Development Committee - Thursday 16 October 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Development Committee
Thursday, 16th October 2025 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

to start with.
Welcome to the Development Committee meeting.
My name is Councillor Iqbal Hussain.
I will be chairing this meeting.
This meeting is being held being webcast live on Council website and the public and press
may follow the meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly but before I do this, I would like
I would like to briefly confirm the
protocol for addressing the meeting
, including the
partial procedure.
The participant must address the meeting
through myself
as a chair.
If you are participating
online
,
you must switch your microphone
on and
may also switch on
your camera
at that point.
You should keep your microphones
and cameras
switch off at all other times.
Please do not use the meeting chart facilities.
Any information added to the meeting chart facility
will be discarded.
If you experience any technical difficulties,
you must contact either myself or the Democratic 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
item and the nature of the interest.
I have no DPI.
For transparency I would like to mention that this project was initiated while I was the
I'm sitting here with the chair with open mind.
I would like to start on my right, Councillor Francis.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
I'm Councillor Mark Francis from Bow East Ward.
No declarations of pecuniary interest, but just in the interest of transparency, I believe
that one of those people speaking in objection is a friend of mine and former neighbour,
Mr. McCurry
Good evening all councillor, I'm in Rahman councillor from Bethlen green west no DPI chair. Thank you
Good evening all councillor chef yarmouth watch up award. No DP eyes. Thank you
Thank you, members.
Now to Apologies.
Have you received any apologies?
Yes, Chair, I have.
I receive apologies from Councillor Maffita Bustin.
Thank you.
Can we all approve the minutes from 11 September 2025?
Yes, chair.
Thank you, members.
Agenda item 3, the recommendation procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.
I will ask now Paul Ekennam, head of development management planning and building control to
present the guidance.
Thank you, chair.
Good evening, good evening members, members of the public and officers who are joining
us this evening.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including the legal advice that decisions must be taken in accordance with relevant
development plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.
When we come to consider the report with recommendations, the running order will go as follows.
So I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and the summary of the
recommendation.
And then the officer will present the report.
And then we'll hear from anyone registered to speak in objection who can address the
committee for up to three minutes each.
And then anyone who is registered to speak in support for the equivalent amount of time.
And then any Councillors who have registered.
And then finally the committee may ask any points of clarification of the speakers.
And then go on to consider the recommendation, including any further questions, debate or
advice from officers.
The committee will reach their decision based on the majority vote and I'll confirm that
back to everybody in the meeting.
If the committee proposed changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for
example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or planning obligations, then the
The task of formalising those changes is delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control.

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

In the event that the Committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must give

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

their planning reasons and propose an agreement on alternative course of action.
The Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning and legal advice.
And the task of formalising the Committee's alternative decision is also delegated to
the Director of Planning and Building Control.
If the Committee proposed to make a decision that would appear to go against the provisions
of the development plan or could have any other legal implications and the item may
be deferred for a further report from officers providing updated advice.
Chair, there is an update report that's been published online and circulated this evening.
I think there's some hard copies at the back of the Chamber and I'll come to that when
we get to that item.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you for providing guidance.
As an item 4, the deferred item.

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

We have no deferred item for tonight to consider for tonight meetings.
Agenda item 5, planning application for decision.

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

We have one application to consider this evening.

5 a) PA/24/01804 (Full Planning Permission) & PA/24/01803 (Listed Building Consent) - St. George’s Leisure Centre, 221 The Highway, London, E1W 3BP

Item 5 .1 is the PA forward slash 24 slash 01804 and PA2401803, George's St Joseph's
Desert Centre, 221, the Highway London E1W3BP, page from 2098.
I now invite Paul to do the application.
Can I just ask a question of clarification?
So ordinarily we see applications where there's very strong objections, but we also see applications
at this committee for other reasons as well.
So just for clarity, I'm sure lots of people in this room know this.
This is an application by Tower Hamlets Council itself
for the site.
But can I understand the reasons why this has come
to committee tonight?
Is it on the basis of the number of objections
or is it on the basis of that it's one of the Council's
own applications?
Can I ask Paul to clarify this?
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor,
for requesting the clarification.
The application is referred I think based on the amount
of floor space actually proposed is above what we could deal
with under delegated powers.
So that's the reason.
Could I now ask invite Paul to introduce the application.
Paul, thank you.
Thank you, chair.
So the chair said this is an application that is indeed submitted by the Tower Hamlets Council
and it's for the redevelopment of the site at St George's Leisure Centre.
If I go through, there's actually two linked applications, so an application for planning
commission, an application for listed building consent.
So when we come to the decision chair, we and my colleague may wish to provide some
advice during the course of the meeting, but we may wish to sort of take two votes, one
on the planning application and one on the listed building consent.
So the planning application is for the demolition of the existing leisure centre building, and
Associated structures are part of a phase three development of the site to include replacement leisure centre building with ancillary cafe use
External cycle parking and the nine -storey residential building to provide 30 affordable homes public realm improvements to st. George's Gardens
along with new replacement play provision
Accessible car parking and the servicing yard with access from the highway and associated works
Including the relocation of 52 headstones
and construction works for the existing, sorry, which are adjacent to the existing leisure
centre.
And then the listed building consent is for works to attach the relocated gravestones
to the southern side of the listed wall adjacent to Angel Muse and demolition of a section
of the curtilage listed boundary wall between the existing play space and leisure centre
car park to facilitate the redevelopment.
And the recommendations to your committee are to grant planning permission and to grant
listed building consent, both subject to conditions and also planning obligations for the planning
permission.
Chair, if I may at this point just point out that when you look at the detailed recommendation
on the planning application, there is a further aspect to that, which is to do with what's
called the gateway one process for fire safety.
So you may be familiar that buildings over a certain height,
residential buildings are required to be referred to the health and safety executive
as part of the new arrangement, what's called gateway one.
There are further gateways that happen after the planning stage.
The applicant has prepared all the reports that they need to prepare.
However, we haven't had the response back from the health and safety executive so far.
So what we have recommended is that if your committee is minded to grant planning permission
that you delegate to officers to deal with anything arising from that Gateway 1 process
providing it doesn't substantially affect anything else that you have considered this
evening.
Clearly if it did, so for example if there were amended plans then we would have to bring
it back to your committee on that basis.
But this was to avoid further delay to the planning process, Chair.
If I just turn briefly to the update report, there's just a few clarifications in there.
So paragraph 7 .195 of the main report refers to paragraph 215 of the national planning
policy framework.
Sorry, it refers to paragraph 208.
It should be paragraph 215.
There's a recalculation of what's called the urban greening factor, so that's changed slightly.
The number of trees that would have to be lost as a result of the proposed development
has been reduced from 20 to 13.
The drawings listed in the committee report included some of the original drawings, but
as you'll see from the report, the scheme has been amended.
So we have just relisted all of the correct up -to -date drawings just for clarity.
But none of that changes the recommendations.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Paul.
I will now invite Ron and Maury, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, Councillors.
This presentation will take approximately 15 minutes.
The application site highlighted in red here is St. George's leisure centre located in
the Shadwell Ward.
It's on the north side of the highway, a TFL administered transport route and it's
adjacent to the publicly accessible open space of St. George's gardens.
It's also very close to a grade one listed church, St. George in the east.
It's adjacent to two bus stops on Wapping Lane.
It's also within 200 metres of a DLR and overground station at Shadwell.
And here on the north side of St. George's Gardens you've got the cycle super highway
C3.
This is just a map again showing the site circled in red here in the context of the
south west of the borough.
So regarding the application site, what you can see here outlined in red is where the
development is proposed.
And outlined in blue is other land also owned by the council.
At this point I'm just going to point out here there's a small building which was a
Victorian mortuary building and that's in the possession of St. George and the East
Church.
That was originally part of proposals.
There are going to be proposals to do works at this building.
However, that's no longer the case, so it's excluded from the red line boundary.
On this slide here, once again we've got the site circled in red.
This is just showing the heritage context.
So the church I mentioned, St. George in the east, grade one listed, designed by the famous
architect Nicholas Hawksmoor, that's here, highlighted in pink.
In blue we have other grade two listed buildings, so quite a few of them as well.
Also that section of curtilage wall that's over here that would be demolished.
And then the brown shading is just for the St. George and the East conservation area.
And the name of that conservation area comes from the church St. George and the East.
That's the focal point and focus of the conservation area.
Just have a few images on this slide.
So on the left here you can see the existing leisure centre.
A fairly typical utilitarian architecture for a leisure centre of its time, late 1960s.
And you can see here on the left it's set back a little bit with the massing and that's
to kind of limit its impact on that listed church that I mentioned to you, St George
in the east.
Here on the right we have a view coming from east on the highway.
You can see the massing of the building and stepping down here, this is where the existing
car park is and it's got a sort of smaller section as well.
And then just poking up above it you've got the lantern tower of the St. George and the East Church, so prominent in that view.
This image here on the left you can see the existing swimming pool which is empty as it has been since 2020.
And on the right here, once again the red circle indicating the site's location, this is the site in the context of accessibility to leisure facilities, in particular public swimming baths.
So the green shading just indicates journey times using public transport or walking.
And as you can see, it's just on the edge, the application sites, of a 20 minute public
transport journey.
So in an area of deficiency of access to such facilities.
So in terms of the development proposal, it's for the demolition of the existing building
on sites and the construction of two new distinct buildings here.
The leisure centre on the left on the west side.
And a new residential building.
They're separated by a service yard.
Also as part of the proposals, area of child play space within St. George's gardens to
the north of the site.
Just approximately here.
That's going to be refurbished and upgraded.
And as mentioned at the beginning, listed building works.
There are a series of Victorian headstones located at the boundary of the site.
It's not their original position.
They're not graves.
they were the headstones moved previously, they'll be relocated again to another spot
within St. George's gardens.
Okay, so the first aspect of the proposal I'm going to talk you through is the swimming
pool.
This is the ground floor.
So bear with me.
What we've got here, we have the main swimming pool that we've re -provided and that's going
to be 25 metres in length, which is a standard length.
The existing swimming pool, it is larger, it's 33 metres in length.
That's not recognised by Sport England and it's not of much utility to swimming clubs
or training or competition standards.
You also have a learner pool here, which is for children or adults who are still learning
to swim.
And then just next week you've got a splash pad, which is more for fun and games for children
I guess.
You've got a cafe here as well, looking out into St. George's gardens.
You've got the foyer and you've got the wet changing areas.
Next slide, we've got the first floor.
So we've got an activity hall that can be booked and that's got a space for badminton
court, maybe other sports activities.
We've got two studios here and an active play area, soft play for kids included.
Moving up again, we have a very, very large gym, much larger than the existing provision
and that's got a separated area for women who want to exercise separately.
We've got another studio space, we've got a few multi -purpose rooms and that active
play, the soft play I mentioned, that's spread over two floors.
And then finally moving up to the roof, there's another activity enclosure here.
It's got a little separate kitchen provided as well and like other spaces it can be booked out for birthday parties community events
What have you?
So on this slide, hopefully you can see it clearly just demonstrating the uplift from the existing leisure centre
You pull slightly smaller in size, but that's to meet required standards a learner pool roughly the same size splash zone. That's new
gym huge increase in quantum of space
Activity space, there's none existing, there's a huge quantum now and also soft play, another
new introduction.
And just bear this in mind when we come to discussions of massing and size later, how
much is being fit in and this is all in response to an identified need undertaken in a report
by the council for a deficiency of activities that the local community and borough do need.
Staying on the Leisure Centre building, this is an image of it here, it will be 24 metres
is at its highest point and that's a plant enclosure on the roof.
The majority of the building is parapet in the roof edge here.
That's at 18 metres in height.
Materiality is going to be grey terracotta tiling and breeze soleils.
There's big, big glazing elements here on the south elevation facing the highway, on
the north facing the St. George's gardens and a sort of colonnaded open approach here
on the west.
And that's really to emphasise the architectural language of it being a civic building, a leisure
centre and also to respond to the local materiality, in particular the Portland stone of St. George
and the East Church.
The other key aspect of the proposal is the residential building.
New residential use on site is just an image of its eastern elevation.
On the left here we have a breakdown of all the different unit sizes.
I'll come back to this later.
But important to emphasise, 70 % of the units are what we call family sized units, three
bedrooms or more and we go all the way from a three bed four person to a five
bed ten person so once again it's responding to an identified need
offering a good range of houses and these are all social rent they're all
affordable houses. Just a little bit on the materiality of the residential
building which you can see here on the right. 30 metres in height at its highest
points as we can see here floors above the sixth floor are set back from the
southern boundary and that's largely to reduce visual impact on St. George and the East Church
and general presence of the building.
It's got a mixed materiality of different types of red brick, two different red bricks,
two different cream bricks arranged in a combination of brick bonds and textures to give visual
interest to the building.
We've also got some glass reinforced concrete for ground floor elements.
In terms of architectural language, as you can see it's a regular grid of square form,
window and balcony openings, once again to give it a clear identity as a residential
building as opposed to the distinct leisure centre architecture of the other building.
And finally here, just a couple of CGI's to give you a bit of an idea of what the building
will look like in its context.
This one demonstrates how that glazing on the northern elevation interacts with the
adjacent public space, providing greater natural surveillance, sense of safety and security
to enhance that public space.
Similar situation here.
This is the main entrance.
It provides lighting, visibility and openness.
Regarding public consultation, the application was validated on 18 October 2024.
145 letters initially issued to neighbours in December 2024.
And in August of this year, 159 more were issued when amendments were made to the scheme.
The site notices and press edits were issued.
There were five letters of support and eight letters of objection of summarising the main
issues raised here.
There were also two letters which neither objected nor supported the proposals.
In terms of assessment of the proposal, these are the key planning matters.
I just want to read through them at your leisure.
I'll now discuss these planning matters.
Firstly we come to land use.
All the land uses proposed are fully supported and welcomed and fully compliant with the
development plan.
The Leisure Centre, it's identified as a community facility in the local plan and the London
plan.
And what's being provided is a significant uplift in terms of quality and accessibility.
It caters to a range of uses, many different activities, strongly supported.
The delivery of 30 residential units, all affordable and within that range of size I
spoke about earlier, strongly supported by policy.
And yes, there are landscaping works but there's no loss of publicly accessible open space.
With it comes an enhancement to the child play space.
Land use all very much supported.
Coming to design and heritage, just a couple of images here.
The first one is the south elevation.
That's how you see the development, the new buildings from the highway.
The other image is the north elevation as you view it from St. George's gardens or coming
from cable streets.
The proposals have been reviewed by both the Council's design and conservation officers
and Historic England who have raised concern about the height of the building, the contrast
in architectural styles, the materiality and the articulation in particular of the residential
building.
More specifically in regards to heritage, the points raised by Historic England and
the Council's team was that the height of the buildings is somewhat of an overly strong
presence and it obfuscates or obscures views of St. George in the East Church.
Once again here we can see that, so in some approaches on the highway you wouldn't be
able to see the grade one listed church.
The level of harm has been identified as less than substantial and the harm caused is within
the middle of that range.
As per the requirements of the national planning policy framework, the decision -makers are
required to balance this harm that's been identified with the public benefits of the
scheme.
Again, just on housing.
Broadly compliant with policy mix, however, you'll see a deficiency in one bed, whereas
policy requirements for 25 % to be one bed.
However, this is acceptable considering the family home heavy provision of this development.
Also included are three wheelchair accessible units, one at ground floor, two on the first
floor.
In terms of housing, indicative floor plan here.
It's a mixture of single and dual aspect units.
There are no single aspect units with a north facing aspect.
And to the left of where this image is, you have the leisure centre building.
So a western view isn't particularly it's not the best view.
Slightly closed in by the leisure centre building.
But none of the units facing that would only have single aspects in that direction.
They would also face south or north.
All the units meet the required space floor space area for apartments of their size.
They also have the adequate provision of floor space for the bedrooms.
And they have private amenity space.
Private outdoor amenity space.
In terms of daylight standards, 68 % of the rooms would receive an adequate level of illumination.
In terms of impact on neighbouring amenity, the affected properties are the closest ones.
We've got Solinder Gardens here to the east of the site, King Henry Terrace to the south,
and Luna Apartments.
The impacts in terms of loss of daylight is moderate for the two buildings to the south.
Stronger impacts to this building, Solander Gardens, which I'll explore in the next slide.
In terms of separation distance for overlooking your sense of enclosure, buildings to the
south are over 18 metres away.
And this building here to the east is just about 18 metres away.
So that's an acceptable separation.
Also environmental health officers have reviewed the proposals.
They're satisfied that noise and air pollution generated by the development would not cause
harm to residential amenity.
As I mentioned previously, the building at 79 to 134 Solander Gardens is the worst affected.
I'll go into the details of that in a minute.
This image is just of the facade facing the proposed site.
And as you can see here, we've got quite a lot of windows set back within balconies or
under deck access, which already quite badly affects their access to daylight.
It should also be noted that a site like this is quite rare in a city context like London,
where you're adjacent to effectively an open plot of land.
This is the impact of the developments on 79 to 144 Solender Gardens.
And as you can see with this column here on the right, 187 windows are affected to the
extent that they no longer meet, but they wouldn't meet BRE guidelines as standard for
daylight assessments.
However, on further analysis into the publication of the committee reports, we've identified
that quite a large number of the rooms here are actually non -habitable rooms, kitchens,
bathrooms, storage.
So a more accurate reflection is 122 rooms that would fail to meet the test.
In terms of transport and servicing, earlier I mentioned the site's got very good accessibility.
No parking would be provided except for blue bad spaces.
Two of these located here would be for visitors to the leisure centre and they'd need to be
booked in advance.
And two would be for residents.
There is this shared service yard between the residential and leisure building.
This drawing here we can see a tract movement of a refuse collection vehicle.
What that would do is reverse into the site with the assistance of banksmen and then it
would drive out the site in a forward gear.
This arrangement has been discussed with the boroughs, transport officers and with TFL
and they are satisfied it is an acceptable arrangement.
I mentioned that these blue badge spaces for visitors would be booked out, blocked out,
sorry, you couldn't book them when these servicing movements are taking place.
However, the residents, they continue to have unfettered access to their spaces when these
vehicles are here.
A new loading bay would be created on the highway, just here, and that would be for
all other deliveries to the leisure centre or to the residential buildings.
Being in cycle stores would also be provided within the service yard area or cycle store
parking for visitors to the residential area.
And then a separate cycle store would be created in St George Gardens to serve the leisure
centre.
As a result of the development, 13 trees would be lost in St George's gardens and that would
be as a result of demolition and construction works.
It should be noted that 12 of these trees are at the lowest possible gradation of amenity
value.
One tree is of a high amenity value.
It's not guaranteed that it would be lost, however our tree officer has raised concern
and that it wouldn't survive the construction impact.
So this, if permission was granted,
there'd be a condition securing a full method statement
for how that tree could be protected.
And in the scenario that that tree is lost,
appropriate mitigation would have to be
delivered by the applicants.
In addition, 29 trees would be planted,
so there would be a net gain in trees.
There'd also be shrubs and green roofs
across the two buildings.
This image here, just for your interest, any coloured circle indicates a newly planted
tree.
However, in spite of the extensive planting, because the trees that are being lost are
mature trees and the new trees would be much younger ones, there's still a shortfall in
biodiversity net gain.
So it would be secured by condition that an uplift in biodiversity is delivered elsewhere
in the borough on a suitable site.
So on this slide here, on the left we can see the existing child play space which is
a bit dated and limited in its provision.
What's proposed is a significant improvement of that through a combination of things like
a multi -use games area, more comfortable and accessible seating, landscaping throughout
including trees like I mentioned, and inclusive play equipment.
Finally coming on to energy and sustainability, the building would be all electric with all
heating coming through air source heat pumps.
Solar panels would be on the roof of the residential building for on -site energy generation.
The development is targeting a BRIAM excellent rating, which will be secured by condition,
and a financial contribution of just shy of £300 ,000 would be secured towards carbon
offsetting in the borough.
So as mentioned earlier when I was speaking about the harm caused by the scheme, this
is just a quote from the national, well this is the text from the national planning policy
framework, which sets out that you need to balance harm to heritage assets, listed buildings,
conservation areas against public benefits of the scheme.
And just to remind you, the harms identified, the less than substantial harm to heritage
assets, the listed church, the conservation area, the loss of daylight in neighbouring
properties and the loss of mature trees.
Public benefits, a new leisure centre, a vastly improved quality, meeting a respond, sorry,
responding to an identified need and meeting the needs of a range of users, 30 social rent
homes with that family heavy provision and a range of unit sizes and improvements to
the existing child play space and landscaping.
These obligations would be secured.
I will leave that for you to look at quickly.
And finally, in light of the assessment and the planning balance, officers consider that
the public benefits outweigh the harms of the scheme and therefore the recommendation
is that planning permission should be granted.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ronan, for presenting this application.
Now I would like to invite Dan McCurry to address the committee in objection to the
application.
You have up to three minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
No objection to the leisure centre.
I think it would be very good.
We need a leisure centre and a pool and so forth.
My concern is this hammered on residential building, which is really quite massive.
Now, I'm not objecting to the council's priority for housing.
Of course you need housing.
It's really the location of it and the damage that it does to a protected view of St. George
in the East. Just to make you clear about this church, this church and the park and
everywhere around here has been long, long, long neglected by Tower Hamlets. You just
haven't seen the benefit of the history of this area. It should be making Shadwell proud.
You know, you've got this wonderful mural which is a huge piece of history. This church
itself is massively historic. It was built on an act of parliament aimed to reduce the
drunkenness of the East End by one of the most famous architects and it's it's probably been the top ten of
Churches for that period in the country in terms of its beauty its architectural quality. It's much more beautiful st
Anne's or Christchurch Spitalfields, which are the same architect
You should be taking your kids from school and taking them to this park and teaching them about history
The Romans in that area of the Blitz
Former Councillor Leslie Pavett, her parents were in that church in the crypt
when a bomb came down and landed straight in the nave of the church
and a bell from a tower came crashing down
and miraculously no one was killed.
But this is the history of Shadwell wrapped up within this building and within this park.
And what this building does is it completely blocks and obliterates the most optimal view,
the one view that you really see it's beauty because otherwise you're very close up
and you're kind of looking up to it and you don't really see it for the true beauty that the architects intended.
And I think it's a great shame to do that so I'm sure that we do need residential housing.
If you moved it across a bit or if you made a tower I wouldn't be objecting at all.
My only objection is that you're ruining the view of one of your most historic buildings
and already in a place where the council just doesn't seem to realise or recognise that this place is a major asset for the community
and your children should be educated and learning and gaining pride in Shadwell or the whole of the East End
and that's been damaged. So that's what needs to be placed in balance in your decision when you want to go ahead against the benefit of having some extra housing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We are charging time.
May I now invite Amanda Day to the committee in objection to the application.
You have up to three minutes.
Thank you, Chair.
This scheme is totally against environmental best practise and destroying a building that's viable for affordable refurbishment.
No conditions surveys have been included in the application and allowing the applicant
to state time and time again the building is not viable when no evidence has been presented.
There were three structural reports commissioned by the council in 2018 and 2019 that did not
condemn the building.
So where's the evidence?
Further work on this scheme misses the opportunity of other sites in the neighbourhood for more
housing at a lower cost.
Two sites come to mind, the land around John Orwell Sports Centre and the former council
depot on Sutton Street.
The budget for the housing in Portland scheme is in excess of £60 million.
The Leisure Centre based on current costs should cost £21 .4 million at 4k per square
metre.
Housing at £2 ,350 .4 per square metre is £10 .5 million.
So where's the rest of the money?
You could buy the same number of units on the open market cheaper than this ski.
Our objections are backed up by the Council's own scrutiny bodies.
The Quality Review Panel concluded the design brief has caused problems and tried to accommodate too much on the site.
The Place Shaping team said the proposals are out of character with the surroundings in terms of materials colour, scale and over -dominant.
It is also a wholly unsocialist scheme condemning people to live in horrible conditions next
to a busy road.
Delivery drivers on bikes will use the park on Delos Street to access the block and blight
the area.
The park will no longer have a sense of wellbeing.
Yesterday and today 46 new documents have been added to the planning application.
Revisions for how blue badge holders will enter and leave the leisure centre and property
residential were only agreed earlier this month.
If a blue badge holder is coming from the east,
they will have to cross several lines of traffic
to enter the building and ensure no pedestrians are
passing the gated entrance.
No scrutiny of these documents has been allowed
and does not yield any confidence
in the planning and design team.
In addition to a lay -by, there will also
be a school bus stop for picking up and setting down.
This will affect the flow of traffic and make it more dangerous for pedestrians and vehicles.
There's also no provision for the parks team to access for cleaning and gardening.
The committee will ask to do the best they can for the people of Tower Hamlets and in
that endeavour please refuse this application.
Thank you Amanda for your speaking English to the application.
May I now invite Taheemina Choudhury to address the committee in support of the application.
You have up to three minutes.
Hi everyone, my name is Tamina and I'm a local parent and also a SEND parent ambassador.
Today I'm speaking on behalf of St George's Pool campaign team.
We do support this planning application, however this has been a difficult decision.
Reaching this milestone after years of campaigning is exciting, but we feel frustrated that we have not been able to build a trusting relationship with the Council.
We will continue to work to ensure full transparency and accountability until the pool is built.
Our campaign involves people from many local institutions, including nine schools, faith
organisations like Mariam Centre at the East London Mosque and St George's in the East
Centre, charities, community groups.
Many are members of London Citizens, a community organising alliance, working together to
to achieve change.
We have been campaigning since 2021,
when the pool remained closed after the pandemic.
We persuaded the council to keep the pool in shadow
and made sure they included the school children's priorities.
Last December, we took action to get the council
to release the planning application after months of delays.
We celebrated our wins and the cabinet member
for Culture and Recreation committed to meeting with us
every six months until the project completion.
However, this commitment was not honoured
by the cabinet member.
He informed us that the pool was not his responsibility,
nor could he put us in touch
with the relevant council representatives.
You can understand our frustration
to learn that the designs have been updated
without our input as agreed.
These latest designs are not the same ones
we originally supported.
We feel the public consultation
should have been more extensive to ensure those affected by the changes had the opportunity to
share their views. We do not currently feel we can trust the Council to be transparent about their
decisions. We are also concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the project's timeline.
In summary, we have decided to support these plans as we want to see progress. We ask for the
following to ensure transparency and accountability to all our community going forward.
We want the Council to make a binding understanding, sorry undertaking, that they will not make
any reductions to the scheme without full transparency and community consultation.
We would also like the Council to publish a binding timeline for the phases of development
and the date by which the swimming pool will be open.
We also want the Council to honour their commitment of meeting with us every six months, to update
us on the progress until the project completion. We will be writing to the cabinet member for
Culture and Recreation next week asking to meet by the end of November. I have some handouts
here if you want to take one and pass it along. It's just got a list of the organisations
that are part of the whole campaign and a little bit more about us.
Thank you, Mr Choudhury, for your speech and support of the application.
May I now ask Sean Arkman and Rahima Khan to address the committee and support of the
application.
You both have up to three minutes.
Thank you.
Hello and thank you for inviting me. My name is Sian and I'm the head teacher of Blue
Gay Fields Junior School and I represent the local school community. This is a community
struggling under the burden created by the continued closure of St George's Leisure
Centre and I am here to advocate for the immediate planning approval for the redevelopment of
St Georges. The continued closure presents a multitude of issues for local schools but
tonight I focus on the four main concerns all directly impacting on our core mission,
educating our children and the wider community. The first issue is the prohibitive cost of
travel in both financial and loss learning. By law we must ensure that our children learn
to swim and with St Georges closed our children must now travel significant distances to facilities
elsewhere in the borough. The required round trip consumes up an entire morning of valuable
school time, time that we have to strip directly from structured sports activities and other
curricular areas. The cost of travel itself is prohibitively expensive. The cost of swimming
lessons per year is £6 ,000 but the travel costs £5 ,500 per year. We could afford almost
double the number of swimming lessons for our children if we didn't have this added
cost of travel. Secondly, it's a huge missed opportunity for inclusive and consistent sports
provision. Previously children with additional needs in our schools had access to one hour's
free swim in a week. This was a planned inclusive curriculum for the children. Unfortunately both
logistically and financially this is no longer viable for schools in the vicinity of St George's.
Thirdly and probably one the most important is reopening the leisure centre is one of the
closure of St George's Leisure Centre undermines the health and wellbeing of the children in
the Shadway Ward. And this is already an area I know from my school facing the highest rates
of obesity in Tower Hamlets and in the country reopening this vital public health asset.
It isn't merely a matter of leisure, it's a crucial preventative intervention to tackle
the deepening health crisis in Tower Hamlets.
Data shows that children in the Shadwell ward
are starting primary school with higher rates
of excess weight than elsewhere.
And these rates more than double by the time they leave.
This trajectory leads to increased risks
of type two diabetes, heart disease,
and mental health issues in later life.
We already know these are huge in Tower Hamlets.
Reopening the pool directly addresses this crisis.
by mitigating the environmental and health factors driving obesity and we go part way
to offsetting the negative impact of an environment saturated with unhealthy food options for
our families. And finally there's the crisis in life saving literacy. As educators we are
all acutely aware of the alarming public safety issue. The rates of swimming and life saving
literacy amongst London's children are amongst the lowest in the country and our
current inability to provide easy affordable access to swimming is a
direct contribute contributory factor to this failure to project our own children.
I'm sure you like me all share great sadness as we remember the death of the
ten -year -old girl who tragically died this summer after falling into the river
not that far away from Chagre. So we're asking you to strategically support the
restoration and modernization of St. George's Leisure Centre, not only to
honour its history as the first public indoor swimming facility in England, but
also to serve as a high -function educational and public health asset for
the 21st century. The reopened St. George's Leisure Centre will directly
address the issues I've raised. It will offer accessible swimming and
multi -sport amenities with close proximity to our local schools.
This strategic placement in the house facility design will deliver immediate measurable benefits.
On our sports curriculum delivery, it will foster stronger school community links.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry, with your permission, I was just noticing that on your running order you had objectors,
supporters, and then time allocated for the applicants as well.
My colleague and I are just checking the procedure rules.
My understanding is that the applicant is not on the supporters are normally grouped
together.
So, well, we just sort of confirmed that.
And that does align with what I read out earlier
under item three.
I know that the applicant team is here,
so perhaps the best way, chair, to proceed
is rather than hearing from them
in terms of allocated slots,
perhaps if the committee have questions
for the applicant's team, then if you agree, chair,
then you could allow the applicant team
to answer the questions.
But I'm not sure it's in line with the procedure rules to allow them a separate a lot of time to speak
Which is we're just checking it
We've heard we've had sort of six minutes from
Them to the public objecting and we've heard six minutes from those
Supporting so I think that to my mind that that in terms of future rules that that's it
So I apologise if there was an error on your running order.
Thank you.
Taking advice, suggestion on board.
I will ask member, if you have any queries, questions, concerns, you can ask the applicant present.
And you should have given them the time to speak.
Present is okay.
Thank you.
Now, do members have any questions either to the officers, speakers or applicants?
Please indicate if you have any questions.
Councillor Choudry.
Thank you.
I have two questions to our officers.
First one is related to consultation.
One of the objections is that consultation was insufficient
and particularly in the case of the government.
affected to the resident.
How do you justify this?
It is related to consultation.
The second one.
The church does not support the proposal
regarding the mortuary
which is in the church's ownership
, not the council's ownership
as there needs to be more evidence
as to how
the development
of mortuary would provide
a community use.
Thank you, Councillor Choudhury.
Here is your question too.
Thank you.
I will just go back to the slide about consultation for your first question.
I think that's all right.
As I said, there was an initial letter campaign to a radius around the application site.
It was a hundred and fifty -five years ago.
145 letters were issued and site notices went up around the site and a press advert was
displayed.
So the standard procedure in terms of consultation was followed.
And then as I say, when amendments were made, more letters were issued in August of this
year, 159 of them.
So in terms of statutory process, that has been followed in terms of consultation.
In regards to the second question, sorry, could you repeat it?
The church does not support the proposal regarding the mortuary, which is in the church's ownership,
and not the council's ownership, as there needs to be more evidence as to how the redevelopment
of the mortuary would provide the community use.
regarding to the mortuary, the charter is this objection.
Perhaps if I can come back on that.
I think precisely for those reasons,
the applicant, because they need to have more conversations
with the church, they decided to amend the application
and take the mortuary out of the red line of the application.
So it might come back at some point in the future,
but it's not part of the application at the moment.
So they've responded to that particular concern
from the church.
Councillor Ahmed, thank you. Thank you chair and good evening all. Just one of the
questions I wanted to ask was the application has new updated visuals and
amendments or is it just a visual that were made can you just clarify that as
per the objector.
Sure thing.
Is this in relation to what was mentioned in the update report?
Grandson, yeah, I'll go to this slide now.
Can you see?
Yeah, perfect, yeah.
So as I mentioned at the beginning, all the original plans, the red line went out and
around and included the mortuary building.
So when the application changed and the mortuary building wasn't included, all the drawings
needed to be changed.
So that was the main element of that.
That's the only recent real change to drawings.
And then as mentioned, we've also just provided a couple of new drawings in relation to the
parking arrangements as per this slide.
Where we can see people accessing the residential bay with a servicing vehicle still in place.
And then in terms of this was August this year, this change.
As I mentioned earlier, the residential building's got the upper floor set back.
And as well, the plants, the technical equipment on the roof of the leisure centre, that was
rationalised, I guess.
It was spread out and a bit messy, so that was centralised to reduce its visual impact.
But these drawings were updated a couple of months ago.
I am sorry.
I can't allow you to speak.
We heard you.
We heard your concern.
Now office at your response.
Thank you.
As chair, if I may, I would like clarity on that
statement itself.
Thank you.
Yes, if I may speak yes, I understand the confusion both of
members and indeed people who spoken against the application and more generally
So the app we consulted on the original drawings on the original application
Then following the comments we received including from historic England and be from our own conservation team
We asked the applicant to review aspects of the scheme.
With that amended sets of drawings were prepared and the design of the scheme including the
massing as Ronan just set out was provided.
So there were substantial changes to the scheme and therefore we undertook public consultation.
That public consultation was in the summer and was the full public consultation as we
with the existing.
The understandable confusion and I understand it's not helpful is that when that public
consultation was taking place, the applicant still had an ambition to have the mortuary
building within the application and indeed find a new use for it, as it were.
It was only much more recently that the precisely because the mortuary building isn't although
I think the ambition was good because the mortuary building is not in a good state of repair indeed
It's lost of roof. So the ambition was to
Restore that building and and in the process the buildings reckon mortuary buildings recognise the heritage asset
say because the because the the ambition was that
Building might come into the council's ownership and therefore the consent could help secure those improvements and that couldn't take place
It was taken outside of the red line and the description development indeed had to change
because it was an ambition to be classy, to be a café or something of that ilk.
That took place after the consultation.
Officers were of the opinion that that amendment wasn't of an order, that it required broader
public consultation.
and there was also discussions about the servicing arrangement that were happening only a couple
of weeks ago and again we were keen that those drawings were captured in the suite of drawings
that also captured taking the mortuary building outside the red line. They've arrived very
late in the day and obviously because a lot of drawings have to change to actually just
take on board this relative minor change which has taken the more triple outside the red
line so they have been uploaded onto the council website this week. I understand the confusion.
But as I say those changes are very modest in kind.
If members have further questions, officers will seek to explain more but that's just
give context hopefully that was helpful.
Thanks for explaining this.
May I have now Councillor Aman please.
Yes thank you chair.
It was a question for Amanda Day.
You spoke about some figures can you repeat that again please.
you
I'm going to ask the chair to explain that.
Can we ask the officers to explain that?
Sorry, it's not a matter to be discussed at this committee.
We're purely concerned with the planning application, not the financing of the project.
So I'm just clarifying.
Thanks, Dan, for clarifying this.
Councillor Francis.
Thank you, Chair.
So I've got a number of questions which will be to the applicant, but before that, just
a couple of questions.
First of all to the objectors and then to the supporters and semi -supporters as well.
So first of all, I understand you represent different groups and different perspectives,
but can I just understand, Mr. McCurry, your concern is principally about the residential development
on the site and the scale of that, have I understood that right?
Amisté, your concern is about the principle of the redevelopment as a whole as opposed to
refurbishing the existing building. Have I understood those two things right?
That's in relation specifically to the residential element of the application.
No, I don't think the chair will allow you.
Okay, no, I understood.
I'm just trying to understand the principles of the objection.
And, Miss Day, your view is that there should be refurbishment.
Have I understood that right?
So, if it's okay, Chair, I'd also like to ask a question to the supporters.
So I guess one of the key elements of the support for this package is about the urgent
need of repurvision of the pool and wider leisure facilities.
But you raised concerns about the engagement from the town and its council itself during
the course of this period.
So do you have concerns about any of the kind of, I guess the shape of the development that's on the table here?
Or is it just about the uses of the, or within the scheme if it was to be approved?
stands ready for an roaredMusic
you
I'm sorry to cut you short, we have to refocus a bit on the planning.
My next question is really to the applicant team, if that's okay.
And I guess my kind of view will begin to become more clear as I ask the question.
So first of all, I need to say there are immense public benefits for this scheme
Not just in terms of having a having a pool and leisure facilities, but having something
Having the residential as well
The key question for me is about whether those obvious and undeniable benefits
Outweigh the impact on the setting of a grade one listed Church
and I'm going to come to our own off of planning offices in a second, but just as the applicant team
We know that you're encouraged to deliver the maximum amount of social housing, council housing on our own land that you can.
But when you receive the representations of Historic England and others about the impact of the original August 24 scheme on the setting of the church,
How did we end up in a position that while a bit of the scheme is lower, another part
of the scheme is quite considerably higher, two floors higher. How is that a response
to Heritage England's concerns about the, I guess, overshadowing of the church?
We've got the architect of the residential building here and I could answer it but I
wonder whether Rita Morris might have a better explanation.
So the question is in response to Historic England's reservations about the impact on
the church, how did we end up with a higher building in effect?
So the key view that you see on the image over there is where you're approaching on
the highway looking west and it is really the view of the lantern at the top of the
church that's the most important part of this view. And what happens as you go along the
highways that is actually quite a fleeting view, so the further back you are you have
a different view of the lantern and the closer up you get you have a slightly different view.
So opening up the view of the lantern was the most important thing, so we responded
to the comments from historic planning officers that actually we needed to open up and reveal
that view more. So we set the top storey back, quite far back, but in doing so there was
a significant loss of floor area and also in the overall number of new homes we were
able to provide on this site. So that meant that we had to kind of regain that lost floor
area which led to an additional floor and that's in effect how we ended up with a taller
building. So it's taller but set further back.
Yeah and I think these two images show that well. But why did you have to re -provide that
space on a different part of the site?
So I do mean…
You said like you take you've there's some of it's been lost from the setback
Which I understand but you said that that then needed to be we provided
Yeah, the brief took to us as designers is that you know, we needed to be able to provide as many affordable homes as possible
and
Really? That was the directive given to us
That's great. Thank you. So just to the applicant the
So bearing that in mind, that's the architect's view, they're asked to deliver a scheme of
that size.
So for the council itself, when we receive those representations from Historic England
that say that there is a less than substantial but significant adverse impact on the setting
of a grade one listed building.
Why do we then say, why is our reaction,
well let's carry on with this something of the same scale
but just tweak which bits impact on it?
So just, I'm the planning agent for the council
but was involved in those discussions.
I don't think it would change Historic England's view
on the fact that there's harm to the site, the fact that we added a little bit of height.
And really what happened was we received that objection and we took it away, discussed it with officers,
and went away and looked at the massing of the building to see how it could be changed to try and respond to that
and make it, and create that better vista of the church tower that you can see in that image.
And I don't think there was any concern that that additional height set back further.
affected the level of harm that was generated from the massing.
So, I mean, whilst we debated the harm and it's a subjective matter,
we accepted their point that there was some and therefore remastered the building to respond to those concerns.
And as it happened, that allowed for a little additional height, but out of that key view.
I don't know, do you want to add to that at all?
Thank you, thank you, Councillor.
As you can see, the site is quite a tight site and in the scheme we...
Introduce yourself, please.
Everyone, I'm Johor Ali, Director of Culture and Leisure and the applicant of the scheme.
The site is a very tight site and we're trying to maximise the use,
making sure that the leisure facilities have an enhanced offer in line with the 21st century.
But when we're looking at residential schemes, the site is very tight,
and it's just trying to maximise the space without having as less impact as possible.
So when Historic England did give us that feedback,
the additional height is not in the eye line or the sight line of the lantern,
and that's why we would always look to try and maximise the number of family houses that we could get on the site.
And that's the decision that we took.
But I think by looking at those images you can see that there's a big difference between the picture on the left and on the right,
where you can see the whole lantern is very clear and there's space between the building setback and the lantern.
So in that sense I think the team have done a really good job in making sure the lanterns opened up and gaining valuable family homes.
So I think they have within the parameters that you've set them as a council corporately.
The question is why something, a different approach wasn't taken that was maybe more in line with historic England's concerns.
So just so as I understand it, I think I've looked online, I can see three sets of representations from Historic England,
all of which raise concerns to the point of objection to this scheme.
They still object to this change and it's principally on the basis of the heights of the residential element of the site, is that right?
Can you please introduce yourself?
Yes, Jeremy from Montague Evans, I'm the planning agent for the applicants.
The Historic England identified that they felt that there was less than substantial harm as a result of this development.
and they, initially they said that that was at the higher end of that range and after
we changed the scheme in this way I believe they then downgraded their concerns. But my
understanding wasn't actually an objection, they failed to support the application, they
stated they wouldn't support the application but they would leave it to the local planning
authority to determine whether the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm that they'd
identified or that indicated to the council existed.
So we sometimes get objections, proper objections from Historic England where they say this
scheme is unacceptable and we object to it and in this case they said they were unable
to support it because of the level of less than substantial harm and left it to the LPA
to balance the benefits which we say are very substantial in this case and
therefore do outweigh the less than substantial harm.
Thank you.
Councillor Raman.
Thank you, Chair.
The plan is include mostly bigger family homes.
Can you confirm this matches what's mostly needed in tyre hamlets and if their rents will be really affordable
for the residents as well.
Let's go back to the slide where I have them to remind everyone.
Just to be able to confirm all the rents will be social rents so they are the most affordable
rents that could be provided.
Yes, so it's very clear in policy that family sized units are supported and considered a
public benefits and I believe the design brief including the change that we were talking
about earlier to the articulation of the residential building was partially to allow this mix that
we've got here for some of these bigger family units.
So it's responding to an identified need for that larger range of houses.
So it's definitely considered a public benefit in planning terms, yes.
Just to supplement that, I mean, we do do needs assessments and sadly there is acute
need for larger family size units.
I'm sure when you do your wards
Ward consistency meetings that that's reflected kind of there as well
Counsellor I'm it. Thank you chair just two
Officers I
Have a bit of concern regarding the lorry
Reversing in from the highway. It's a two -lane traffic as you know, I know there's a
reduce speed limit
as a 20 miles per hour irrespective of that
Cyclists and others and road users don't always adhere to the
To the speed limit how I know you saying there there's a mitigation circumstances where?
There will be a banksman
Now is this
How is how is that gonna work?
I know it seems like a very difficult especially with waste vehicles being larger than normal
How are we going to manage this and what timings is it going to be? I?
Shared many of your concerns
I should just maybe kind of set in the context when the application we first consulted on we obviously consulted the highway
Authority was transport for London
We received their comments back and actually they didn't have any concerns about the service and precisely what you talked about
When we had to reconcile with the amended drawings in the summer, I took on my own responsibility
to approach TFL and ask them to reflect again on their comments because I did have those
concerns.
A senior officer with the Transport for London then took up the case as it were and we received
much more substantial concerns and indeed they registered objections precisely, but
what you talked about, about refuse vehicles reversing and other servicing vehicles stopping
on the highway and then making that reverse move.
Obviously we always seek servicing to be on site and for that servicing arrangement to
be it for vehicles to move in and out in forward gear.
We've after extensive discussions with Transport for London very recently and as Ronan said
with the applicant team and critically also with our own highways team and more critically
perhaps our own council waste team including the operatives who are actually responsible
for going out on each day.
the
All all the all the servicing with the exception of one van a week that will deliver the servicing
Will will be made from the street so they will not use that service in Bay
That van for delivering the chlorine will be able to make it's a relatively small vehicle
So you'll be able to reverse in Ford gear make make the reverse on site and then reverse out in Ford gear
So there's there are no concerns of that from the Transport Authority
In terms of the refuse vehicles, it's obviously something our council for f -use vehicles are altogether larger
So I set out in the committee report. They will stop on the highway and
Then the again has been an educational process for myself
Every time the our council refused it makes makes go out on the morning run
They have four members of staff and two of them are trains banksmen
So those true to train banksmen will will will will ensure the vehicle stop and then they'll make that that reverse
Manoeuvre it it is only one one vehicle movement a week
Say it's it's not an ideal option object
Resolution
but
Transport for London have now removed their objection that it is in the committee report
there's reference to an updated road safety audit which is independent from the applicant
at the time when they published the committee report.
That updated assessment hadn't been done but we subsequently received that and they're
satisfied with that arrangement.
So hopefully that answers your concerns.
Thanks.
You go one more question.
Thank you for the clarity on that.
Lastly, so you say the headstones will be moved to a different location, they're not actual graves but they're headstones.
But then you mention of the loss of the wall, the listed wall. Where are we in terms of heritage?
Yeah sure, thanks. Just quickly on this diagram here, so where you got the original centre, the headstones are there and they were relocated in the late 60s when it was built.
So relocating them again hasn't been identified as harmful. It's a very small section here, so it would have been the wall of the graveyard for the church back in the day.
and barely any of it remains.
There's just a small bit remaining there
and it hasn't really been highlighted in responses
that we've seen as harmful.
So no harmful.
Yeah, for just my supplement,
I think our own Barrow Conservation
has some concerns about the loss.
The applicant team may be able to come in.
The wall is of significance
because it marks the edge of the cemetery,
but actually the understanding is
that wall isn't particularly old.
So it has some symbolic significance and obviously the gravestones are rested on it.
So I think there are concerns from the Conservation Office, there is some harm if you like, but
it is quite limited in scope.
But I think it would be wrong if I didn't reflect that view.
Before I come back to Councillor Rahman, can I, Mr Ali, you had raised your hand.
Just on some of the points, I know we're not talking about the cost, but the scheme has
been benchmarked with other neighbouring leisure centres that were built in Hackney, the Britannia
Leisure Centre recently, so those documents are available in terms of value for money.
The amenities within the facilities are a lot more.
there was a chart shown by the planning officer that shows significant increase in the scheme.
And just to reassure in terms of the transport, the vehicles going in, the refuge vehicles,
the refuge vehicles collect waste from 7am to 2pm.
The peak flow for the highway is from 4pm onwards normally in terms of eastward flow.
In the morning the flow tends to be westward and there is traffic data.
It's a 20 mile an hour zone. So all of the representations that we've had from different bodies have been catered for
in in the documents and we will continue to
Look at any other issues that come forward
What's the beyond that was the view of the TFL on that?
Yet if I don't don't have an objection to it, that's fine, okay
Thank you. Thank you
A question for the applicant.
If the application was to be granted tonight, when do you plan to start on the development
and how long would it take and will you be doing the legis and the housing or going to
do it together?
Yes, so we would look, we're currently in the process of procuring a contractor.
Sorry.
Oh, sorry.
I'm Anthony Newton, I'm the project manager.
So yeah, as I said, we're currently procuring for a principal contractor to deliver the
works.
We're looking at demolition commencing from March next year and then construction starting
in August next year.
Because of the gateway application process for the residential building, which we know
there's current delays with the building safety regulator, we think that the leisure centre
So we would start first and then the residential building would follow.
We're estimating approximately 24 months for the Leisure Centre and 18 months for the residential building.
Thank you.
Thank you. Do you remember now? I can see Councillor Francis.
So I have a question to our planning team.
I'm
So I really understand why you're recommending this for approval this evening
And I really appreciate the time that you gave me for a site visit earlier as well
So I just would like to know though when you receive
Representations from Historic England that for an application any application that there's a
significant harm to a grade one listed heritage asset
what's your kind of expectation of an applicant when you pass that onto them?
How do you expect them to change their application if they if that's the kind
of advice that's or not advice opinion that's coming from Historic England?
Thank You Jay, if I may. Thank you Councillor. Yeah so Historic England they're
Obviously the the the national advice from Heritage Matters
So they that they are and they are a statutory consul t in some cases particular weathers effect on
Grade one mr. Buildings. I
suppose the the way I would look at it is we is we would expect the applicant to give serious consideration to
That advice in the same way that the planning
Authority is required to do so
How the applicant
chooses to respond in terms of the amendments to a certain extent will rely on a combination
of factors and I think colleagues have sort of explained how they sort of went about thinking
about that.
Part of the planning team advice was about looking at setbacks with the developments.
The applicant obviously chose to do the setback but also to re -provide some floor space on
top, which I think was more to do with responding to the brief and the internal space planning
of the units because obviously in doing, if you imagine taking a setback on the standard
floor, you've already got to redesign the homes that would sit within that floor already,
unless you're going into the realms of providing, for example, duplex apartments, which is clearly
quite an expensive option.
So they are, I suppose, a very important consultee.
we would expect any applicant to acknowledge that
and respond appropriately.
Ultimately, in terms of the planning decision,
it goes back to what the MPPF says,
which is where the harm is described
as less than substantial,
then you're allowed to do the balancing act,
well not allowed to, you're encouraged
to do the balancing act by policy,
and we've placed great weight on the very substantial
public benefits of the scheme.
Thank you, Councillor Chaudry.
Thank you, chair.
This proposal will improve child's play space is positive, but not increasing the size of
the child play space.
All the units are family size.
How do you accommodate the children is number one.
And my final question is tonight.
Does any of the objection seriously fall within the scope of material planning consideration?
If false, how do you mitigate this?
Thank you.
I will go back to the objection slide just to assist with that one.
In summary, yes, a lot of the things raised are material planning considerations, for
instance things like daylight and sunlight to neighbours were raised, noise and light
pollution.
So anything that is a material consideration has been considered in the assessment, as
As we see on this slide, all the material planning considerations were assessed in the
round in turn with harm identified.
As I said at the end of my presentation, where harm, for instance, so we had a raising an
objection loss of daylight and sunlight.
As you saw, I have my section on that.
We assessed it, we've identified the harm and then when it comes to the balance at the
end, that's how the decision, the recommended decision is arrived at.
So in summary, yes, material considerations were raised.
Does that answer your question?
Child play space you want as well.
So you are correct, yeah.
Normally with residential schemes we do kind of seek to have shared amenity space within
the red line, within the development itself.
I guess what the balance here is, is uplifting and improving it without resulting in a loss
of publicly accessible open space.
If you were to increase that child play space in St. George's gardens, you then fall foul
of the policy requiring publicly accessible open space to be maintained.
So what they've gone for is a significant improvement of the child play space that's
there.
I say to make it much more inclusive, with an inclusive play space, much more accessible,
much safer, and to make it greener with planting.
So you're correct in that child play space isn't provided on site.
It is relying on this next bit.
So that is maybe a shortfall of the quality of the residential accommodation proposed.
But once again, when we come back to that balancing of the benefits, that outweighs
it.
Does that answer your question?
// Yeah.
If I may just supplement that.
I suppose what makes this applicant different from most many schemes you see before us is
Obviously the the adjoining land which is our public open space is owned by by the developer
by the developer by the council
So therefore it gives an opportunity and indeed is within the red line of the application side. So it gives a very direct
Opportunity for the council for the developer and let's not use the word council the developer to take the opportunity to make those improvements
This committee often asks for financial contributions where all play space provision is not provided
on site.
Those contributions are important in terms of improving play equipment, for example,
on neighbouring sites.
But the scale of the improvements on to this Solander Gardens, to St. George's Park is
of an altogether greater order.
So yeah, we would always seek to have play space on site.
I think particularly that notify place doorstep play,
we'd always want to see immediately, as it says,
at the door of the core of Zebra,
and this scheme doesn't do provide this.
So it's just the opportunity this developer provides
is they got a large piece of open space,
which is never gonna be a development plot,
and therefore there's an opportunity
to make improvements to it.
Thank you.
Before we go for sharing our final thoughts on this, I have just one question.
I think probably I missed the answer, the question from my colleague, Councillor McMahon.
Some of the speakers were very passionate about the timeline of completion of the project
if the application, if we grant the application.
So do you have can be more specific about the completion of the project?
So I didn't get the chance to catch your eye earlier and I just I just think there's a couple of
Comments that are made earlier and I just think it'd be important to correct the record for once a better term
I think first one I'll make I've
From the comments. I've heard from councillor Francis is eating it. I don't think it will just move on
So councillor Francis made the comments that the amended plans
Made took the building two storeys up
In fact the amended plans only took the raise that's building by an additional storey.
I think this view illustrates it very well because the main bulk has been taken down
in the storey.
What it means is the mass into the rear is now more visible in the views so it kind of
gives the effect of reading an additional two storeys rather than one but it is only
one storey.
So I think that's I'd say I suspect that won't change your assessment in terms of that relationship to
To to the lantern, but I just want to do that
So I took that more from heritage from historic England saying there was a 10 metre increase in the height
That's what they said in their letter
We can can we just we'll try and look at the plans and take that away
Thank you.
Just one other.
Whatever the decision the committee made tonight, I think all concerned want that decision to
be safe.
The planning agent made a comment earlier that following the amendments of the plan
that Historic England had moved the degree of harm down from less than middle.
I would take issue with that.
I don't think that is the case.
I don't think the comments where they see the harm on the scale of less than substantial
I don't think has changed on that.
And I think it would be best, the planning agent may take issue with me, but I think
it's best if the committee take my judgement and say that the level of harm hasn't changed.
And I just whenever there's harm to any heritage asset, I know there's also temptation when
it says less than substantial, that it's in some way not significant.
The national planning policy framework is very clear that this should always be harm.
So we just need to be mindful of that, especially when you're dealing with a grade one Mr Bill.
Thank you.
Now do you remember perhaps their final thoughts on this item?
Please indicate if you have final thoughts on this one.
Councillor Rahman?
I'm going to decide.
Councillor Rahman?
Thank you, Chair.
Listening to the decision, I've read about it.
I have listened to decisions.
And I'm quite satisfied, to be honest with you, with the officer's assessment.
And I'll be supporting the officer's recommendation to approve the scheme meets planning policies
and delivers clear community benefits, provides new homes, a modern leisure facility and more
sustainable design that supports the need of local residents.
So I'll be happy to support the officer's recommendation tonight, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Can I just echo what Councillor Francis stated before?
I think if I'm not wrong, the benefit offered by the project are with the concern for harm
to the heritage.
So that's my line of position in regards to this application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the officers for bringing this important development that
is since 1969.
we know that the St. Georges pool has been serving residents for many generations
and unfortunately in 2020 it closed but never reopened.
And as a resident who lives close to the pool, I know many schools within that area,
many parents, many children, especially with SEND needs,
would want their children to attend rather than go to different areas.
and I think it's a long -standing matter that can be resolved today.
I'm delighted that I will be supporting this Ledger Centre facility.
It's exciting also that we have an activity area for younger children,
children who want to learn how to swim, and it's a life skill that we are offering.
and this will provide our younger generation hope and security,
and especially with the free swimming that is being rolled out within the borough
for our girls over 16 who are able to use the facilities for free.
We hope to continue that and also for our men who are aged over 55, I think.
So this is a good uplift and I think it's well needed
and I think we will see the benefit of this for many, many years to come.
So I'm delighted to go with the officer's recommendation
and I'd like to just mention about the housing
and the uplift that it will have within this area.
And I'm also happy that we'll have three dedicated wheelchair accessibility housing
which we know as councillors.
We have people coming to us regularly in our surgeries on our phone calls
mentioning about larger home sizes, disabled access houses and
you know, this is truly commendable and I look forward to the much
benefit that it will show and also
just all the benefits of this it will just ensure that we as a council are making sure that
that this brings about local jobs and enhanced play area for our residents.
So thank you and I will support this application going forward.
Thank you, Councillor Ahmed.
Councillor Chaudhry.
Thank you, Chair.
Already a lot of things have been said.
When we first came into power,
we decided instead of refurbish, we need to build this.
Tonight we need to resolve this.
Though this proposal has lots of negative impact.
But on the other hand, it also offers a degree of balance by providing much needed family
size homes.
So I am supporting this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Chaudhry.
Councillor Francis.
Thanks.
You're going to let me go last.
Seriously.
So, I mean, this scheme has been knocking around for a long time.
Too long.
So my recollection is that as a project it was put forward in around 2018 -2019
and in fact if I look at the cabinet papers they say that the funding for this scheme was approved in February 2022, so before the last election.
So the scheme on the left is what happened within the parameters of I guess the ambition that was set at that time.
but it wasn't set it wasn't it it subsequently has been I think quite
fiercely criticised really in the given the kind of the way that historic
England speak so I'm just gonna read something from the recommendations which
I think the best in their own words the impacts of the proposals on the St.
George Church in the East Conservation Area and accompanying Grade 1 listed church remain
considerable and harmful and will need to be considered by the decision maker.
Historic England remains concerned by this scheme on heritage grounds on the basis it
will lead to multiple instances of harm to designated heritage assets which contribute
to the special character of the historic environment around St George in the East.
And I think, you know, if this was a grade two listed, even grade two star listed, I
would say that the public benefits that you've all talked about and which I really strongly
agree with would outweigh.
But this isn't grade two or grade two star, this is grade one.
And to give a kind of a comparable for what else is grade one in Tower Hamlets, it's the
Tower of London, it's the White Tower.
And what this says to me is that this kind of residential development,
because it's not the leisure centre that I have a problem with, even if it's to do,
but that if this can be built this close and this obstructive to the view on the setting of this Grade 1 asset,
it could the same by the same argument could be used in any other grade one asset and
You can look through the list and see what those great one assets are some were mentioned earlier by mr. McCurry Christchurch Spitalfields and and
You know, there's there's a list of 20 and we are the guardians as a public authority as a plan and authority of these
assets so
I'm really I can't support this tonight and I will be voting against but what
really frustrates me about this is that I believe that in the past with this
kind of pretty fierce rebuttal back from Historic England the council would have
actually thought do you know what they're right this is too much we don't
need to push the boundaries this far this is our land it's our application
this isn't about viability or any of those kind of measures.
We can say that we're going to soften the impact of our scheme on this Grade 1 heritage asset.
And instead of that, what's been asked of the architect is to find a way to create the same number,
but in a slightly different way.
And that's why we've got this.
And I think the architect's done an okay job within those parameters,
but the impact is still as harmful as has been set out by Heritage England.
So I really regret that. If this could have been like 21, 22 flats, it wouldn't have any of this kind of significant impact on the heritage asset.
And I'll leave it at that in terms of this application but vote against it.
But I do think that this sets a worrying trend which looks ahead to the kind of tool building
policy that I know the mayor is intending to introduce next month.
Thank you, Councillor Francis.
I appreciate and respect everyone's view, including the objective and the people who
spoke in support of the application.
now it's time for the member to decide as I see in my person B from the
from the image or from the from this what is called yes yes yeah so I can see
the the architect or the planner has been considered to some extent to reduce
the harm in terms of the view of the church. It is a valid concern and I appreciate the
concern but I can't see from my viewpoint that they had done their job to minimise the
harm to the heritage view of the church. Now it is time for us to vote. May I say that
All those in favour of this
litigation, including the
consent to the
listed building
consent
and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sorry, just before you vote, if I could just give some guidance, because as I said, there
are actually two applications, two recommendations.
Yes, Paul, sorry, I should have asked you before, if you were voting.
No, no, no, that's absolutely fine, chair.
So I would advise, so the first recommendation is to grant planning permission, and that's
subject to planning conditions and planning obligations, but also to delegate to officers
to deal with the response from the health and safety
executive on the fire safety issues and to delegate that.
And then the second recommendation is to grant
listed building consent, but the listed building consent
is only for the works of the wall and the relocation
of the headstones.
So the sort of, although they're connected in terms
of the scheme, they are actually separate considerations.
So hopefully that clarifies.
vote on those separately?
I would advise to.
I would advise to.
Now we will have two separate voting.
First of all,
in the main planning permission, I would like
to see those in favour of
the planning permission, please indicate.
Those against?
Any abstentions, sir?
Thank you, Chair.
So if I just confirm on that, so the committee has voted a majority vote of four in favour
and one against the grant planning commission for the redevelopment to set out in the report.
And could I just clarify for those members who are supporting that recommendation that
you are consent with all the elements of that, including the delegation of officers to deal
with the fire safety.
Is the...
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Those of you who are in favour of this application 2, which is consent to the listed building.
Listed building consent, Chair.
That's five unanimous in favour of listability.
Thank you, Jack.
Do you have any point to mention?
No.
Once again, thank you, everyone, for your contribution, for your time.
Thank you.
Thanks.
you