Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 12 November 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development Committee
Wednesday, 12th November 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
  1. Webcast Finished

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

This meeting has been webcast live on Council's website and public and press may follow the
meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly.
Before I do this, I would like to briefly confirm the protocol and addressing the meeting,
including the virtual meeting procedures.
Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair.
If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch your microphone on and
You may also switch your camera on at any point.
You should keep your microphones and camera switched off at all other times.
Please do not use 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
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 agenda items
and the nature of interest?
I have no declaration of interest.
I have had a few emails and things like that but no reply back to anything.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening.
My name is Amadou Khan and I am a deputising Councillor for Said.
I am a Councillor for Blackwell -Kibbe towns.
also
Chair I live in the wood the skage house is in Canadian for word and I live in that word
also
also
There is organisation who leaves a property from the river site. So I'm sharing this
organisation as well
Thank you
Okay, we need chair everyone
This is council. I've been a saint for Linsbury wood and
Chair, I have no interest to declare. Thank you
Thank you chair good evening everyone. I'm councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudhury popular word nothing to DPA
Thank you, there's councillor D 'Arre and I'm not very well I have no DPA
Good evening everyone councillor Lilloo Ahmed my land word nothing to declare
Don't forget to talk at the end.
Sorry about that, guys.
Don't know what happened there.
Anyway, let's carry on.
Chair, if I may, just on Councillor Kahn's declaration of interest, he chairs an organisation
that leases accommodation from the applicant.
Don't think that's a disclosable pecuniary interest
in that sense, although there is an interest there
as long as you're able to approach the application
with an open mind as you would do normally
and assess planning issues then,
I don't see any conflict of interest.
So thank you for disclosing.
I'm a substitute, so I'm in open mind.
I shouldn't be there, but I will be differentizing
Saeed Ahmad, that's why.
This is why I am here, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you.
Agenda.
Now to apologies for Tima.
Have we received any apologies for absence?
No apologies received.
Thank you.
Agenda item 2 is minutes from previous meeting.

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

The minutes from the 3rd of September 2025 and 22nd of October 2025 will be approved
at the next meeting.
Thank you.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Agenda item 3, the recommendation and procedures for hearing objection and meeting guidance.
I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development management planning, building control to present
the guidance.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening.
Good evening, members, members of the public and officers who are joining us today at the
meeting.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant Development
Plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.
The process for considering reports and recommendations will run in the following way.
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 then normally hear from any registered speakers, but I just wanted to cheque with
my colleague Fatima that I believe the one registered speaker that we did have may have
withdrawn this evening, is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay.
On that basis, I won't propose to go through all of the information, but that does mean
therefore that the applicant and supporters will not be able to exercise their speaking
rights either.
Once the officers present their report, the committee can ask any points of clarification
from officers and go on to consider the issues and the recommendation, including any further
questions and debate and advice.
Then the committee will reach a decision based on a majority vote and I'll confirm that decision
to the Chamber and to the meeting.
If the committee proposed 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 to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
And in the event that the Committee do not accept the officer recommendation, then they
must state their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.
The Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice, and
the task of formalising the Committee's alternative decision is 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 have any other legal implications, then the item may be deferred
to a further report from officers dealing with the issues that are arising.
There is an update report dealing with some clarifications and updates since the agenda
was published.
So, Chair, I can come to those when we get to the individual items.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I ask that you please pull to your left.
Agenda Item 4, deferred items, and we have no deferred item to consider.
Agenda Item 5 are the planning application for decision.
We have two applications to consider this evening.
Agenda Item 5 .1 is planning application for development at Kedge House, Saar Broadway,

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

5 a) PA/25/00779/A1 - Kedge House, Starboard Way and Winch House, Tiller Road, London E14 8PS

and Witch House, Tiller Road, London, E14, 8PS.
The report is on pages 25 to 116 of the agenda.
I now ask Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you, chair.
So as the chair said, this is a planning application affecting land at Kedgehouse, Starboard Way
and Winch House on Tiller Road.
The application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and
the construction of residential dwellings, community and commercial floor space and public
realm works, landscaping, access, servicing, parking and associated works.
The application is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment and the recommendation to
the Committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning
obligations.
Chair, this is one where there is some matters in the update report just to bring to the
Committee's attention.
So three main sorry, four main areas.
So the first one concerns the proposed car parking layout.
The applicant has made some revisions to the parking layout to reposition the disabled
parking bays further from the underground refuse system area and that adjustment would
ensure the continued accessibility for all blue badge parking bays whilst waste is being
collected from those areas.
And you'll probably see that during the presentation.
In terms of response to publicity in paragraph 4 .7 of the committee report, we noted that
Just one neutral comment had been received from the Tiller Road residents, the state
steering group.
Having reviewed that, it's probably more of a letter of support rather than neutral comments,
so we're just sort of clarifying that point.
On the environmental statements, some additional environmental information has been submitted,
and in accordance with the regulations, we have to do a 30 -day consultation on that additional
information.
Now consultation is actually underway.
It started on the 6th of November but hasn't concluded.
Based on what we've seen and based on the responses to date, we don't think it would
have affected our recommendation.
However, we would ask, as you have done on previous occasions like this, that if you
agree with the main recommendation, then you would delegate to officers to deal with any
matters arising out of the environmental statement consultation under delegated powers.
Obviously if anything substantial arise we would bring it back to committee and finally in paragraph 7 .28
It says that the construction programme is expected to be five and a half years just to clarify that was based on
the applicant making certain assumptions around
the hours of
Construction particularly on a Saturday those hours are outside of the council's current code of construction practise
But there is an opportunity with all developments to apply for dispensations under Section 61
to control the Pollution Act.
So the applicant has assumed that they would be able to go through that process.
If for any reason they had to adhere strictly to the current Code of Construction hours,
then it probably would add a further 13 months to the programme.
So just wanted to bring that to your attention as a clarification.
But none of that changes the overall recommendation, Chair, so thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
I will now invite Fran Hines, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Paul.
So the proposed development comprises of the demolition of the existing buildings on site
and the construction of four buildings totalling 400 homes.
There will be child play space, residential amenity space and car parking on site.
Two ground floor flexible community slash commercial spaces also proposed totaling 171
square metres.
The development site is located on the Isle of Dogs.
The site is bound by the Tiller Road Leisure Centre to the west, Tiller Road to the north,
residential homes within Omega Coast to the east and the West Frokent Works development
site to the south. The existing site comprises of three residential
blocks named Kedge House, Starboard Way and Winch House. There are currently 72 homes
on site, 47 car parking spaces as well as child play space, green space and a dog run
area. This is the proposed site layout. Blocks A and D will front Tiller Road,
comprising of six and nine storeys. Blocks B and C will be located behind,
comprising of 21 and 25 storeys. Flexible commercial slash community space will be
located at ground in Block D. Vehicles would enter along the eastern boundary
off Tiller Road here and blue badge parking and standard re -provided parking will be located
between blocks A and B. Tower play space will be located at ground between blocks C and
D as well as to the east of block B. A new pedestrian link along the west of Boundary
will also contain play spaces. This link is planned to join with the West Ray Print map
site located to the south.
Here are some site photos.
On the left is Kedge House, which is 11 storeys.
The applicant has advised that Kedge House is in poor structural condition.
On the right shows an image of Starboard Way, which is a vehicle route into the site and
includes parking.
The photo on the left here shows Kedge House, the existing play space and green space centrally
within the site.
The photo on the right shows starboard way block and in the far end is winch house.
In terms of designations, the site is located within the Isle of Dogs and South Potpur opportunity
area which expects growth to be accelerated.
The site lies within flood zone 3 and benefits from the Thames tidal defences.
The site does not lie within a conservation area nor does it include any listed buildings.
The Council's statutory consultation involved displaying site notices in the local area,
a press notice and sending letters to neighbouring properties.
The Council received nine letters of objection and two letters of support.
The main objections raised related to the design and scale of the proposal were setting
dangerous precedent for the borough, the daylight and sunlight impacts as well as the additional
pressures on local infrastructure.
A more detailed summary of the objections is listed in the Committee report.
A Regulation 25 re -consultation under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
is currently being undertaken due to additional information received within the environmental
statement.
The applicant has carried out their own pre -application non -statutory consultation including resident
engagement events, exhibitions and newsletters.
Estate regeneration schemes are subject to a number of principles as set out in the London
plan, local plan, as well as the Mayor's Good Practise Guide to Estate Regeneration.
It is understood that many of the homes on site are in poor condition and have structural
problems.
The alternative option of improving the existing homes on site would not secure significant
provision of affordable housing, as well as housing in general on site.
The proposal would deliver 137 affordable homes on site.
The proposed scheme would have numerous benefits and satisfies the requirements of re -providing
the existed social rented homes at the same or equivalent rent and high quality design.
The applicant has worked intensely with the existing residents to ensure they are re -provided
with the right to return home with a home tenure that meets their specific current needs
of their household.
The proposed development is for 400 homes of which 137 would be affordable.
All 58 existing social rent homes will be re -provided.
There are 14 leasehold properties currently on site which will be bought out by the applicant
or these homes will be given the right to return.
There are 263 market homes proposed.
The scheme would deliver 40 % affordable housing overall when including the re -provided social
rent homes.
When looking at just the new homes, the scheme delivers 28 % affordable housing.
The Council's viability team have scrutinised the applicant's financial viability assessments
and have concluded that the maximum viable affordable housing offer is proposed.
All affordable rent homes will be delivered at social rents.
There will be 116 social rented homes delivered in total, comprising 58 re -provided and 58
additional social rent homes.
There will be 55 social rent family sized homes delivered overall.
Within the affordable offer there will be an 86 to 14 split in favour of affordable
rent.
The intermediate product is proposed as 21 shared ownership homes.
This image demonstrates the heights and massing of the proposal as well as the distribution
of tenures across the site.
Blocks A and D fronting Tiller Road will contain all of the re -provided social rent homes.
Block B will contain the additional social rent homes, the shared ownership homes and
the market homes.
And Block C will contain only market homes.
The distribution of homes is considered to be acceptable across the site and all blocks
will be designed to be tenure blind.
This table demonstrates the proposed housing mix across all elements of the scheme, including
the re -provided social rent homes.
There will be 55 family -sized social rent homes delivered overall.
This table demonstrates the proposed housing mix against the local plan policy targets.
Whilst the proposal does not fully accord with the housing mix outlined in policy, given
that there is a pressing need for larger family size homes in the social rent tenure, it is
considered that, on balance, the deviation from policy, in particular the underprovision
of larger family units in the market tenure, will constitute an acceptable mix of homes.
All homes that are delivered will be dual aspect and will be provided with private balcony
spaces.
All residential units will meet or exceed the minimum space standards as well as all
other housing standards.
10 % of homes will be delivered as wheelchair accessible from the outset with 11 of these
within the social rent tenure.
Blocks B, C and D will be provided with two staircases.
All of the nought to five child play space required will be delivered on site shown here
in green.
Play space for the five to 11 age group will be delivered within the pedestrian link shown
here in dark blue.
Given the competing priorities of the site, it has not been possible to accommodate all
of the required 5 to 11 and 12 bus play space on site.
Instead, a financial contribution towards improvements to the park within the Sir John
MacDougall Gardens located five minutes from the site will be secured.
A range of internal and external residential amenity spaces are provided across the site.
Block C will include rooftop amenity spaces which will be available to residents of the
affordable blocks subject to additional fees.
Moving on to the design, this image shows a computer -generated image of the proposed
development when looking east along Tiller Road.
This CGI image demonstrates the proposals looking west along Tiller Road.
Blocks B and D would comprise of predominantly red brick, with darker brick proposed on upper
floors.
Blocks A and C propose a buff shade of brick.
As outlined in the committee report, officers acknowledge that the proposals introduce a scale and massing that is not in keeping with the characteristics of this low -rise residential street.
The site is located outside of a designated tall building zone.
As outlined within the committee report, proposals do not meet the criteria for tall buildings located outside of tall building zones, with the lack of strategic infrastructure being a significant shortcoming of the scheme.
Concern has also been raised regarding the merging of tall building clusters in wider
townscape views.
Whilst officers acknowledge the policy conflicts, the height and scale of the proposed buildings
are essential to the scheme's financial viability, enabling delivery of a quantum of affordable
housing that would be unviable at a lower density approach.
Significant weight is therefore given to the provision of affordable homes and the net
uplift on site, outcomes that the scheme's taller elements make possible.
The impacts to neighbouring properties are outlined in detail in the committee report.
Hammond House, which comprises a group of four buildings, is located immediately north
of the application site and would experience major adverse daylight and sunlight impacts
following the development.
Locations of the affected windows are outlined here in red.
97 windows would experience major adverse impacts to their daylight.
Whilst these impacts are acknowledged, the impacts should be considered in the context
of the wider benefits of the scheme.
Impacts to neighbouring sites are not uncharacteristic for an area undergoing regeneration, and officers
consider the impacts to be acceptable and balanced.
The scheme will be car -free except for the provision of 11 standard parking bays, and
these will be allocated to returning residents that have requested a bay.
Should these residents choose not to return to the site following the redevelopment or
if residents with a bay move out, these bays will be converted into additional blue badge
spaces.
Eight blue badge spaces will be provided from the outset, which equates to a 2 % provision.
London Plan policy requires a 3 % provision from the outset and highways officers have
objected to the proposed underprovision.
In this instance, the 2 % provision is considered acceptable given the accessible transport
options nearby and the competing priorities of the site.
Improvements to the pedestrian link from the site to Cross Harbour DLR station will be
secured as part of the development.
Residential waste will be collected by underground refuse systems located centrally within the
site shown here in yellow.
There will be internal bin stores for food waste.
The blue badge parking and the standard re -provided parking are outlined here as well.
Tower Hamlets waste and highways teams have raised objection to the waste proposals due
to the operational issues currently being experienced with URS.
Concerns have also been raised regarding site access for other users and vehicles being
restricted during waste collection.
Whilst the concerns raised by highways and waste teams are acknowledged, current planning
policy supports URS as a waste method, noting its benefits for high density development.
The applicant has demonstrated that URS vehicles can navigate the site.
A planning obligation will secure an on -site management team to ensure safe site operations
and prevent disruption during waste collection.
In terms of environmental considerations, the scheme has been designed to include various
energy efficiency measures to reduce carbon emissions, including air source heat pumps
and solar panels.
A provision will be made to connect to the Barkentine District heat network in the future.
The site is located immediately adjacent to the Barkentine Energy Centre.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding the timescale of its decarbonisation, the proposal includes
mitigation measures to ensure acceptable air quality for future residents and these will
be secured through condition and planning obligation.
This slide includes a list of financial obligations which will be delivered by the proposed development.
These obligations relate to employment, place -based improvements, transport and environmental
This slide includes a list of non -financial obligations which will be secured by the proposal.
These obligations secure 40 % affordable housing and the flexible community slash commercial
space to be provided on a rent -free basis.
Other obligations relate to transport and site management.
The development will be liable for seal payments totalling approximately 7 .8 million pounds.
These funds will go towards local infrastructure improvements
The application has been assessed against the development plan policy framework and other relevant material considerations
Whilst there are some departures from planning policy
The proposals are considered to comply with the development plan as a whole significant way is attributed to the provision of 137 affordable homes
officers are therefore recommending that this application is
granted approval subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the completion of
a legal agreement and the conditions set out in the committee report.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Do members have any questions for officers?
I think the question is, in terms of the number of social housing you mentioned, it wasn't
met, was there nothing else we could do to increase the numbers of social housing?
So I understand the residents that are returning were still getting that but in terms of new
social housing properties could we not squeeze a little bit more?
So there's 58 existing social rent properties and these will be re -provided and there's
going to be 58 new social rent properties as well so they are providing
an uplift on site.
Okay and the 28 % affordable housing, I was mentioning on that could we not get a further uplift on that?
So it's a 40 % affordable housing overall and it's 28 % based just on the new
homes proposed we have
the council's
Viability team have scrutinised the viability assessment and they've concluded that this is the maximum viable affordable housing offer
Thank you
Counsellor
Thank You chef
issue.
What plans understand the height of the purpose development, likely to have an impact on the
local communities?
What plans are in place to ensure that certain school places are available with the increased
of increased number of population in the area?
Sorry, just to clarify the question, so in terms of the impacts of the density of the
development on wider services and infrastructure?
Increase in population, so what considerations have been taken to ensure there are school
places for the family moving in?
Yeah, so matters such as that are usually dealt with by the community infrastructure
levy. So in Fran's presentation she set out that this will yield Tower Hamlets community
infrastructure levy or Tower Hamlets sill as we call it and also mayoral sill and the
figures are on the screen now. Basically it's done by a calculation that we can't actually
change so that's what the proposals will yield and money from those pots in particular that
the LGBTH still will be used to, if there is assessed in other parts of the council
to be a need for additional school places or GP surgeries or other infrastructure like
that, then money from that pot will be used for that.
Just a quick question on the financial obligation.
Can you tell me, you know the 220 ,000 and it was improving Cross River DLR station,
what is that for?
What is it they are doing?
So this is a request from Transport for London.
They tend to request it for developments in this kind of area.
I think Westbury Printworks located to the south also sort of contribution.
It's just towards general improvements to the access and the facilities at the station
I believe.
Can they just request that and take that?
Is that how it works?
Is it?
Okay.
Yeah, I mean we obviously consult them as part of the application proposals and when
they provide their response they're factoring into their response like the additional usage
that developments like this or other developments in the area will have on the station and so
they're able to make requests to essentially seek money from the development to make improvements
to stations and they do it quite regularly with respect to DLR stations, they do it with
bus stations and they do it with other infrastructure that they have in different parts of London
that they think development proposals will impact the use of.
Sorry, you've kind of moved on, but I was just going to say that the applicant has also
submitted an infrastructure impact assessment about the school places, which has demonstrated
that there is light surplus capacity for primary and secondary schools, so they have done a
kind of assessment on school impact.
The repubvision said 58 social rented homes.
You said 40 % affordable housing.
So how come it could be the social rented and you are saying on the other side affordable?
How you can justify the rent?
So the affordable housing offer comprises of the re -provided social rented homes, additional
social rented homes and shared ownership homes, that's an intermediate product.
And yeah we've tested and this is the maximum viable offer.
It's based on habitable rooms, not numbers, that's just what policy kind of allows us
to assess the percentage of affordable housing
is on habitable room.
And to be clear, when it says social rent,
that's essentially the nationally derived target rent
social product, which is the best
or the most affordable product
that housing providers are able to deliver.
And then obviously, as Fran already set out,
there is a distinct, it's still considered affordable housing
but policy also seeks intermediate housing as well,
which is the shared ownership units.
The development doesn't meet the provision for children playground, on site playground.
Is it?
Yeah, that is correct.
So there is a, they are providing all of the naught five play space on site.
So that's in this area here and this area here.
There is a shortfall in the amount of 5 to 11 play space and there's no 12 plus play
space on site.
So the 5 to 11 play space that they can provide is located in the pedestrian link here but
the shortfalls we are seeking a financial contribution towards improvements to a nearby
park within Sir John Medugel Gardens just to offset the shortfall.
I mean the under provision of child play space is a factor of the many sort of grabs and
competing priorities for the site. Obviously there's the intention to deliver as much housing
and in particular affordable housing as possible and then obviously we've got requirements
for blue badge parking. There's also existing residents who want to retain their car parking
space on site and it's just a lot to cram into quite a small site and so inevitably
there will be compromises if you like and this approach whereby we secure financial
contributions to improve play space off site is something we've done elsewhere and it's
something that I know Councillor, there's a Councillor looking at me at the moment,
but that is an approach that we've taken in the past and obviously this happens on
these kind of sites quite frequently.
Councillor.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, officer, for your presentation.
My question is 28 % of the development will comprise the new affordable units, 28%.
And there is already we have significant pressure on parking.
How do you mitigate the new generated parking demand?
So it's a car free development for new residents of the site and except Blue Badge holders
and that's just the planning policy position.
We can't request additional parking so it will be secured as car free.
as Councillors will be aware there's also the existence of the permit transfer system
which is outside of planning it's not a planning consideration but we obviously have to be
mindful that if there are in particular social rented family sized tenants who are going
to move into the new social rented accommodation and they are an existing social rented accommodation
with a parking permit they can transfer that parking permit over to their new unit that
That is something that operates outside of the planning system if you like and we can't
necessarily plan for it as a result but we just have to be cognisant that it exists.
So there will be people who move to this, it won't be entirely car free, the new people
who are moving in to the private, in particular the private accommodation, they will not have
parking permits but there may be some people who move into the social rented accommodation
who can bring their parking permits across which means they'll be able to park on street.
You
Can
Thank you chair
My question is similar to my colleagues who about the car parking because I live around that area where the develop going to be happened
and his parking is a huge issue up there and
An extra 400 and
400
recommendation will be built there and extra people will be there.
So my question is that 45 existing car park which is provided by Riverside,
is those parking you were talking about, also 11, you create new 11,
so 45 is 56, and 8 blue -beige bays. So in total, nearly 60 bays,
you're going to create surrounding this development.
And the second question is that all those 60 will be given to the people who will be
moving into a social landlord property, affordable properties or social rent properties, are
they going to give it to them or give it to the private as well?
I want to make sure that.
So obviously as you picked up on the presentation it showed that there is existing car parking
on the site and that is for existing estate residents.
We understand that the applicant team has been working closely with estate residents
to work out who actually would like to retain a car parking space, i .e. those that live
there at the moment that are going to move into the new social rented accommodation,
they've been asked would they like to keep a car parking space and the number of car
parking spaces that are now provided within the site, it represents the amount of people
who requested to keep car parking spaces.
So obviously that's gone down from, what's the figure, 47 to 11.
So it's gone down from 47 to 11, so 11 existing residents have essentially requested to keep their existing permits.
So that's the reason for the reduction.
The second part of the question, I think we were just seeking clarification that the private occupants, they will not be able to get car parking permits.
They'll be legally prohibited from getting car parking permits.
intermediate would be to but it's just that if there we
Cannot possibly know at this stage, but if there are social rented tenants who are going to move into the new social rented units
They may well be bringing car parking permits with them, but we can't say for sure whether that will or won't happen at this stage
So he's there is 11
People said they're going to come back to those base. So he left with
34 base
existing 34 base also also a blue page
so I want to about the
blue page user the other they're gonna give into
the Pacific parts or not that it given to the individual person like is anybody with the
Blue page they can come and park or they will give into the individual person
Individual household that you can park your car there
So I want to clarification on that one because as a counsellor we do have so many issues
Once they give into the blue with permit and then then they take it away from them. They never seen this basic
Our understanding is it will be a scientist specific accessible units within the development
They'll be able to you they'll be given those car parking spaces
They will always they will have they can use those car parks
Sure, if you give me a permission I want to ask about the community use face
Thank you.
Councillor Kabir.
Thank you, Chair.
Just to understand about Section 106 money.
So on paragraph 5 .29, it's saying on sum of half a million pound, we have to contribute
to our NHS North East London.
So does development, they're contributing or council?
Normally all the money goes to the council part, the Section 106 money.
So I need to understand a bit more about this.
So that was a request from NHS. They have requested 500 ,000 towards improvements to
local NHS services. Unfortunately that's not something we can capture directly within the
section 106. Infrastructure improvements towards local healthcare is captured within sale contributions
So the NHS would have to apply for additional funding.
We can't secure that amount within the planning application.
It would fall under SIL.
Thank you, Jack.
Can I throw your attention to the review by the Council Quality Review Panel.
It says the Panel commented that placing cars at the centre of the proposal was an issue
and that the applicant team should make children the centre of the scheme.
Can we explain a bit of that?
Yes, so that is the quality review panel's comments.
So the quality review panel for members that aren't aware,
that's an independent group of architects and urban design professionals
who we invite to, or essentially the applicant team,
go and present their proposals to them and they come up with a series of suggestions
from their professional standpoint about how they think the proposal should be developed.
And clearly that was one of their pushes, one of their strides from the site
to make the children focus of the site.
Clearly, as I think we were alluding to already in the answers,
there's a lot of competing priorities on the site,
and not least, as we were just talking now about existing residents
wanting their car parking.
And I think planning policy -wise, we would be pushing towards the same ends
as the quality review panel.
We would want to make as much green space and as much child play space on the site,
But there are also realities that the applicant has had to deal with in terms of bringing the residents with them on board
on board with them throughout the development process
and that's led to car parking within
The site as you can see on the screen now, so it's it's with these kind of developments
It's always a compromise and it's competing priorities and it's trying to find the right balance
Councillor Khan.
Thank you, Chair.
Once again, it is about the community space.
Who will control the community space?
And if people want to use the community space, do they have to pay anything or just?
So we have been advised that the applicant has been engaging with charitable organisations
community groups with the hope that one of those would be the end user.
But at the moment that's unconfirmed and it would most likely be later on in the build
process that they would confirm the end occupier.
And it's going to be secured as rent free.
the applicant is proposing it on a rent -free basis.
Just for clarity in terms of what we can and can't secure by the actual planning application,
we're just securing that it's community space, we're not necessarily securing the end user.
I mean, members of the applicant team are here if there was any questions that you wanted to direct them about how that might work
But we as an officer team are unable to answer those questions
So either Plinkman is not here, yeah, they will not able to answer these questions
We can't anyway ask the questions
maybe
depends on your question
Yes, chair, because I want to
Because of the committee space and
If they are given to charity organisations to look after the space, the residents want
to use this space.
So in a way that the people who look after the space, they will be obliged to give this
space to the residents for their use.
So I want to make sure that they get the facility they can use when they require it.
I want to grant from the provider applicant to make sure that the residents will have
They have used they can use this space when what they wanted
Thank you
Sure just in response to councillor Collins
Some observations around that. I mean, I think two things that we can secure through planning. So one of them would be the
Rent -free arrangements which the applicant has already put forward and then the second
issues that we could secure a management plan
through planning conditions, so that might sort of
give some reassurance around kind of how the space
is appropriately managed to give everybody
an appropriate chance to use it.
I think beyond that though, I don't think we could
do much more through the planning process,
but I think that would give a reasonable sort of
surety around equitable access for residents
and the other groups in the area that might want to use it through a management plan,
that would be my suggestion.
Thank you, Chair.
This is, I think, more from personal experience.
When there was a development opposite the development we're discussing today,
during demolition there was a huge influx of rats coming out onto the streets,
I believe a lot of residents neighbouring were complaining.
Are there any plans to control that in this current development?
I mean, specifically in relation to that problem, I don't think there's anything at this stage about that.
Obviously, part of the recommendation that we're making includes a condition for a construction management plan,
which will set out a number of things, but it will also set out site management during the construction process
and it will require there to be people on site dealing with all manner of issues and
one of them might be that there could be vermin or other things on the site during the process
and what the if that does arise what happens I think but there is a condition that we will
be requiring through the recommendation.
Councillor Cabello.
Just for clarity, Chair, on the chart, 7 .17.
See the social rent, 116 and the additional social rent total 58.
All together is 174 affordable units.
On the paragraph 2 .2, it shows out of 400, 137, which one right?
2 .2.
So total 400 new homes.
So out of 400 new homes, we are getting 137?
137 would be affordable.
On the chart you can see 7 .17.
The additional social rent would be 58 and the total social rent would be 116, so it
is all together 174.
So in total there's 116 social rented homes, there's an additional 21 shared ownership,
And that table breaks down what's there as existing, what's proposed, the uplift and
the total.
Okay, I see.
That's fine.
Coming back to the community centre, can you tell me the size of the community centre, please?
So there are two spaces within Block D. I don't actually have a plan on the slides.
I think there's a site wide plan somewhere which we can find.
It totals 171 square metres across two spaces.
One of them is 75 square metres and one of them is 96 square metres.
Can I ask this question to Paul?
As the applicant has given rent free on the community centre, do you think Ta 'amlet could
have the first refusal on the community centre?
Can you put on something for them to give us the first refusal of the community centre?
Thank you, Chair.
So that isn't something that has previously been raised
to the applicants.
I don't know the applicant's position on that.
I appreciate that we have seen that on some other
applications that have come before your committee,
but usually it's because it's been offered
by the applicant in advance.
It's something that we could take away and look at,
but what I don't know is because I don't know
the applicant's position.
Obviously a section 106 agreement, the emphasis is on the agreement so the applicant would
have to agree.
I think as a committee you would, if that's the way that you want to go, you would have
to, I suppose, you've got two options, either to defer the application, which I wouldn't
recommend because obviously there's no sound planning reasons to defer it, or alternatively
delegate that matter to officers to see if we can resolve that on your behalf.
But I don't know the applicant's position on that.
If it comes to delegating it, the officers delegating it with the applicant and the committee
doesn't get the right result, what happens then?
the planning application resolved. I don't believe, I stand to be corrected by the officers
who say I don't believe we've got specific policies, planning policies governing offering
offering of community centres. It's almost akin to an application before you for a shop
and you dictating or directing as a committee that it be given to Tesco's not Petro's.
That's the difficulty. It's a commercial decision for the applicants and they've made the commercial decision
in this case that they will be offering the community centre in accordance with the application
requirements, sorry communal space and that they are pursuing their own negotiations for
that. I think it takes us beyond the realms of being necessary, directly related, fair
and reasonable in relation to the scale to actually go too much into the minutiae of
who they can and can't talk to. If the applicants turn back, and I think we have had this on
discussions with people but if that fails we will happily talk to the council. Then
that's something to be discussed as Paul said. It really is not a matter that we should be
deferring for tonight, it's something we can take a decision on but I don't think we should
be looking, or we can't look as far as saying that council must have first refusal in any
is a commercial decision for the applicants if they choose not to do that. That's not
a planning reason for refusing. Thank you. No, that's fine. More questions?
Councillor Agarwal. Thank you, Chair. My question is again around
the density and we, the other dogs is very tiny area with 1 .25 square mile area.
So having, we have too many high rise building in there.
So with the best purpose development we will have, likely to have massive strain on local
infrastructure, particularly roads and public transport. So what consideration
have been given by the applicant to mitigate this possible strain on public
transport local infrastructure? Thank you.
And again as previously mentioned there is the community infrastructure
So, relative relevant NHS or transport can apply for those funds.
Transport for London have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity on local transport networks for this additional population.
and they are seeking a contribution towards improvements to the station, the nearest DLR
station which is Cross Harbour, just to kind of offset and help improve the station as
a result of this additional population.
Chair, can I ask, so the improvement, proposed improvement of the DLR station, how would
to improve the, how would, can you clarify how would support the local community?
I don't, unfortunately I don't think we actually have the full detail of that at the moment.
We don't have like a scope that do you think? Usually when TFL requests contributions for,
It's usually kind of towards things like station upgrades and they can move them easier.
So just to kind of accommodate those extra populations.
So that's what TFR usually asks, requests for those funds for, particularly around cross -sarver stations.
Councillor Khan.
Thank you, Chair. I just need a little bit of clarification regarding the community centre.
So it's not one communist space, there are two communists
debate into this space.
So also we know that it will be given to the charity organisations.
Are those organisations surrounding this development
will be given to them or somebody from outside the development
will be given to them?
That's the only clarification that anyone from the local
like surrounding where the development is happening.
Any charity organisation can make an application for them to run a community centre or somebody.
They will designate from their own.
That's one little clarification.
Please.
I think it goes back to the advice that Mr Austin was giving earlier.
So we can't really through the planning process dictate exactly who's going to occupy that
space, we could require a management plan to make sure that the space is offered in
the most equitable way, so the widest possible range of groups or individuals or occupiers
could have access to that space, because it would probably be used quite flexibly, I would
imagine, different times of the day, different times of the week by different occupiers.
So we could certainly require that through planning, but that would probably be, I think,
as far as we could go.
We couldn't say that it would be specifically any particular group or any particular location.
Can I propose to move to vote?
Yeah, you can.
I think everyone's finished anyway.
What's the rush?
Because I'm just worried we might have more community centre questions.
We might have more community centre questions but we've got perfect advice from Ian and Paul.
What is the rush though? What's the reason?
There isn't but it's just the same reoccurring theme. That's all, Chair. Thank you.
There's a committee member who wants to understand a bit more about it. Like you have questions as well, don't you?
No, you perfectly answered it. Thank you, chair.
Any more questions?
Thank you, chair. Thank you.
So will the absence of player provision for five years plus have impact on sustainability of the development?
Would it impact on the what? The sustainability of the development, did you say?
There is no provision for the five years plus.
Will the absence of play provision for these group of children above five, will question
the sustainability development?
So there's not an absence, there's a shortfall versus the target.
So there is some dedicated play space on site for five to 11.
There's no play space on site for 11 plus.
As I said before, so we're seeking a financial contribution which has been sort of worked
out in house in terms of what it could potentially provide for at John McDougall Gardens.
And so the theory is that okay, they won't get the play space on site, but the older
children are able to travel to the slightly further locations than it being on the site.
Obviously that's not optimal.
That's not what planning policy seeks and that's probably not necessarily what we would
be considered to be optimal place making.
However, I think it's part of our overall recommendation
that on balance, given the competing priorities of the site,
the arrangement that has been proposed by the applicant
in terms of what is on site, in terms of that being
naught to five play space and some five to 11 play space,
we think that's acceptable and we think that on that basis
we'll be recommending the proposals for approval.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Would members like to share their thoughts or debate their application?
Thank you, Chair.
Just to say I know PlaySpace is something that I do bang on about purely because I do
think that there needs to be adequate space for young people.
Building homes is important, but making sure
that there is accessible areas for young people to enjoy
is also equally important.
So it's quite disappointing to see an application like this,
which I would have loved to have supported.
But given the fact that it's of the place -based element of it,
the Councillor in me just feels quite restricted
on that particular matter.
and I guess me sitting on this panel several years,
play space has always been quite important.
I understand that the application has made strides
in putting financial contributions to a park nearby,
which is good.
I would hope that we can look into managing that
and seeing whether it is adequate funds
for the 11 year olds, I think it was, was it?
11 year olds and so forth.
So that's my kind of overview of this application.
It's great, it's good to see good housing.
You know, it just lacked in the place -based area,
which was quite disappointing,
but I can see how they have tried to mitigate that
in other financial contributions.
Thank you, Che.
No, I just wanted to say that I'm glad
that there is some sort of regeneration happening
in an area that really needs it to happen.
Thank you for the application.
Especially I am quite happy about the free rent
community centre.
So the resident is getting facility and I heard and seen
and
Thank you chair
So I have a mixed feeling about this application in one where I'm glad that they're offering
out of
400
In our house development they're offering it quite
137 plus days in this square much housing and we need that but in other way the infrastructure
I mean I've seen
The effect in fact that will have especially I know this area. Cidaro is very small area and when you double up this
Development work will be going on but we love traffic coming and going plus the extra pressure of down parking but
We need this
Social housing and affordable housing. So I
Think it is necessary
Cabet would you want to say anything because I did thank you channel for the comments
Thank you
This scheme would provide 40 % affordable housing across the total proposed hundred
400 homes and
Is the child the five plus is the lacking but they are mitigating the nearby
Space so I am supporting
Thank You chair on the balance, so I think the benefit brings particularly
Portion of housing come to the
housing.
This is the number one issue for this council.
So 40 % affordable home will have a positive impact on our ease the housing pressure on
the council.
So on the balance of what we have concerned, raised members, I think it will be a positive
approach and I'm for it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
As every colleague I have said, that is good news for the people who are waiting list and
homeless as well.
That there is a lot of social homes and affordable homes that will be available when the project
is finished.
But only thing is lacking for me is that more parking because this area is very densely
populated and more population will move into that area.
I wish they could provide more parking space, but that can ease the parking
Thank you, yeah
Before we move to the vote and the Ian and Paul give the final verdicts
I'm quite happy to support this application as well
It is I think I've seen the application and I've had briefing and I've seen the site as well
It needs an uplift in that site.
I think the four tower will bring the beauty in the area and it's got obviously the 40 %
which we need is so important.
So for me I will be supporting this application as well.
Paul and Ian to you guys, yeah.
Thank you, chair.
I don't really have too much to add.
I'm really grateful for committee members for your questions and detailed consideration
of the planning issues.
I suppose just to sum up, it is, you know, as a number of members have said, it's an
area that is in need of regeneration.
The existing accommodation is in very, very poor standard and people are being decanted
out of there because it's not fit to live in.
The scheme is quite an ambitious regeneration scheme and I guess when there's ambition sometimes there's also compromises
and I think members have picked up that there are some compromises around things like play space,
there are some compromises around things like car parking but I think what the applicant has tried to do
is to make the best use of the site and the best possible layout that they can and work as closely to policy as they can for that.
Again, the heights are quite ambitious,
but it is all about delivering that affordable housing.
And that's, in a way, that's how that comes forward
through the viability process.
Here, what members concerns around
management of the community centre,
I think in the absence of any policies
that give us the ammunition to do anything beyond that,
I think what we can do is make sure there is a planning condition there on a management
plan to make sure that is advertised as fair and equitably across the local community and
indeed there's no reason why the council can't be part of that community, it's just that
it wouldn't be managing the facility.
Beyond that, other than what I said at the beginning about the environmental statements,
if you're happy to delegate anything arising from that to officers, then we're pleased
to recommend it to your committee.
Thank you, Chair.
So I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
So that is I think if we just go back slightly on there so the heads of terms in the section
106 agreement would be that that sum there of just over a hundred thousand pounds towards
improvement so it would be written into the agreement that it has to be towards that park
Moving on to the votes now.
Can I see all those in favour of the application?
Any abstentions?
Can you please confirm the committee decision?
// Thank you, chair.
So the committee has voted 8 in favour and with one abstention.
So majority votes in favour of the officer recommendation to grant planning permission
subject to conditions, obligations and the outcome stage 2 process with the mayor of
For the redevelopment of the sites at Ketch House, Starboard Way and Wench House are set
out in item 5A of the agenda.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Paul.
Moving on to the next agenda.

5 b) PA/25/00240 - Land at Fleet Street Hill, Shoreditch, London, E2 6EE

you
you
you
you
Thank you very much.
Agenda item 5 .2 is planning application for development on land and Fleet Street Hill
Shoreditch, London E26EE.
The report is on pages 117 to 176 of the agenda.
I now invite Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you, chair.
As the chair said, this is a planning application affecting land at Fleet Street Hill, Shoreditch.
The planning application proposes the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings
and a pavilion building together delivering purpose built shared living accommodation
along with affordable housing units and associated community space along with a flexible commercial
space within use class E and the delivery of wider public realm improvements including
hard and soft landscaping and other works.
The recommendation to your committee this evening is to grant planning permission with
conditions and planning obligations.
There is a short update report which given the discussion that we've just had.
So on this particular scheme there is, you'll see in the report and the presentation, there
is a small pavilion building on the western end of the site.
It's like a standalone building.
It's quite small, it's 70 square metres,
so it's probably a little bit smaller.
It's probably about the size of a corner shop, I suppose.
And the application proposes that within use class E.
Use class E is all of your high street uses,
so shops, cafes, restaurants, businesses,
day nurseries, et cetera, fit within all of that.
On this one, the applicant doesn't actually have an end user for that floor space at the
moment.
So they are prepared.
We have had discussion in advance and they are prepared to have an additional clause
in section 106 agreement that this could be offered to the council on a first refusal
basis for 10 years, I understand, at a zero cost.
as long as the Council would then take on responsibility for its management and internal
maintenance.
So that's an additional recommendation.
I should stress that's not, as we said earlier, it's not part of planning policy, but it is
a commercial decision that this particular applicant is prepared to enter into in their
106 agreement.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
I now invite planning officer to introduce the application.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, chair, members of the committee and members of the public.
The scheme I'm presenting today relates to the land at Fleet Street Hill.
The proposal is for the redevelopment of the vacant Brownfield site to accommodate co -living
and 25 social rent homes.
On slide now is an aerial image of the site.
It is bound by the main line railway to the north, over ground line to the south and Fleet
Street Hill to the east.
Brick Lane District Centre is a short walk
to the west of the site.
Allen Gardens, along with a portion of TFL -owned land,
is situated to the south of the overground line, accessed
by the site via an underpass.
The site is within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street
Conservation Area.
In terms of access, the site can be reached on foot or cycle
from Brick Lane via Allen Gardens and the TFL
land through the underpass at the western corner. There is a footbridge from Cheshire
Street to Fleet Street Hill that crosses over the mainline railway. And finally, Pedley
Street provides the vehicular access to the site.
Here are some existing site photos. The top row shows views of the site from the Fleet
Street Hill steps, looking north at Fleet Street Hill and across the site from the south -east
corner. The bottom row shows the approach from Allen Gardens, approach from Pedley
Street and approach from Cheshire Street via the footbridge. Here are some photos
of the surroundings at night time. Currently there is no overlooking to the
site. Its surrounds also do not benefit from natural surveillance and the
lighting is poor. This results in an environment that feels unsafe. An
important consideration in developing this site has therefore been making
improvements to safety and security. This slide shows the proposed ground floor plan.
On the left opposite the underpass is the pavilion building. Towards the middle is the
co -living building and on the right -hand side is the social rent building. The site layout
and ground floor uses have been developed with the aim of improving safety and security,
increasing activity at the site and critically introducing natural surveillance to the site
and beyond. I'll touch on more of this throughout the presentation. Here is the
proposed southern elevation showing the pavilion building on the left, co -living
block in the centre and social rent block on the right. This is a view taken
from the townscape visual and built heritage assessment showing the southern
elevation from Allen Gardens. The co -living block is on the left and the
social rent block on the right. As can be seen here the development provides
valuable natural surveillance to Allen Gardens where there is currently virtually none.
Here is another proposed visual of the scheme. This is on the approach from the pedestrian and
cycle route through Allen Gardens from the west. This would be the primary pedestrian route to the
site just two minutes from Brick Lane. In terms of public consultation the council sent letters
to surrounding owners and occupiers. An advert was posted in the press and site notices displayed.
A total of three representations were received, two in support and one in objection.
The extent of the application site is outlined in red here with the consultation boundary
shown in pink.
These are the main issues as set out in the report and I will run through these now.
So in terms of land use, the redevelopment of the vacant Brownfield site is supported.
it provides 220 co -living units which for the purposes of housing delivery is equivalent to
122 traditional c3 units. Co -living is a newer form of rental housing it's made up of individual
rooms with additional shared facilities. Alongside this are 25 affordable homes 100 % of which will
be for social rent. When measured by net internal area this equates to 29 % affordable housing on
site and so this is topped up by a three million pound contribution towards
affordable housing off -site. This is policy compliant and is supported and it
should also be noted that this approach is supported by the GLA. Finally the
proposal also includes a small commercial unit which Paul was referring
to earlier. This helps increase activity at the site and is also supported. So
also referred to as co -living, purpose -built shared living is a type of
non self -contained housing that is generally made up of at least 50 private
individual rooms and communal amenity spaces and facilities. It's not student
accommodation. This slide shows a typical floor plan of the co -living block. The
co -living building includes 20 wheelchair accessible units. Here are
some illustrative views of the units. Each individual room benefits from a
bed, kitchenette, seating area, storage and en -suite.
So in terms of the social rented homes, the unit mix is shown on this slide. 92 % of the
homes are family sized, developed based on the need for larger social rent homes within
the borough. There are also three wheelchair accessible homes. The shortfall in smaller
homes within the social rent block should be viewed alongside the co -living element,
which delivers small units.
So overall the scheme proposes an appropriate mix
and contributes to an identified need within the borough.
Again, this approach is supported by the GLA.
Both forms of housing present a good standard
of accommodation, meeting internal space standards
and immunity space requirements.
Level of daylight and sunlight are generally good.
The bespoke shape of the social rent building
means all social rented homes are triple aspect
and all have private balconies.
The image on the right is an example unit layout for the social homes.
So this is a three bed five person unit which benefits from a separate kitchen, private balcony, its triple aspect and it has sufficient storage provision.
In terms of the residential amenity spaces there are several across the site for both forms of housing.
The left image is of the 11th floor in the co -living block where there is communal amenity space and access to the roof terrace.
On the right, the orange dot indicates the internal communal immunity space, which overlooks the child play space.
There is a shortfall of 245 square metres of child play space on site due to the lack of designated space for 12 to 18 year olds on site.
To compensate for this, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution through the Section 106 to enhance play and other facilities at the nearby Allen Gardens, which is situated just to the south of the site.
Moving on now to design the proposal includes two tall buildings at 10 to 12 storeys
Local plan policy D dot DH 6 at part 1 sets out criteria
applicable to tall buildings the scheme broadly aligns with this including active uses at ground floor level and demonstrating consideration of public safety
Officers acknowledge that the site is located outside of a tall building zone
And so the proposal must comply with the exceptions criteria set out in part 3 of this policy
The proposal broadly aligns with this criteria including addressing deficiencies in the provision of strategic infrastructure.
So the applicant has agreed to a substantial financial contribution of £1 million towards major upgrades to Allen Gardens and the TfL owned land which sits between the park and the site.
Allen Gardens at present is not a desirable park, it suffers from poor quality public realm, crime and antisocial behaviour and contains worn and outdated play equipment.
The upgrades would help enable the necessary transformational change of the park to become an area of high quality public realm and a great asset to the wider community.
Details of the final design will be worked through through the legal agreement.
In terms of design and appearance, the approach to articulation and architectural treatment was developed to reflect the residential use of the development.
The facades have been articulated to break down the mass to a scale that better relates to the local historic environment.
The bold crowns at the top of the buildings ensure the buildings are distinctive in their wider setting, yet also soften the buildings against the sky.
Overall, the material palette and detailing create a suitable design.
As mentioned, an important element of the scheme has been safety and security considerations, given that the existing site presents serious concerns in this regard.
The pedestrian routes to and around the site are not welcoming, suffer from antisocial behaviour, crime and fear of crime.
The proposed development therefore provides an opportunity to make significant improvements to safety and security and it does just this.
The tall buildings provide valuable overlooking into Allen Gardens supporting natural surveillance, active frontages have been maximised and a high quality public realm is proposed.
Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution as mentioned towards improved lighting and public realm outside of the site boundary.
The site is within a conservation area but currently contributes negatively to this.
It is isolated and disconnected from other built form other than the railway infrastructure.
The development would be visible from the conservation area and within the setting of
some listed heritage assets.
However, it would not cause any significant harm to key views or these listed assets.
When viewed in the round, the improved safety and security, public realm enhancements and
development of the vacant site contribute positively to the conservation area.
Any minor harm identified is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme,
including the on -site social rented housing provision.
Turning to neighbouring immunity, overall the loss of daylight can be considered as
minor adverse.
Where there are greater failings, this is largely due to the undeveloped nature of the
site at present.
The results are within generally acceptable levels for a site in an inner city context.
the reductions would not be detrimental to residents' immunity.
In terms of sunlight and overshadowing, there is general compliance with the BRE recommendations.
There is no significant concerns in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of outlook or sense of enclosure.
Some immunity impacts may be experienced to nearby residential properties,
however these are not considered detrimental and should be weighed against the benefits of the scheme,
including but not limited to the provision of 25 affordable homes
and a financial contribution towards improvements to Allen Gardens.
In terms of highways, all servicing is to take place on site,
which the Council's highways officers are supportive of.
Overall, highways and environmental matters are acceptable,
subject to securing the Section 106 legal agreement and the appropriate conditions.
Outlined here are the financial contributions we'll be securing through the Section 106 agreement.
These include the £3 million towards off -site affordable housing which can be used for the Council's own house building programme,
as well as the total of £1 million contribution towards park improvements.
The non -financial obligations include public realm and access arrangement strategies.
These support the management and maintenance of the site.
Finally, the approximate sill figures are outlined here on the screen.
Officers are therefore recommending this application for approval, subject to any direction by
the Mayor of London, the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions as set out in
the committee report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ellie, for your presentation.
As we have no registered speakers for this application tonight, we will move to questions.
So do members have any questions for officers?
Thank you chair I want to ask the contribution if granted to Allen garden
When how soon are we likely to see improvements?
Famous park
Counsellor do you want to move your mic a bit closer? I can't even hear you
If granted how soon can we see?
the contributions of
improvement happening in Allen Gardens
Thank You counsellor that's that that's interesting question
So I suppose the first thing the contributions will only be triggered obviously if the planning commission is implemented
Which I guess you would appreciate that
the the council's
Parks team I understand have been looking at some time about what what could happen with Almond Gardens
And I understand that there are proposals
Which if they if they were all implemented, I think and mr.
Quinn can correct me because I think he knows more about it than I do
But I think total in the region about two and a half million pounds in terms of what might be delivered
So what we've been trying to do is where there's a justification in planning terms
And the developments that are around the park seeking appropriate contribution to help to fund that's obviously this is quite a significant one
Because it's the first
Major residential development as opposed to come forward directly adjacent to the park
In terms of exactly when they would be implemented. I suppose that's really hard to say because it would depend on firstly the development
Getting permission secondly being built triggering the 106 contributions and then it's down to the council
to I guess plan those and I would imagine the council would want to do further work,
you know, consultation with the community, et cetera, refine the proposals.
So I can't give you a definite time scale because there's so many bits there, but I
suppose the main thing for your committee is that if you agree the recommendation, then
that heads of term would be secured in the 106 agreement.
So I'll start off with two questions.
So £1 million contribution to the parks, is that part of the lack of place play area?
Is that included within the £1 million?
And the other one was on one of the slides we saw both of the materials used for both
of the buildings, one was grey, the other was orange, brown, green, there you go, green.
Why are there, it seems like there's two different materials being used, there are obviously
two different colours, so is there a rationale for that? And I think the reason why I ask
this question, so you know why I'm asking this question, is that historically there
have been developments which private housing tend to have very good different material,
look very fancy whereas the social housing aspect of it, they call it the
poor door, they used materials which were less desirable I guess and you
could evidently tell the difference. Thank you, so yeah I'll just come to that
question first. So first of all just to offer reassurance that that's not why
they're different colours. Quite extensive work was done to develop a
material palette and architectural detailing which worked well in the
setting because it is ultimately in a historic environment.
Although the site contributes negatively to the conservation area at the moment, it's
still important that the materials and detailing reflect that.
Officers of the view that both material and pallet choices are really good quality, they
take cues from the surrounding environment and this is probably better articulated within
the design and access statement which sort of shows that journey, where these choices
have been made and we're satisfied that that quality is there and that there isn't a difference
in quality between the two buildings.
The difference in colour just helps break up the mess, it helps, because obviously it
is a tall building development outside a tall building zone, so it is important that it
sort of responds sensitively to the area.
The different colours and materials just really help do that.
It helps avoid it being sort of a monotonous development on the skyline and when taken
from key views in the area it reads as sort of separate more sensitive buildings.
If I may just supplement that I mean I just echo what Ellie said in terms of materiality
and the quality of the materiality there is absolutely no distinction at all they both
are very high quality. I think moving on beyond the external appearance of the building I
think it really should be emphasised that all the social rent units will have triple
aspects so kind of quite extraordinary kind of level of daylight and outlook
and again because the building is kind of set away from any neighbouring
buildings they will have really kind of extraordinary and inhibited views so
again that's the kind of another indicator that the design of the social
revenue homes is really of exemplary quality in the opinion of officers.
Just now turning to the PlaySpace question.
The contribution proposed by the applicant is actually substantially more than we would
normally request for just a PlaySpace shortfall.
This is to meet the policy requirement to address strategic infrastructure deficiency.
So it's actually a lot greater and will enable much more substantial improvements than we
would normally see if we were looking at the PlaySpace deficiency in isolation.
And just to clarify there that all of the requirements for nought to 11 year olds is
provided on site with that communal immunity space directly looking on to that.
Councillor Aicbong.
Thank you, Chair.
Given the high demand for family homes in the borough, how does this co -living, particularly
this development will help the better with the housing shortage we are facing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So yes, the mix has been developed with that in mind and that's why on the social rented
block 92 % are family units because that need was recognised and seen as an important aspect
of the scheme.
Ultimately the site really would benefit from a high density development because it feels
quite unsafe and it lacks in sort of safety and security at the moment. It's felt that
co -living is actually a great use for the site because it provides that density which
will increase activity, increase footfall and unlike if it was, for example, if it was
all family units you wouldn't have that footfall at sort of later hours of the day whereas
the benefit of co -living is that you're likely to have footfall across all hours of the day
just because of the different demographics of people that will be on the site.
So it is of officers' opinion that actually the two uses probably work quite well on this site,
given its unique nature and how isolated it currently is.
Thank you, Chair.
Could you please tell us what were the maximum terms under the co -living accommodation?
Thank you.
What did you say, Sowy?
Maximum term of the tenancy.
So this can be managed in a management plan.
So a management plan will be secured as part, should you grant permission,
and this will secure things like that.
It generally, correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone knows off the top of their head,
but I believe there is a minimum term to make sure it is longer term housing
and isn't used as short term accommodation.
So it should be used as as a traditional
C3 accommodation would but it's just sort of a different form of rented accommodation
I just want to you know, clarify some point, you know the quality being we have
In our waiting list. We have some people with no priority
So co -living accommodation is they are offering single room with shared kitchen and stuff.
Is it possible for people from the council waiting this to be building for this property?
Like saying in the...
No, so the co -living aspect is market housing and the 25 social rented homes will be from
that waiting list and that mix has been developed based on the maximum viable amount of affordable
housing provision available on the site.
If I could just come in just to supplement that.
I mean, if this scheme was brought forward as all C3 housing, yeah, then obviously policy
would require 35 % of that housing to be affordable housing.
So this is an unusual scheme obviously because it's co -living we normally the London Plan
Policy the sense directs us about how to deal with affordable housing in those contexts and he normally seeks a payment. He'd lose
Officers considered a kind of a better outcome for the borough was to provide
Social rent housing on site and indeed no intermediate housing
So there are kind of two it gets a little bit complicated. There are two metrics so by the habitable rooms
Yeah, this this development brings forward more than
35 % of the total habital rooms that's the helpful rooms under the social rent and
The habital rooms in the co living together. It provides more than that 35 %
however
The again its guidance from the lung from from the mayor of London actually sets out
We need to there needs to be recognition within the co -living. There are larger communal spaces if you like have
You know shared habitable room spaces. So there's kind of an extra layer of assessment
that's needed against the floor space provision and
In that context is 29 % of the net internal area is for social rent and the remaining is the
co -living and so that explains it's that shortfall if you will against that's
between 20 not that 6 % shortfall has
has
Produced this 3 million payment in lieu contribution
Supplemented for the affordable housing social rent housing on site with a three with a financial contribution
which is early setter in a presentation will be will be
Financial obligation that the council can use towards its own council housing programme
Thank you
I think this is in my ward and I don't have any DPI to be clear.
There is a Spitalfield city farm over there.
Is there any objection from them?
The city farm? No, no objection from them.
And there is potential with the aforementioned works at Allen Gardens,
There may be potential there to sort of link that up, consult them on the scheme of works.
Obviously it sits outside of this planning application but I understand the parks team
have looked into that before so it may be that even it can better integrate to Allen
Gardens than it does at present.
One supplementary question.
There is a contribution, sum of one million pound towards public land.
So my question to you is this money will spend on Allen Gardens surroundings or any other project beyond that?
So that will just go to the Allen Gardens and there's actually there's a portion of land just north of Allen Gardens which sits between Allen Gardens and the site.
Any sort of person walking through it probably thinks it's Allen Gardens. It actually is a bit segregated with trees but it's actually TfL owned land.
And we've worked quite hard to make sure that the contribution covers that as well because we feel
Improving that land is really important for the site and so that that entire area will be covered by that
Councillor Lily
Thank you chair, yeah, I just want to clarify that
You say the 25 % is a social
housing
So I just want to know there, 25%, how many flat will be for social rent and how many
bed to Monday?
So actually just on the screen now, so there's 25 social rent units, 92 % of these are family
size, so there's 15 three beds and 8 four beds and as part of that there is also three
wheelchair accessible homes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chia. My question is that these are two different, there will be two blocks of flats.
One block is for social rent and one is for the private, as I believe.
So I want to know if the permission given are those both block will be finished at one time or one time or it will be a different time.
Like first they block, they build the social flat so that people who are really really moving to those flat they get the, they move in.
then you build the private one. So I want to know if those buildings will be built at one time
or if it will be built at a different time.
So just to clarify, so a planning obligation would ensure that the social rented homes are delivered
so it couldn't be a scenario where just the market block is built and the social isn't finished
so that is secured in the legal agreement?
So both of them will finish at a time.
I expect the social
will be able to
revert the private ones
so that people can move in.
Thank you.
SPEAKER
Thank you, Chair.
There is a three wheelchair accessible units.
On the application you mentioned,
there will be a blue badge parking space.
As far as I understand,
If there is wheelchair access, there has to be a blue badge parking space.
There is no mention in the application how many blue badge parking spaces will be there.
Is there any indication?
So there's three blue badge parking spaces.
I do actually have a slide somewhere just showing this plan.
So there are two here and there's an additional one up here.
At present it is proposed that these two will be for the social unit and this one will be
for the co -living.
But as part of the section 106 legal agreement there will be a car parking management plan
required which can look at that in more detail, how that allocation process is managed and
who they go to and if that is something that can be managed.
Any more questions?
Thank you, Chair.
Chair Fong, just to understand, was there every size of a co -living floor base?
Was there floor space of the co -living room?
So it can range. Off the top of my head I believe it's between 20 and 27 square metres.
So that aligns with the GLA guidance. So the GLA have published guidance on the size of co -living units.
An important part of that is obviously that they're not too small, but they also can't be too big
because the aim is that you have quite a dense form of development and that they are technically not self -contained
So they'll use shared facilities, they shouldn't be used as a substandard form of self -contained
accommodation.
So the design of these co -living units aligns with that detailed GLA guidance.
Do you know when the, if the application was to be granted tonight, do you know when they
might start the work Sunday?
And yes the applicant has suggested that could be as early as hopefully this point sorry
the summer of next year and they plan to build out in a two year period.
So be quite a quick build out and it will be built out in one phase as we've articulated
earlier with a counsellor.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
If there's no questions, would members like to debate the thoughts on this application?
Councillor Kubea, would you like to start the debate?
Thank you.
Pay space. It's disappointing not to see adequate play space here.
And I think I go on like a broken record on this purely because there are no young people here to defend themselves and also speak about it.
And it is really, really important. Hence the reason why we have it in policy to make sure that when developments are coming through that we do think about young people and the space that they require.
However, this seems good given the location of the development.
It's tackling a big hotspot area around antisocial behaviour particularly.
The park is getting far and beyond an uplift in terms of financial contribution.
I think, Chair, I was going to ask just before we were just moving on,
the financial obligations toward affordable housing off -site.
Is there a particular reason why we're getting that?
What is the rationale behind that, given the fact that they are delivering
on an element of the social housing,
but then it seems like we're getting additional contributions?
I'm not saying it's a terrible thing, it's a great thing,
but what is the rationale behind that?
Thank you, Councillor.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, it is unusual.
and I suppose there's different ways of trying to explain it,
but maybe I'll, if you bear with me,
I'll take you through it this way.
So if the scheme was just purely co -living
and no Class C3 housing whatsoever,
then the London Plan policy says
you would take a financial contribution
that's worth the equivalent of 35 % of the overall,
not capital rooms, but floor space.
So it's a slightly different way of calculating it.
I think as Mr. Gwynne alluded to earlier,
it's because in the shared living model,
you've obviously got your individual rooms,
but then you've also got to take account
of kind of the shared spaces,
the kitchens, the lounges, et cetera.
So you would work,
because you can't have affordable housing
in a co -living block, you just can't do it.
So you take a financial contribution.
What this applicant has done is almost like a hybrid
approach, so they've put some affordable housing
on site in that block.
and that works out as 37 % by habitable rooms.
But when you do the floor space calculation,
it doesn't quite stack up, so what they've done
is they've done the calculation that they would normally do,
but they've just done it for the additional percentage
that they would need.
So they've covered the co -living policy in its entirety.
So you've got your contribution, you've got your onsite,
you take one away from the other,
what's left is that small contribution of three million pounds.
I suppose from members' point of view you might also ask a converse question, why didn't
they just put more on site, but it was to do with all of the design constraints, the
massing, et cetera, et cetera.
So in a way we think we've optimised the site the best we can physically.
So and then the top up is just to take account of that short fall against floor space.
I would say it's unusual because we don't see many purpose -built co -living schemes,
do we?
Yeah, well that's what I was going to say, and also delivering it and then giving off -site.
Normally it's all off -site.
So it looked very different.
And I don't think I'd ever would have seen
a co -living space up until you showed me
an inside of it on your screen.
So thank you very much for that.
I'm just glad that the larger play space
in front, Allen Gardens, which is I think nearly
four or five acres, is gonna get revamped.
Thank you, Chair.
I think this development will benefit the area, but like my colleagues, I am not sure
about the co -living, but overall this development is going to benefit the area, namely the NCCLV
as I've seen in this area.
So I'm agreeing with the officer's recommendation on this.
Thank you chair. Though is a 222 co -living units which is equal to 122
traditional residential unit but however we are getting at least 25 social
So I am supporting this.
It's okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I think that this development is a real positive one.
As others have said, that will improve the community security on that areas, because
is night time is people scared to go there and we will know that so many attention will
be there so that development will make sure we will improve the security as well as the
community garden as well as there will be a social rented home for the people to live
in so I am supporting this.
Thank you everyone.
My final thoughts are, I know the site very well and I know the antisocial behaviour in that site.
So it is a funny one, core living, but with the antisocial behaviour it balances it so well,
it will bring a lot of different people into the area as well.
Especially in another one million pound towards the park.
It's a park where I grew up in, like we used to bunk school and things like that.
Now a million pound going into that park is a big amount of money.
and three million pound towards affordable housing, that's a no brainer as well.
I asked the same question to Paul yesterday about the three million, so yeah, it's a no
brainer.
So yeah, I'll be supporting this application with the 25 % family size home.
I feel like the applicants have started listening to us and bringing in like larger family size
homes to Tahemelet as we need it.
So it's a good look for Tahemelet with the 25 % as well.
So yeah, I'll be supporting that.
So, Ian and Paul, would you like to give your last thoughts before we move to votes?
Thank you, Chair.
Again, really grateful to yourself and members for your scrutiny and your questions around
the application.
I suppose just in summing up, I mean, everybody recognises it's a site that has problems associated
with it.
It's been empty and unused for a long, long time,
and it's sort of a bit hidden away.
And I think the applicant has come up with quite
an innovative design response to a very constrained site
that not only stitches it back into its locality,
but also makes really beneficial use of the site.
As I said, co -living is an emerging product.
We don't see many applications for that,
and I think the applicant has, again,
taken quite an innovative hybrid approach
by providing the mix of the co -living but also the affordable housing on site, which
if they'd followed the London plan strictly, they wouldn't have had to do.
So in a way, that's another benefit arising from this scheme.
And then the other contributions are about mitigating the impact of the developments,
including the fact that there are tall buildings outside of a tall building zone.
So that's all part of that overall package of mitigation.
So, again, Chair, very happy to recommend it is your committee subject to planning conditions
and obligations.
Thank you.
Ian?
Chair, I think the only thing is Councillor Shipp who was asking about the Allen Gardens
contribution.
The draught heads of terms that I have seen for the Section 106 agreement require that
to be paid prior to commencement so it will be received early on.
It is then up to the council to obviously make use of that and to put it to good use.
But again, a lot of the obligations I have seen are being played prior to commencement.
So again, it is showing the willingness of the developers to work with the Council to
bring this development forward.
Thank you.
Now to the vote.
Can I see all those in favour of the application?
So on a unanimous vote in favour, the Committee has resolved to grant Planning Commission
for the redevelopment of Fleet Street Hill as set out in Item 5B of the agenda.
Thank you, Paul.
That concludes the business for this meeting.
Next meeting will be taking place on Wednesday 18th of December 2025.
Thank you very much, everyone.
Thank you.
18th.
Thank you.
Thank you.
you