Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 22 October 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development Committee
Wednesday, 22nd 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
  1. Webcast Finished

live on the Council's website and public and press may follow the meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like
to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing this meeting, including the virtual meeting
procedure.
Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair.
If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch the microphone on and
also switch the camera at that point.
You should keep the microphones and cameras switched off at all other times.
Please do not use the meeting chat facility.
Any information added to the chat facility will be disregarded.
If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic
Service Officer as soon as possible.
I will now ask the committee members to present themselves and introduce themselves.
Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda
items and the nature of interest.
Thank you, chair.
Councillor Kumbu -Sain from Baghlatan Ward.
There is no DPI.
Thank you, chair.
Good evening.
My name is Ahmadur Khan and I'm the Councillor for Blackwell -Kibbe town.
No DPI.
Nothing to declare.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone.
Councillor Iqbal Hussain for less reward and I have nothing to declare. Thank you.
Councillor Gulam Kibrech Chaudhuri for more reward. Nothing to declare. Good evening, everyone.
Good evening, everyone.
Councillor Lilloo Ahmed from Myland Ward. Nothing to declare.
Councillor Shabab Hussain from the south. Nothing to declare.
I have no DPIs.
Thank you very much.
I have nothing to declare as well.
Thank you.
Now to apologies.
Fatima, have we received any apologies for absence?
Yes, we received apologies from JAHED.
Thank you.
Agenda item 2 is minutes from previous meeting.
Can we approve the minutes from the third meeting?
31st July 2025.
That's fine.
Agenda item 3, recommendation and procedure for hearing, objection and meeting guidance.
I will now ask Paul Beckenham, Head of Strategic Management, Planning and Building Control
to present the guidance.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good evening, members, members of the public and officers who are joining us for the meeting
this evening.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development
plan policies and material planning considerations.
The process for considering the reports with recommendations and public speaking will go
as follows.
So I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation,
then officers will present the report.
We would normally then hear from any registered speakers, but I think I'm correct in saying
nobody is registered this evening, so I will just skip over that part, Chair.
Following that, the Committee will consider the recommendation, including any questions,
debate and further advice from officers.
And then the Committee will reach their decision based on a majority vote and I will confirm
that decision to the meeting.
Should the Committee propose changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for
example to add, delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of formalising
those changes is delegated back to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
The event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation, they must give
their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.
Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task
of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions
of the development plan or could have any other legal implications, then the item may
be deferred for further report from officers dealing with the course of action.
There is an update report that's been published this evening and circulated and that just
deals with the main item under Part 5 of the agenda.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Paul, for that.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

Agenda Item 4 .1 is PA4 -25 -00457 forward slash NC 27 -29 Thomas Mall Square, London E1W1YW,
pages 19 -64.
I introduce Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So this item is actually on the deferred items part of the agenda.
So it was a planning application that was deferred at the last meeting of the SDC.
So if I just briefly sort of introduce that for you.
So as the Chair said, this is affecting land at 27 -29 Thomas More Square.
The application is for part change of use to higher and further education at Thomas
more square and use of two units, numbers 27 to 29 Thomas Moore Street for community
purposes and amendments to the existing car and cycle parking provision. That description
has been amended because it in part addresses an issue raised by the committee in their
deferral. So the recommendations to the committee was to grant planning permission, subject
to conditions and planning obligations. And the matter was deferred by the committee last
time for two main reasons. So the original application had the community floor space
as a temporary use rather than a permanent use, and the committee asked whether that
could be permanent in the same way that the other parts of the scheme were. And then the
second reason was whether the community floor space could be offered to the council to manage
on the first right of refusal basis. And the application was deferred for officers to have
those negotiations with the applicants.
We have had those discussions and we now have an updated set of heads of terms, an updated
recommendation for you.
Chair, if I can, for your permission, the case officer has a very short presentation
around this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
I invite Holly, case officer, to present application.
Thank you, Holly.
Thank you, Mr Buckingham Chair.
Good evening members of the committee this presentation should take approximately four minutes
As seen from the title slide and as Paul's already mentioned the description of development has been amended as communities will now be a permanent
change used rather than temporary
So just a reminder for committee
27 to 29 Thomas Moore Square
Comprises an estate known as more town more town features a cluster of office retail public house and gym uses
There are six multi -storey office buildings on site some of which feature an active use at ground floor
All buildings are labelled on the plan that you can see here
Building seven is the one storey and comprises for retail units two of which are proposed to change use to the communities
The application was deferred from the last SDC meeting for the following two reasons
the community floor space could be permanent rather than temporary change of use for three years and
Secondly, the community floor space could be offered to the council to manage first right of refusal.
Photographed here you can see is building 7, where the middle two units will be changing use from retail to a community use,
and a subject of this presentation.
As mentioned, the change of use from retail to community is now a permanent change of use and not a temporary permission,
and this meets Committee's first reason for deferral.
In considering Committee's second deferral reason, the request for the community space
to be offered to the Council to manage and have the first right refusal, the applicant
has been in advanced discussion with the community space operator Biohub since before the submission
of the original planning application.
Given the advanced nature of these talks, the space is unable to be offered fully to
the Council once it has planning permission.
However, the applicant and Biohub have agreed the following.
First, a willingness secured through the Section 106 legal agreement for the community space
to be jointly used by the Council to host events in the space and invite local people
and groups to use the space as well as to host joint events with Biohub when relevant.
Secondly, the space will be offered to the Council for first right of refusal option
to occupy the space from outset should Biohub not take up their lease.
And thirdly, the space will be offered to the Council on a first right of refusal basis
if the proposed tenant subsequently gives notice of the intention not to renew their lease.
Officers believe that these commitments meet the reasons for deferral.
So just a reminder for the Committee, the planning obligations that were agreed
should the application be approved on the screen there.
These remain mainly unchanged from the previous Committee presentation
but the community strategy has been updated and these details which I'll discuss on the next slide.
So the updated strategy would include developing the tenant using reasonable
endeavours to do the following points which are the bullet points on the
screen. So firstly work with local secondary and primary schools when an
objective of working with at least three borough schools in any calendar year.
Work with a diverse range of local groups and resident groups from St.
Catharines and Wapping Ward as well as neighbouring Shadwell and Whitechap
awards. And lastly have the objective of working each year with a minimum of five
local charities, third sector organisations, community groups and social enterprises.
Therefore, it is officers' recommendation that the committee remains to grant planning
commissions subject to the conditions and the updated obligations as discussed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Holly.
Thank you for the presentation.
Do members have any questions for officers?
.
Thank you for your presentation again.
In our last meeting
we deferred this item
in relation to the community centre use.
If anything is developed
or the same as it is?
The previous meeting
we deferred this item
in relation to the use of the community centre
of the community centre because it delegates the power to our officer to negotiate them.
We will use the council in the future to use this community centre.
Anything is developed or is the same as it is previous.
Sorry, Chair. Yes, Councillor, it is. So the recommendation is updated.
So I just wonder whether, I mean, hopefully it's clear from the report,
but if I could just ask Holly just to go back a little bit.
So the first thing is,
so those three items on the slide there
were not part of the application previously,
so the applicant has agreed to those three items.
And then, although it wasn't perhaps
the main thrust of your deferral,
the applicant has tried to go a little bit further than that
in terms of how they've developed their,
because there was always an intention
to have a community strategy, if you like,
but it wasn't that well -defined as to what that would be.
So if I just, if we just go on to the,
I think it was towards the end of the presentation.
So in addition to those three items,
there are these, what you might call slightly,
I suppose, softer requirements,
which are all about sort of working with local schools,
working with the local community, working with local groups.
So that would be part of the developer's strategy as well.
So as a package, I think it's,
I would say A, it addresses your committee's concerns,
but B, the applicant has been quite thoughtful about,
I think they've taken the thrust of your concerns
about what else could they do on top of that.
I should be quite clear, what they can't do
is offer the council the facility right from the outset
because they are in advanced negotiations with an operator
and I think the committee members will all be aware that the funding system can't control
who occupies space. So in a way I think what has been negotiated is pushing this as far
as we can in relation to what the committee was concerned about.
Thank you, Paul, for the explanation. I think our officers have done really well in getting
this done, especially with what my colleagues have requested last time about the use and
having a particularly having a available for the council to use this space and I would
like to thank the applicant for making those changes.
Is that your final thoughts? We're not on to final thoughts, we're on to questions.
No, I just wanted to thank Paul for his hard work. You could do that after.
Okay, thank you. I'll do it again after.
It is for clarification.
The paragraph 1 .1 shows the application was considered on 3 September 2024.
Is the new application or the deferred item?
Yes, Councillor Hussain, I think you weren't present at the last meeting, so I think you
are saying it was deferred.
You won't be taking part in this because that's perfectly correct.
Thank you for reminding us of that.
Councillor, you can ask questions.
If you want, you can ask questions.
Councillor.
Good evening, everyone.
As my colleague had said, last time it was difficult for two points.
it was that the community centre should be given to the council to run the activities
there for the local community. Also it wanted to be a permanent one. So it's kind of not
absolute guarantee that that will be permanent, it could be. And the other one is a right
to refusal to give into the council. Can I have two clarifications on those two items?
It is said that community use can be right.
The community floor space could be permanent rather than temporary three years.
And the community floor space could be offered to the council to manage first right of refusal.
Can I have clarification on both of them please?
Thank you chair.
Thank you, Councillor, sorry if it wasn't clear.
So if we just take you back very quickly to the description of the application.
Originally when you saw it last time, the reference to community use said temporary
for three years.
So that's been removed now.
So if permission was granted, then the community use is as permanent as anything is in planning,
because obviously somebody could come back and apply
to change it to something else in the future
and that would have to be considered on its merits
and that's not a new, that's just the system, isn't it?
So, in terms of, it wouldn't be a temporary
planning commission, it would be a full planning commission,
so that's the first thing.
The issue around offering it to the council to manage,
I just need to reiterate that there isn't anything
in legislation or policy that can absolutely require that.
However, the applicant has listened to the Council's, sorry, to the committee's concerns
around that.
And I think the package that we just talked about on the screen earlier, which would involve
co -location of the Council if they wish to with Biohub, who are the charity who are in
advanced negotiations on a lease, I think is a good compromise.
But then there's also the issue that it should Biohub not take forward their lease or indeed
if they should leave in the future,
then the requirements,
if the council first right of refusal would kick in.
So I think that's how the applicant's proposing
to deal with it.
And then as I mentioned,
there are those other sort of slightly softer measures
that the applicant is willing to offer,
which will be set out in the community strategy.
So I think as a package,
we've taken it as far as we can as officers,
and I think the applicant has done well
to try and respond to your reasons for the deferral.
The word they use is could be, could be permanent
rather than temporary for three years.
That could be what is like, is there we decide
whether the permanent or not, could be, understand?
That is the concern for me, that could be.
It doesn't say that it will be, it say could be.
They can make decision not to make it permanent.
It's 1 .1.
Page 91 .1.
19 .1.
19 .1.
Chair, if I may, and I do apologise,
when we have a deferred item, we actually attach
One night.
Oh, one night, sorry.
One night.
Right, so yes, that paragraph, council, that's just reflecting what you asked for.
So all that's doing is saying the committee devoted to further application for the following
two reasons.
So that's us capturing what you asked for, not what's being offered, if that makes sense.
Yes, we asked for a public...
They change their mind after two, three years not to let it be a permanent, then they go
right to do that because they say it could be, it's not guaranteed that it's not going
to be.
Chair, maybe there's some misunderstandings.
So 1 .2A is just setting out what is the committee you resolved, we should go away and negotiate.
If the permission is granted this evening, then they would implement the permission.
Should somebody wish to use that space in a different way that doesn't fall within that use class,
then they would need to come back and apply for planning permission.
So it would come back from the system.
Any more questions?
I think Paul, you answered part of my question, which I was going to ask you about whether
there's actual planning policy around having the community centre managed by the council.
I think from the last deferral, if I refresh my mind, one of the rational reasons why it
was deferred was due to whether the council can run the community centre.
I think at that point I didn't understand whether there was a planning policy around that for us to make a deferral or not per se.
However, seeing that it's come back with a lot of movement within that, again, is there actual planning policies around a council running a community centre?
I guess in terms of the wording, if I could quickly just say, permission changes year
on year.
Any building can come back and say I want to change the building.
So whether that's something that's perhaps on the horizon with any planning buildings
or whatsoever, it could always come back.
So it doesn't matter that it's a maybe.
I think it is all buildings can change their criteria of what they want to deliver from
those buildings at any given point of time as soon as they put an application in.
So if you can give a little bit more clarity around that would be helpful.
Thank you Councillor.
So in response to that, there are development policies around the provision of community
space as you'll be aware.
There isn't any explicit policy requirement around who manages that space whether it's
the Councillor or somebody else.
So I suppose in a way it's the applicant sort of acknowledging that the council could have
a role, but the wooden, I suppose if I frame it slightly differently, it wouldn't be a
sustainable reason to refuse something.
That's probably the way I would explain it.
I don't know whether, Ian, if you wanted to add to that at all.
Yes, Councillor, if we would be if this would be a part of a planning obligation which would
form part of a section 106 agreement, you're probably aware, and there are certain tests
that we have to meet before we can include a planning obligation in the section 106 agreement.
And one of the tests is that what we're asking for must be necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms. Now it might make sense for the council in its
community which is its community strategy and everything else for the
council to have the lease of the community centre so that we can do that
but that is different to planning terms we we're looking at the planning use of
the land as the description says as the education use and also the community use
and that's what we're looking at and anything we can secure above and beyond
that has been done down to the negotiations between the council staff
and the the applicant but as Paul said it would be not a good reason
particularly to hang a hat on to look at refusing this application because we
don't have that planning terms that planning need or that planning control
over how the land can be used or who manages the land.
I think looking at what has been offered, if I can speak from a legal perspective, it's
probably the best of both worlds for everyone, which probably means no one's going to be
happy at the end of the day, that's usually how these things work, but it does give the
applicant the opportunity to carry forward its negotiations with the company that it's
working with to take over the community space which means that if permission is granted
that development that community use that community centre could be up and running a lot lot quicker
with all the community strategy the work of the local primary schools working with the
diverse groups and the objectives of working 15 local charities etc etc all that can be
Up and running a lot lot quicker which is of benefit to the council as a whole not as a local planner
That's a whole but then it does build in the full position that if that falls
Down for any reason then the applicant will come to us and say can we step in?
So I think the applicant is is going as far as it can and we are going as far as we can in planning terms
to secure
What the council's overall?
Overarching strategies are we're going as far as we can in that
and we're securing it in the strongest possible way, not only for this committee but also
to reflect the wider views of the council, the wider wishes of the council in respect
to community use.
So in terms, and thank you that's really helpful, in terms of, so obviously they've
been negotiating, I think do we as the council have capacity to take on a community building
I think that's the question that nobody's, you know, it's great to make these decisions
here, but whether that's doable in terms of the council's capacity and whether we have
a community strategy for that, is that something that I'm assuming has been discussed and whether
we do have capacity to actually take on a community building and manage it?
You would have to forgive me, council, if I mis -ensur the question.
I haven't got my hearing aids today, so I'm struggling a wee bit, but essentially the
Negotiations, I hope I swallow that up, with the existing proposed tenor will carry on.
If that fails or doesn't go through or they take it up and then withdraw, then it falls
upon different areas of different teams of the council to get involved in any negotiations
to see if the council can, if the council is prepared, if the council is willing to
step in.
But the effect is that first right of refusal to come and talk to the council.
and I suspect, and I may be speaking out of town here, that will fall down to the estates
teams to carry out those asset management, to carry out those particular negotiations.
Not this committee, you've done your bit by securing that for them.
I think for me it's just more around do we have the capacity in asset management and
are we just making decisions here, surely they must be talking and watching what we're
doing as well. So perhaps in the negotiation stage they will probably alert you to it.
I
Think that's a question for when it arises the capacity will either be there if they have to look to get external help into
to
To help with the deal that that's a matter for them
It may be at the end of it that the council is entered to an agreement for property four doors down the road and doesn't
Need it, but that that's something will be decided at the at the particular time
When this falls into place?
Thank you chair, I have two questions. My first question is about the initial
language leads to the council for taking over or managing the community space and
does the applicant has the
The applicant has the right to the refusal renewal of the lease.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, councillor.
I suppose these are matters that sort of sit outside planning.
If I was to be frank, we should be mindful that the approach at the moment is that the
landowner is in advance negotiations with an organisation who are looking to take on
that lease.
But what they have said is that they will take a few things.
Firstly, they may not need to use that space all of the time, every hour, every day.
So they are very willing to talk to the council about whether the council would like to hire
the space and almost like on a co -location basis when they're not using it.
The lease, I understand that the terms of the lease that they have been offered is four
years.
So if they, at the end of that lease, if they decided not to renew, that's when that Section
106 clause that Ian talked about would kick in and it would be offered to the council
on a first refusal basis, assuming the council at that time wanted to take it or had the
capacity to take it. But there isn't a direct lease at this stage coming to the Council.
So I suppose I just need to be clear with everybody about that. That's not how this
has been negotiated.
A little bit of clarification regarding the, so that lease will go over to the bio hubs
and after three years of the,
it's four years, I can see here, okay,
four years, then they will,
if they have intention with that not to renew the lease,
and they want to give up their lease,
so that first right of refusal would be offered
to the council to take the permanent lease of that property,
and like this space, committee hub,
committee centre, whatever.
That's correct, although, just for completeness,
So the Section 106 terms would have two other scenarios
that built into that.
So at the moment, Biohub haven't actually signed their lease.
So it's possible, if that didn't go through,
then that first right of refusal would obviously kick
in much, much sooner.
Most, you'll be aware most commercial leases will have
break clauses in them.
So again, if Biohub decided not to run the four years
and for whatever reason decided to leave earlier, again,
that first rise of refusal would kick in.
So we would build in all those three different scenarios into the drafting of the obligations
if you resolve the grand planning commission.
Thank you, Chair.
The objection stated the car parking space would be the five per cent for a disabled
person.
So five per cent for what capacity?
So out of 100%, 5 % will be the car space for disabled person.
Just a little bit more understand about the car space.
So is it 5 % for disabled person or any other car space available from this place?
Thank you, Councillor, thank you, Chair.
I do recall that we did have a question about this in the discussion last time.
Appreciate you were not at the last committee, Councillor.
but I just wonder if I could defer to either the case officer or Kirsty just to help you
with that.
No problem, thank you. The proposal will provide 5 % on site which will be for disabled persons
as you say and a further 5 % will be wide and bayed but there will be no car parking spaces
for the higher education use itself on site.
So you are correct that the 5 % relates to the disabled base.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
We're going to move on to sharing your thoughts.
I'm not taking no more questions on this application as we have spent a lot of time on our last
meeting.
Do members want to share their thoughts quickly on this application before we move to votes?
Before I move to votes, Ian and Paul, do you have any last, maybe any last advice before
we move to votes?
Thank you, Chair.
I don't think I really do have much more to say, actually.
I think we've sort of explored the issues in quite some detail.
And I would just, obviously, just my final advice is just to remind members of what can
be achieved through planning and what sort of sits outside of planning.
And I think we have achieved as much as possible in relation to your original reasons for deferral
on this.
And I would encourage you to consider our updated recommendation to grant.
Thank you.
Moving to the vote, can I see all those in favour of the application?
Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision, please?
Thank you, Chair.
So the committee has voted unanimously to grant funding commission subject to the updated
heads of terms and section 106 agreement as set out in item 4A of the agenda this evening
for the change of use of floor space at 27 -29 Thomas Moore Square.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Paul.
Agenda Item 5, planning application for decisions.

4 a) PA/25/00457/NC - 27-29 Thomas More Square, London, E1W 1YW

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

We have one application to consider this evening.

5 a) PA/25/01172 - ArcelorMittal Orbit, Thornton Street, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, E20 2AD

Agenda item 5 .1 is PA forward slash 25 forward slash 01172.
5 .1.
I'll call it.
Toronto Street, Queens Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, E20, 2AD, pages 65 to 85.
And now introduce Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you, Chair.
So as Gerard said, this is a planning application affecting,
it's quite a landmark structure known as the Ocello
and Mittal Orbit, which is on the Queen Elizabeth
Olympic Park, full address Thornton Street,
Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
And the planning application is actually a cross boundary
planning application.
So part of the structure will be in Towerhampton
and part within London Borough of Newham,
and it's for the installation of a launch platform to the existing orbit structure,
which happens to be in Newham, and the construction of a return tower within the London Borough
of Tower Hamlets to support a new zipline visitor attraction.
A recommendation to your committee is to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
There is an update report and it's just to clarify a matter.
So one of the conditions was to require a visitor operational management plan.
And that management plan is proposed to include reference to discount scheme for local residents
using the facility if permission is granted.
And that wasn't explicit in the original report.
So we just wanted to clarify that.
And, Chair, if I may, we were just thinking before the committee that, again, if you were
to grant planning permission, you'll see when you see the presentation, this is quite a
slender structure.
It doesn't have any boundary treatment, any fences or anything around it.
You can actually erect fences and boundary treatment up to a certain height without needing
planning permission.
So if you are minded to grant planning permission, I would also recommend one additional condition
that removes those permitted development rights, so should they wish to come back and put any
bound treatments up, they would have to apply for planning permission, so it just safeguards
the open character of the area.
There are no registered speakers for this item, so with your permission, Chair, we can
sort of hand over to the officers to present.
I invite Hannah, planning case officer, to present the application.
Thanks, Chair.
Good evening, committee members.
I'll now do a short presentation on agenda item 5 .1 which comprises a 38 .7 metre zipline return tower.
The proposal is comprised part of a cross -borough application as part of the site falls within Tower Hamlets and part within Newham.
The image on the right shows the boundary.
The Newham application is going to their committee tomorrow with an officer's recommendation for approval.
The images on the screen show the application site which comprises an existing area of hard
sanding within the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
The application site is located on metropolitan open land and within an archeological priority
area.
The application site is not listed nor does it lie within a conservation area.
The proposals comprise a cross boundary application for the installation of a launch platform
to the existing ArcelorMittal orbit structure within the London Borough of Newham and construction
of a 38 .7m tall return tower within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to support a new
zipline visitor attraction.
The image shows the location of the proposed return tower and cables including the part
of the site which is located within Tower Hamlets.
In terms of consultation, seven letters were sent out.
This is due to the location of the site, which
has very few adjacent occupiers or addresses within 20 metres
of the boundary of the site.
A site notice was also displayed,
and no letters of representation were received.
The red dot marks the site location on this image.
The site's located on metropolitan open land,
as most of the land within the Olympic Park is designated Metropolitan Open Land.
The zip line would be an ancillary leisure facility and the return tower structure would
not have an impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land.
At ground level, the structure would be appreciated as three separate poles with limited impact
and would not be overbearing to users of the Olympic Park.
No fencing is proposed to close off the area between the poles and permitted development
rights would be removed through a compliance condition relating to the fencing.
Therefore there will be limited impact to pedestrians and users of the Olympic Park.
The proposals are considered acceptable from a design perspective.
As shown in the image, the return tower will comprise three metal pillars, each 1 .5 metres in diameter,
with a white finish and zip lines and a cable system fixed to the top of the structure.
Officers consider that the appearance of the structure is in accordance with the surrounding development within the Olympic Park.
The Olympic Stadium has a similar appearance, constructed from white coated metalwork.
There will be limited visual impact at the ground level as the structure will be viewed
as three separate poles with spacing of at least 10 metres between all three poles.
A townscape visual appraisal was submitted with the application.
This concludes that the development is appropriate in townscape and visual terms.
The immediate surroundings of the return tower comprise an area of hard sanding and river
lee and users of the zip line will not be able to disembark on the return tower.
The land to the east of the Waterworks River which is approximately 158 metres
from the proposed return tower contains a range of uses including the V &A East
and London College of Fashion. If residential use was built out to the
west of Marshgate Terrace it would be over 65 metres from the site. Given the
large separation distance between the return tower and these sites combined
with the nature of the zip line which would not allow users time for
given the continuous movement, it's not considered that there would be any impact in terms of
privacy and overlooking. A noise impact assessment was submitted as part of the planning application.
The report concludes by stating that based on the noise model results and considering
the character of the ride noise, there's no adverse noise impact anticipated from the
proposals. The applicant has agreed to a condition limiting the operating hours of the zip wire
from 9 a .m. to 8 p .m. seven days a week and to limit the operation frequency to
60 rides per hour and the speed to 60 kilometres per hour. This will further
mitigate any potential impact on the immunity and impact of neighbouring
occupiers. Additional conditions will mitigate any impact of construction on
users of the Olympic Park and surrounding highway.
Given the nature of the proposals there are no concerns regarding air quality or
land contamination subject to the application of relevant conditions.
The proposed development would not impact an on -site priority habitat as the site comprises
a sealed surface which has a biodiversity value of zero under the statutory biodiversity
metric.
The proposed development is therefore exempt from providing biodiversity net gain on the
grounds of de minimis impact as it does not impact a priority habitat.
To conclude, officers recommend that the committee resolve to grant planning commission subject
to the conditions shown on the screen. This includes two additional conditions as set
out earlier. Thank you and I will now take any questions.
Thank you, Hannah, for the presentation. As we have no registered speaker for this application,
I will now move on to members' questions. Do members have any questions?
Councillor. Just to confirm, I understand that we are
I'm not sure if you can see it, but it's a little bit different.
perks for local residents in town it's
Yes, there's a
Discount scheme for local residents. It's not I should say it's not just our helmet. So what what the operator has done is look to
If you like about you know, because obviously they're across boundaries
So it would include residents in Newham and I believe I'm correct in saying
Addresses within residents living in certain dresses in Walton Forest as well just because the geography of the area
We can provide more information on that if you'd like.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, officer, for your presentation.
Due to the lack of physical boundary treatment
being proposed around the return tower structure,
it has been requested that that measures including CCTB
and measures to detail climbing are incorporated
into the design of the return tower.
How confident are you that we will get this? I
Think those were the comments chair from the is that from the secure by design Metropolitan Police? I don't know if I could defer to
colleagues to respond
Yeah, we have recommended a condition and to secure the secure by design measures
So the applicant will be required to submit those as part of a condition
Sorry, those would include things like CCTV, anti -climbing, those kind of measures.
Chair, if I may, the one aspect that we didn't follow through from the recommendations is,
as I said, is actually the police sort of said about boundary treatment, but if you
go back to the image, if you imagine, I mean, as we were saying, the whole of the park is
designated as metropolitan open space.
So if you imagine a huge fence around the structure,
A, it wouldn't look very nice,
and B, it would stop that openness.
So if this was built in the way it's currently proposed,
then people can still move around it,
if they wish to they can walk under it, et cetera.
So it's quite fine.
So sometimes we do find that the comments
from metropolitan police sort of
can be a little bit standardised,
and we were just a bit concerned
that to follow their recommendation require fencing all the way around would just be at odds
with the land use designation, but the other matters around things like anti -climb paints
and other measures they've suggested, I mean they're fine
because they won't really affect the visual appearance of the structure.
So trying to keep it as, I suppose, as refined and as elegant as it can be in architectural terms.
Do you know how much they're going to charge for the rides?
I'm not sure, but it's not really a planning matter, I'm not really a planning consideration,
but yeah, I'm not sure.
And do you know if Newham's going to keep all the money or they're going to share with
any, with us?
No, not a planning consideration.
Yeah, if I may be so the actual operator is a commercial operator
What they're proposing is a discount so so whatever they would normally charge I think
For residents living within a certain geographical area of the site which includes
Certain postcode and Tower Hamlets in Newham and in Waltham Forest. So to be fair to everybody in the same it would be the same
for everybody. So I guess because it's in the operator's interest to attract as many
people as possible into using the facility. There aren't any registered speakers, but
we do have representatives from the applicant online, so if you felt you wanted to address
any questions to them, it's your discretion, chair, if you wanted to do that. They are
there on the Teams call.
I think that's it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you know the boundary that indicate the resident will be receiving discounted rate
living in town?
Do you have any boundary line?
I'll go with that, Councillor Sane.
So they have done it by postcodes.
So they've done it sorry in terms of can we have one meeting please? Thank you
So the postcode the Tower Hamlet's postcode that sort of touches the Olympic Park is e3
So that's the postcode that they considered to be local to the Olympic Park
so it'd be residents of e3 who would get this 30 % discount that's the
operator's loyalty or local discount scheme and then just as
alluding to earlier that they've done it in terms of
post codes if you like that touch the Olympic Park or are in the Olympic Park or touch the
Olympic Park. So they offer it on quite a wide basis if you like but I think it's based
on the fact that it's in the Olympic Park and I think, I mean I don't know, if they
were to take it wider into other parts of the borough then they would probably be obliged
to take it wider into other parts of other boroughs as well and then they'd start covering
a really broad geographical area so I think it's reasonable. Whilst to be clear it's not
a discussion on how species actually perform in terms ofolia situations or how species
can do that or taking, reflecting on the chair's earlier question, could you provide us the
share of the revenue earned from the visitors? Yeah, that's a tricky question, Councillor.
I mean, I think again, in terms of the revenue, I think, so the operator is already in place,
they're called ZipWorld, they already operate zip lines in other parts of the country, so
they have that experience to bring it to here, so they already have an agreement in place
with the owner of the ArcelorMittal structure. I believe the owner is actually the LLDC,
so it's not the London Borough of Newham, so there's a commercial agreement between
in LLDC and ZipWorld, which is already in place
because ZipWorld already, some of you may be familiar
with the slide that is on there.
ZipWorld already operate that, so it's the existing operator
who are expanding, if you like, the kind of operations
that they do there.
But in terms of how much revenue they're getting here,
that's not any information that they would share with us,
and nor are they obliged to do so.
Any more questions?
The LLDC, isn't that being disbanded from what I understand?
Perfectly reasonable question.
The organisation still exists, but as a smaller organisation,
so what happened last, roughly this time last year,
was that the LDC stopped being a planning authority,
so they don't make decisions on planning applications anymore,
plans come back to us, but they exist now mainly as a management organisation
for the parks, so they manage the various, you know, the facilities, the public realm, etc.
So they still exist as an organisation but they don't have any planning powers.
I'm just thinking of what do they do with the funds now given the fact that they're not making any planning decisions anymore.
But I guess it's a separate question for a different time.
I guess to be clear because they're kind of like a subset of the Greater London Authority so it's a public body.
So I don't know if that helps answer the question.
I just want to give a little bit of clarification.
Why they have to move the structure to the boundary of Taungavan and Newham instead of
where it is?
Why they want to move this?
Is it because of the not enough visitor visiting this one or they move this one due to any other reason?
Just one minute, thank you.
Yeah, chair if I may, I suppose it's quite an interesting question.
So if you look on that image, the Osela metal structure, the orbit structure is, so if you see in the background
the red structure you might be familiar with that, so that's been there a long time.
And as we were just saying, that has started operating.
If it's an attraction you can go on the top
and you can go on the slide all the way down
if you like that kind of thing.
That what they've looked to do is how can they
sort of enhance that offer by,
because the operator does run these zip wire attractions
in other places, I think areas like North Wales,
for example, they've got them.
I suppose it's just a matter of where do you actually
line it up, so where is the space?
And it just so happens that the route that they're taking,
which will cause the least amount of disturbance, I suppose,
and has got the most open space,
happens to land into Tower Hamlets.
Which is, so what we're considering is purely the,
the kind of the white structure in the foreground,
which is in Tower Hamlets,
whereas the actual orbit structure is in Newham.
I guess, Chair, again, if members did want to explore how the site was chosen, again,
the operators are on my interest.
Do members have any more questions?
Of course you can.
Do you know about the safety of the structure?
Has it been approved by any authorised inspection team?
Any authority of your body?
Again, good question.
That, the councillor, would happen at the next stage.
So if the planning commission is granted, then they will still need to obtain approval
under the building regulations, which will happen after that.
But most people will try and get the planning commission first, because otherwise you're
going through a lot of structural work for no reason.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Would members like to share their thoughts or debate on the application before we move
on to the votes?
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Lisa, for your nice presentation.
Though we have some concern about safety, the climbing and CCTV, but of course we always
welcome visitors to our hamlets and definitely it represents a positive investment in both
Lezard and local groups.
Thank you.
Councillor, you do know they're going to enter to hamlets for a few seconds and they're gone.
Would you like to share your thoughts?
Thank you so much, Chair.
Thank you, officer, for a nice presentation.
It's a nice application for entertainment.
I'm very excited about the Pohase.
As my colleague was asking about the facility for the resident and I think Pohase is very
I would like to echo what my colleague, Councillor Ahmed, has just said.
It's great. I see this, by the way, from my flat, so it's
really nice that I might be able to take my kids to it.
and I live in the E3 area as well, so I think I hit the catchment area.
But it's good to see that they're offering more services in the orbit,
you know, there are some attractions,
and then it's good to see that we're getting the zip line there as well.
They are outside of London, so it'd be nice, some of the local children.
Schools, I should say, you know, if you do go back to them
and if they are here listening,
it would be really lovely to get some of the school children
engaged within that vicinity as well.
Thank you.
It is good to see the Legacy of the Olympic will continue for years to come.
People will remember the Legacy of the Olympic held in Isla Nana, part of the 100th century and new arms.
It is a good project. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. As I said, I encourage my colleagues that the Olympic 2012 lives on in our memories and in the future as well.
But the sad thing is that only the... I don't know which postcode in Tauranget, how many postcodes will be discounted rather than all of Tauranget.
I would have been grateful if it is all Taurangets because it's not just a bit of Taurangets. It's not so nice.
If all Taurangets get 30 % discount, I would have been really, really happy to see that.
that is, I don't know, it's only E3 or any other postcode
you're including on that.
Please.
Yes, it's just E3 is proposed simply because what the
operator's looked at is which postcode's sort of 360 degrees
all the way around them or closest to them, but not just
in Towerhammers in Newham and the small bits of Waltham
Forest that fits in.
I do understand your point, Councillor, I think the
concern again, I'm
Don't speak too much for the operator, but I would imagine if they extend it to everybody in Tower Hammers
They'd have to do the same, but the other two boroughs and that that could create some quite
Challenging viability problems. I would imagine because I've been elected for the 14
Also, it's counted not only three so I'll be happy to support this if it is including supported
14 as well
Because E14 is that Blackwell Tunnel area, that is also E14.
So if it is also, if you say that round going like this E3, then E14 also should be included
because that will also be part of that ring as well.
So I will be requesting, hopeful that E14 will be included.
Thank you, Chair.
Ty Hamliss has been a welcoming bar, the gate for the visitors.
And it's a great project to see the harmony between Newham and Ty Hamliss.
I look forward to see this project.
I wish all the best.
Thank you, councillors.
I would now like to move on to Paul and Ian, principal lawyers and planning legal service,
to share your final thoughts before we move to the votes.
Thank you, Chair.
Again, not too much to add.
We have had a good discussion, bit of an unusual one for the committee, I suppose, in terms
of what we often consider.
I've probably omitted to say at the beginning
sort of why it's coming to committee
and it's because your terms of reference are for,
amongst other things, include buildings
that are more than 30 metres tall.
I know this doesn't look conventionally like a building,
but we defer to Ian and his legal definition
and the advice was this is a building,
so it has to come to committee.
But other than that, I think I would commend it
to the committee, I think it enhances the offer
in the Olympic Park, maybe it's slightly a shame that people can't get off and enjoy
Tower Hamlets, but maybe that might come in the future perhaps if this becomes a success
storey.
But other than that, and subject to the amended condition in the update report, I'm happy
to recommend it to you.
Thank you.
Yes, just to reiterate what Paul said, sorry, it was my advice that this came back to committee,
The definition of building in the town of country planning act includes any structure or erection. It's a structure of this erection
Counsellors just to remind you if you look at the screen
to the
Site plan you are dealing with the if I said the small plan on the right -hand side as I'm looking at it
How I have it's new and board boundary
You're effectively dealing with the bitter land to the northwest of the purple line
That is the application your determinants at a new and we're looking at the rest of the application
which if you look at the bigger picture takes you all the way past the stadium to the structure.
They're dealing with that tomorrow night.
Thank you.
So anyone from here would like to see tomorrow's applications,
probably could join online as well to find out decisions from there.
Other than that we move to the votes.
Can I see all those in favour with this application?
The committee has voted unanimously to grant planning permission for the election of the
structure of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in line with agenda item 5 .1 and the update
report which had the amended planning condition.
Thank you, Chair.
// Thank you very much, Paul.
That concludes the business for this meeting.
The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 12th of November 2025.
with your permission we just had a really, really short AOB item which we just thought
was a matter of interest for committee members. Shall I lead on that, Ian?
Most were. Yeah, I think not everybody, but I think most
members were on committee when you considered the application for the Embassy at Royal Mint
court. Obviously we had the public inquiry earlier this year. We've been told that an
inspector's report has been sent to the Secretary of State who's making the decision but we
don't know what that report says.
For the embassy at Royal Mint Court, the applicant was the Chinese government. Just to say that
We were expecting the decision to come out this week, but we had notification last week
on behalf of the Secretary of State to say that they require a further period, so they've
extended their period until the 10th of December, so it's about another three months.
So we may get a decision in that period.
Of course, it's possible the Secretary of State might delay it even further.
We don't know, but it was just – Ian and I just thought it might be worth just updating
colleagues, just because a number of you were on committee at the time that you resolved
that the permission should be refused.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, guys.
Thank you very much.
See you guys on 12 November.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.