main considerations for members to consider tonight are land use, design and heritage,

neighbouring amenity, highways and transport and waste.

The proposal seeks two changes of use. First, a permanent change for 25 % of the estate to further in higher education, and secondly, a temporary change of use of half of Building 7 from retail to community use.

In locational terms, the Tower Gateway South Pole is unique in that it is less accessible than other city fringe locations and is separated from other businesses as More Town is its own confined estate,

partly due to the historic boundary wall which isolates the site, but also due to the surrounding development being more residential in nature.

Policy DM P3 of the local plan does not support the net loss of employment space in poles.

Educational uses fall outside this definition and the proposal would therefore conflict with this policy.

However, the site is within the CAS which means educational uses are supported as they constitute a strategic CAS function,

and the estate would still operate mainly as offices, ensuring the Tower Gateway South secondary pole is not undermined.

Officers recognise the benefits of this use, generating activity and ensuring buildings do not lie vacant.

The proposal would increase footfall in and around the site which would be beneficial to local businesses.

Whereas currently, 18 .8 % of the offices on site are currently vacant and this will rise to 52 .3 % in January 2026.

There has been extensive marketing efforts over the last five years as occupiers have

vacated at the end of their leases.

Despite extensive refurbishment and upgrades across the site, this has not had any impact

on uptake.

Officers have agreed a benefits package which goes significantly beyond policy requirements

and will offer a range of public benefits through the planning obligations.

These will be discussed later in the presentation.

Finally, regarding the temporary change used for half of Building 7, this would be for

a period of three years.

As Building 7 is within a neighbourhood centre, policy is supportive of such use in this location,

therefore this element of the proposal does not conflict policy.

On to the other material considerations.

The only external works are layout arrangements to the basement for car and cycle parking.

There are no impacts on design and heritage and no objection from the noise officer.

Servicing and waste will be managed as per the existing arrangement

and there is no objection from our Highways Department or TfL subject to condition.

These are the contributions that would be secured through the Section 106 agreement

if the application is approved. As seen from the slide, financial contributions include

£74 ,594 .46 for local employment skills and training. The applicant has also offered the

following non -financial contributions which have we secured which are beyond the policy

requirement. These comprise employment skills and training benefits comprising 10 apprenticeships,

20 % local procurement, 20 % local labour and 20 % end user workforce.

A community strategy which would outline how the site and its occupants aim to integrate with the local community more frequently and consistently.

EPC upgrades to all buildings to address the climate emergency and to encourage occupation of the remaining vacant office floor space

as well as to improve retention of those floors currently occupied.

A management strategy, this would secure the education use remains at that 25 % of the estate.

management of the car parts spacing, ensuring all non -accessible spaces that already exist on site remain for the office use,

the upkeep of the cycle parking, which will be secured, as well as the overall site upkeep including things like waste management and servicing.

Finally, a phase landscaping and public realm improvements to the site would be secured, including improved wayfinding and accessibility enhancement,

which would build upon the improvements already made by the applicant to date on site.

As such the proposal to deliver further and higher education floor space contributing to the strategic function of the CAS.

The temporary community use would be a positive benefit in terms of bringing the vacant units back into use

and ensuring the site is well occupied and maintained and is sure that there wouldn't be further losses of the employment use which will remain on site.

The proposal as of detailed in the previous slide would deliver several public benefits such as employment skills training for Tower Hamlets residents,

landscaping and improvement works and improve links to the community through the section

106 agreement.

Therefore officers' recommendation is that the committee resolves the grant planning

commission subject to the conditions and obligations.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

As we have now registered speaker for this application I will now move on to members'

questions.

Do members have questions for officers?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, officer.

for your presentation. This development will use for higher and further education. What

level of education is to be provided? Higher and further education.

So, I think that's a good point.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor.

In terms of higher and further education, it could come forward as either of those uses.

So, it could be either higher or further education, and I think it was set out at the start of

the presentation.

It's just coming up on the screen in a second.

And it's the slide in front of you, the 17 ,000 figure that we have in front of us on the

slide.

So that is the amount that could come forward.

Paul, would you like to come into that?

Yes, if I may, Chair.

I was just wondering, Councillor, if you would just try also asking for clarification on

higher and further, yes.

So generally speaking, higher education is university level education and further education

is college based education.

In planning terms, there's actually no difference, it's just the way the applicant has sought

to describe it because as I understand it, that's where the sort of the demand is coming

for that floor space.

So it could either be occupied by a college

or it could be occupied by a department of university.

I should clarify also, I know this wasn't your question,

but this is not student accommodation.

It's either teaching or office space related to that.

Councillor Ahmedukan.

Thank you.

building?

So they said

there would be 1 ,944 full -time students

There will be 270 full -time

staff as well.

If this staff is they

belong to

those schools or colleges .

I don't know.

That's what I do know, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

So those are estimates based on the amount of floor space.

So there isn't actually an end user at the moment,

so we don't know exactly who it's going to be.

Not that that's a planning consideration,

but that's based on if you look at the amount

of floor space and you estimate how that might be

typically occupied by, say, a university department

or a college department, that's approximately

how many students you might expect to be attending at any one time and then that's approximately

how many staff might be there. So it's existing, it's not new floor space, it's floor space

is already there and it's just changing its use from at the moment it's just used as conventional

office space so it would be moving into, if permission was granted it would be moving

into more sort of teaching space, learning space and that's the estimate of how many

might be able to occupy that space depending on ultimately who comes in there and takes

it on and takes on a lease.

Chair.

Yes, Councillor.

Who will be responsible for running the community centre, the use of the community centre?

So there's no defined definite proposed Occupy for the Community States at this present moment,

but I believe the applicant does have an interested party at the moment and their brochure was uploaded to the planning register online.

They are called Biohub, but I believe that is not confirmed as yet, but it is expected that they would occupy the two units.

It happened, if asked before, can we ask the applicant to delegate the authority to the council to operate the community centre?

We don't have a planning policy that absolutely requires that because planning isn't normally

concerned with the end user.

You are correct that there have been some regeneration projects, mainly housing regeneration

projects where that's happened, but that's been because the applicant has been willing

to do that and it's been negotiated to pass in section 106. I don't believe this has been

negotiated in this case. I would just draw your attention to the fact that the proposed

community use is only being proposed actually for three years, so it's quite short term

initially, so it's a temporary permission.

It's also in quite, as you would have seen

from the presentation, quite a sort of commercial space,

so it's not really as part of a, for example,

a housing regeneration project like we've seen

in previous examples.

So it really, from members' point of view,

that would only be something that we could do

if the applicant agreed to,

because there's no firm policy basis to do that.

We couldn't refuse planning permission, for example.

I think, I'm just looking to officers,

I think I'm correct in saying that's not something that the applicant has offered

So far. Yes

Thank you regarding that community temporary use of community centre it will be like

286 square metre

We've been building seven and the community will be only used for three years

Then what is the purpose of using the community centre for three years, then after that there

won't be any community centre?

And what will happen to those temporary use of community centre?

After three years?

If I may, I mean, the short answer is they would return back to their existing reuse,

which is retail.

But the applicant might be able to confirm, but those units are presently empty.

So both a good play shaping for drawing in other tenants, for drawing people into the shopping centre,

to the development more generally. Both us and I'm sure the landowner wants to kind of have activation,

so we see it as providers giving something back to the community for three years.

I suppose when that three years elapses and there's a conversation about whether that's permanent

if the community said if you know after that's

decision that the applicant the landowner has to make

In discussion potentially with whoever goes into that space, but from an officer perspective that those units are empty

So we very much welcome it and it's an opportunity to give something back or be it is only for three years

cancer charity

Thank you

Like to can you give us some more important little bit more information about the applicant?

And in conclusion it says the proposal will see an increase in cycle parking on site and

decrease in car parking which is neither the policy.

The decrease in car parking, are those car parking near for the nearby residents parking

or just on site?

The car parking that would be stripped out to provide additional cycling is only for

development itself, so it's just for the development essentially, I mean the vast majority of the

development is office, it's not utilised, I've been in those basements myself, there's

an occasional car but the vast majority are lost, obviously planning policy encourages

taking away car use and having more sustainable uses, so we welcome the provision of sustainable

cycling and the reduction of car parking and there will still be ample car parking on site

but it's not residential car parking it's just for the development.

Can you give us a bit more information about the applicant as well?

Yeah the applicant's resolution property who have managed the resolution property who've

managed the estate for a number of years and if you've walked around Moretown they've actually

a lot of money over the years, there's been considerable applications and works to the

estate to try and improve it and make it more active, get new tenants in. We have Gansford

building on site and that is quite a focal point of the site at the minute, so the applicant

has paid a lot of money trying to do investment works. I can't really speak much more about

the applicant and I don't think they're allowed to speak at the moment, but yeah, they have

managed the estate within that red line that we had at the start of the presentation, that

whole estate. They've managed that for several years.

Thank you. Do you think the officers could go back to the applicant and speak to them

regarding the community centre and see if we could take it on as to how to take it on?

Maybe I could defer it to speak to them. I know it's not for a long -term use. Even though

it's short term, three years, you know, you can come to a use maybe. Do you think you

could do that? Maybe I could defer the application for a later date to go back and speak to the

applicant.

If I may, I think as Paul explained, we don't have a specific planning policy for that,

so you have to deal with, you've got the application as it stands in front of you for a temporary

the committee's wish but for us to discuss as part of the section 106 negotiations that

option. The applicant may say yes, the applicant may say no, but it is, I don't think it would

affect the outcome of any vote today to defer for that particular reason because the advice

that you've had from Paul thus far is that's not a planning reason to refuse just because

we don't have it, but if you wish to look at the deferral again, yes, that is something

for you, but it is something you could make clear in your decision if you were minded

to go along with it, that you would like officers to fully explore this with the applicant and

aptitude out.

Is that all right, yes?

Okay, so I would like to defer it.

Yeah, can I, obviously it's at your discretion, but can I make a suggestion that you potentially

give the opportunity for the developer to speak?

No, no, go back.

Go back.

I think it's not fair on them to just put them on the spot like that.

So maybe go back to them.

I think they're willing to speak.

Obviously that's your, that's your, I want you to go back to them.

Is that okay?

What's that?

Chair.

Yes, sir.

I thank you chair for giving me opportunity.

My question, when I asked the question, it was part of the question.

I have left.

I let this colleague ask, let him to ask the question.

My follow -up question was that I agree with the Chair right now that the community centre,

I don't want it to be a temporary one, we want it to be permanent and continue to serve the local residents

as well as the people who will be working from there.

So I would like to request you to add that one, that is not temporary, it is a permanent one.

and also if it is given to the council, so council can fairly use this centre for the local residents, as well as the people who are working there.

Thank you very much, chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Although the community centre does not fall under the planning permission, responsibility

for its operations still needs to be established and I propose an officer engage with the applicant

to discuss this matter further.

So I'll propose to defer it to go back to the applicant to see what we could do regarding

that.

Anyone to second it?

Please let me know.

Do you want to switch your mic off?

Do we move to a –

Yeah, sorry, Chair.

You've moved it.

You've got the second on that.

I see no reason why you can't proceed to go along that basis.

So we would like, I will take a vote on the deferral.

All those in favour of deferring this application?

All those against?

Thank you, Chair.

So the Committee has voted at this stage on the majority vote to defer the application

for further negotiations with the applicant in connexion with the community centre.

Chair, just to, I think I understand,

but just to clarify for the record

what you're asking officers to discuss

is whether there's an option for the community centre

to be offered to the council

on the sort of first refusal basis.

Obviously, we can't say in this room

whether the council would actually take it,

because that decision has to be made

by different parts of the council.

but if I understand your attention,

it's a model that has been negotiated

on certain housing regeneration schemes.

And that's something you'd like us to go away

and discuss with the applicant.

Chair, do you and your colleagues have any view,

because Councillor Kahn raised a concern

about the temporary change of use.

Now obviously that's what's been applied for,

But is there anything you would be asking officers to look at in that respect as well?

This is the three year temporary change of years.

I think my colleague Ahmedul Khan has come back and said what you have to say.

As I have said, we wanted the department, the community centre should be the department

here and give it to the council around the community centre.

Thank you, Chair, thank you, members, that's clear.

Do you want to comment?

Yes, Committee, you voted to defer this item for two particular matters to be considered.

A short update report will be prepared in respect to those two matters only.

And I would remind the Committee that only those members here present tonight who have

taken part in this debate may take part in the next day to conclude.

So, Councillor Kahn, I know you're standing in as a substitute for someone tonight, but

please make yourself available for when this comes. Otherwise, you'll be down to seven.

Whatever you wanted us to look at, you won't be able to have your say into it.

You're going to stitch me here with this one.

Thank you very much for your time.

Officers have made notes of the issues raised by the committee members which will inform

both the pre -application decision.

That concludes the business for the meeting.

The next meeting will be taken place on Wednesday, 22nd October 2025.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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

Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 3 September 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development CommitteeWednesday, 3rd September 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
Wednesday, 3rd September 2025 at 6:30pm