Development Committee - Thursday 27 November 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Development Committee
Thursday, 27th 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
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point

Good evening.
And welcome to the Development Committee meeting.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

My name is Councillor Eric Balhussain and I will be chairing this meeting.
This meeting is being webcast live on the Council website and the public and press may
follow this meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly.
Before I do this, I would like to...
brief confirmation of protocol for addressing the meeting,
including the virtual guidance procedure.
Participants must address the meeting through myself as the chair.
If you are participating online, addressing me,
you must switch off... switch your microphone on
and may also switch on your camera at that point.
You should keep your microphones and camera switched off at all other times.
Please do not use the meeting chart facility.
Any information added to the chart facilities will be discarded.
If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the democratic
services officer as soon as possible.
I will now ask the committee members to present, to introduce themselves.
Before I ask, please do also state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda
item and the nature of the interest.
Can I start from my right, Councillor?
Councillor Saifuddin Khalid of Bromley North.
I was the immediate former speaker of the council.
I have nothing to declare.
Thank you.
Mafeeda Bustin, Councillor for Ireland Gardens Ward and nothing to declare.
Councillor Mark Francis from Bow East Ward.
No declarations of pecuniary interest but just in the interest of transparency I have
in the past been regularly to Genesis Cinema.
Councillor Ayman Rahman from Bethlehem Green West.
Nothing to declare apart from the usual emails and things like that and I have been to Genesis
to watch a couple of films.
Thank you.
I am Shafi Ahmed, Whitechap Award.
I received phone calls as well as email
regarding this application and also I have been a visitor to Genesis Cinema.
Councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudhury, Popular Award.
I have received some email and I did not respond.
Thank you.
Thank you, members.
From me, I have no DPI but I have received, like yourself,
significant numbers of emails regarding this applicant.
I'm sorry but I chose not to respond to those emails in order
to maintain my impartiality and avoid any potential conflict of
interest.
I also would like to disclose that for greater transparency, I met the applicant, Mr Walker
Hebron, on two occasions.
First one is at the event in Queen Mary University, November, December 2023, when we exchange
our business card.
Then the second one was in early this year,
sometime I received an email from Mr
Hebron for a coffee invite.
My understanding was, impression was, that
something to do with my portfolio.
Then I replied back saying I'm no longer
holding this portfolio,
Councillor So -and -so is in position.
But he requested me to come and see
We did meet sometime this year for a coffee.
During our conversation at the point,
Mr Hebron did mention about the application,
his intention to develop the site.
My advice was to him to work with the officers closely.
Thank you.
Any apologies?
We have not received any
apology from Paul Buckner,
who has been replaced by
Gareth.
Thank you.
agenda item 2 is the minutes
from the previous meeting.
The minutes from the 16th of
October 2025
will be approved at the next
meeting.
agenda item 3.
Sorry, before we go on.
First of all, Chen, can I commend you on your transparency and openness in setting in and explaining the situation?
So I guess like other people outside the council might have a question about that.
I think obviously with the advice that we get is around our own we need to make a decision
ourselves but I just wondered for the benefit of people watching this evening, I wondered
if it might be useful to get just some advice from our legal representative around that.
Can you come in please, thank you.
Can you hear me? It's mainly just to say that as long as you're able to make your decisions with an open mind without bias or prejudice then the fact that you may have frequented or had, you know, been in contact with relevant parties connected
is okay, but it's as long as you're happy that you can make a decision with an open mind.
Thank you, Councillor, for bringing this issue and thank you for explaining that.
I'm sitting here open -minded, that's why I disclosed the
the two
meeting I had on two occasions with Mr. Habron. So I'm sitting here open -minded and I
deliver my
Discharge my duty open -minded. Thank you

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

Agent item three recommendation and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

I will now ask a guy area planning manager planning and building control
to present the guidance over to
Thank you, Chair, good evening, Chair, committee members, members of the public and officers.
Item 3 on the agenda sets out the standing device for determining planning applications,
including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant
development plan, policies and relevant planning applications.
The process for considering the reports with recommendations and the procedure for public
speaking, I will outline this briefly.
I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation.
Officers will present the report.
Those registered to speak in objection will address the committee for three minutes each.
There are two objectors tonight and those registered to speak in support, including
the applicant, will address the committee up to three minutes each or in six minutes
for the applicant in the interest of parity.
The committee may ask points of clarification of the speakers.
The committee will consider the recommendation, including questions, debates and further advice
from officers.
The committee will then reach a decision based on the majority vote and I will confirm that
decision to the Chamber.
Should the committee propose changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendations such
is to add or delete planning conditions or obligations or change the recommendation for
refusal as it is tonight to approval the task of formalising those changes is delegated
to the corporate director of place.
In the event that the committee do not accept the officer's recommendation they may state
their planning, they must state their planning reasons and then propose and agree an alternative
course of action.
The committee may be adjourned briefly for further planning or legal advice.
The task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is delegated to the corporate director
of place.
If a committee proposes to make a decision which seems to go against the provisions of
the development plan or could have legal implications, the item may be deferred for a further report
from officers dealing with the committee's proposed course of action.
Finally, Chair, there is an update report which is being circulated and is on the website
as well.
It's just covering two points.
There's been additional representations on the application.
A further 126 comments have been received since the publication of the report.
Officers understand the majority of these comments have been received in response to an email
circulated by the Genesis Cinema mailing list, encouraging individuals
to write directly to the case officer in support of these schemes.
These comments largely state support for the Genesis Cinema
and it remain independent and secure in the future.
As highlighted in the committee report, planning cannot control the end user.
The permission simply would be for cinema use and not personal to the Genesis cinema.
There would be no guarantee that Genesis cinema would continue to operate at this site.
And then what there's been following a meeting between the applicant and the GLA culture
and community space is at risk team correspondence has been between those two parties that's
shared with the Council.
This correspondence relates to the future plans of the cinema, the possibility of temporary
re -provision and rationale behind the changes in the cinema offering.
For clarification, no such temporary re -provision offer has been put to officers and as such
is not something that would be secured through this application before us.
The GLA culture and community space risk team previously provided comments on the application.
Mistakenly these were not reported in the committee report.
The latest correspondence reiterates some of these comments including recognition of the discussions
that had between the culture team and the applicant, the intention to seek temporary
re -provision of the value of the existing space.
These original comments also acknowledge that the risk of displacement in cinema would become permanent
and stress the importance of providing evidence that explicitly demonstrates the tensions around re -provision.
This evidence has not been provided.
The BERB does not alter the Office of Recommendation and our planning permission should be refused.
One final thing in terms of housekeeping, if the fire alarm rings, please follow the
instructions of facility staff, we will direct you to the access, which is basically the
entrance as you come into or onto the left there.
Finally can I remind everyone to show courtesy to all present and to not interrupt the meeting.
Please ensure your mobile phones are turned off or turn to silence you in the meeting
Thank You mr. Goan is helpful
as an item for
Deferred items and we have no different item to consider tonight
as an item 5

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

The planning applications for decision we have one planning application to consider this evening

5 a) PA/25/00516 - 93-97 Mile End Road, London, E1 4UJ

5 a) PA/25/00516 - 93-97 Mile End Road, London, E1 4UJ

Item 5 .1 is planning application for proposed development at 93 to 97 Myland Road, London
E14EJ, page on the hard copy page from 22 to 23 to 102.
I now invite Gareth Gwynne to introduce the application, please.
Thank you, chair.
Just to say, as you said, the application is at 93 to 97 mile own road, which is known
for many people as the Genesis Cinema.
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the
site to provide purpose built student accommodation with associated meaning space and replacement
of the cinema together with public ground plan, disabled car parking and cycle parking
facilities as well as associated refuse and servicing access and landscaping.
The recommendation is to refuse the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Garrett.
I will now invite Ellie Cameron, Planning Case Officer, to present the application,
please.
Thank you, Garrett and Chair.
Good evening, Chair, members of the public, members of the committee.
The scheme I'm presenting today relates to the site at Genesis Cinema on Mile End Road.
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing cinema and the redevelopment of the site to provide purpose -built student accommodation
alongside a smaller replacement cinema situated in the basement.
Here is an aerial image of the site situated on Mile End Road.
Coopers Close, a residential estate, wraps around the north and west of the site.
Bellevue Place, home to Grade 2 listed terraces, abuts the site to the west.
Anchor Retail Park lies to the east. 99 Mile End Road contains flats and is situated directly
to the south -east of the site. In terms of access, the site's main access is via Mile
End Road. The cinema entrance would be from Mile End Road and the student accommodation
entrance would be further within the site as indicated by the green arrow. The site
also has a number of heritage constraints. The existing building is classified as a non -designated
heritage asset, a classification supported by Historic England. It is within the Stepney
Green Conservation Area and is within close proximity to a number of Grade 2 listed buildings.
These are indicated in brown on the map on the screen and include the terraces at Bellevue
Place and the terraces at 107 to 113 Mile End Road. The existing building is home to
the Genesis Cinema, a valuable cultural and community asset and on the screen now are
some existing photos of the inside. Here are some external images. On the left is the Mile
End Road frontage and on the right is a view of the eastern side from Anchor Retail Park.
The left image on the screen now is the view of the rear from Coopers Close and the right
image just shows this relationship between the rear with Coopers Close. So the site currently
contains a five screen 946 seat cinema across 2961 square metres. The proposal is for the
whole scale demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site to include a
new four screen cinema, 447 seat capacity alongside purpose built student accommodation.
The development would be four to eight storeys in height. It should be noted that whilst
the applicant, whilst the current use is the genesis, the permission would simply be for
a cinema use and could be used by any cinema operator. The permission would not be personal
to the Genesis and there would be no guarantee that the Genesis would remain.
Here is the proposed ground floor plan. The cinema would be entirely in the basement with
the exception of a foyer area containing a cafe space accessed via the mile and road
frontage. This is shown in the pale orange colour on this floor plan. Beyond this is
the student accommodation entrance highlighted by the pink star. There is a vehicular, pedestrian
and cycle route running within the site along its eastern boundary. This leads to a service
area, cycle parking and the blue badge bays. This route is indicated by the blue arrow.
Here are some of the upper floors containing student rooms. There is a mixture of studios
and cluster rooms. And here are the proposed cinema floor plans spread across two basement
levels. There are four screens, three of which cover both levels which is why they seem duplicated
on these plans and there would be a foyer area on the upper level and a bar
or event space on the lower level. The capacity would reduce from 946 seats to
447. Here are some proposed visuals so this is the west elevation which faces
Bellevue Place. This is the north elevation which is the rear facing
Coopers Close and you can see Bellevue Place on the right. Here is the east
elevation facing the side return service access route and sited adjacent to 99
Mile End Road and an anchor retail park. Finally this shows the Mile End Road
frontage although it should be noted that the student accommodation is only
visible in a faint outline on this but it rises to eight storeys to the rear.
So in terms of public consultation the council sent letters to surrounding
owners and occupiers, an advert was posted in the press and site notices
were displayed. A total of 240 representations had been received, 123 in objection and 116
in support. As Gareth mentioned, this figure has now changed. A further 126 comments have
been received. This consisted of three objections and the remaining 123 emails largely were
in response to an email circulated from the Genesis Cinemas mailing list seeking support
on the scheme. Officers wish to again stress that the majority of these responses simply
support the retention of the Genesis cinema and its independent nature.
However, should planning permission be granted, there would be no guarantee that
the cinema would remain as the Genesis. Planning cannot secure the end -user and
the permission would simply be for a cinema use. The operator could change.
Planning also cannot control what films are shown, what events are put on or
ticket prices. On the screen now are the main issues that are set out in the report
and I will run through these.
So firstly, 291 student rooms are proposed,
which equates to 121 traditional C3 units
for the purposes of calculating housing delivery.
Noting the accessible location,
this site could be acceptable for student accommodation.
However, policy requires student accommodation schemes
to secure a nominations agreement for occupation
by students of one or more higher education providers.
The reason for this is to demonstrate that there is a need
for a new student accommodation development and to ensure the accommodation will be supporting
London's higher education providers. The scheme does not provide this.
Additionally, policy requires the maximum provision of affordable student accommodation
to be provided. The scheme does not include any affordable element. The submitted financial
viability assessment has been scrutinised by Tower Hamlets Viability who have found
that a contribution could be made. However, the applicant does not agree with this conclusion.
the applicant and the LPA remain in disagreement on this matter.
As such, the student accommodation does not fully accord with planning policy.
Moving on to the cinema re -provision, whilst it is disappointing that the entire building is to be demolished
and that the capacity is being reduced by 52%, officers recognise the challenges facing the entertainment industry
and that the current scale and size may be unviable in the current climate.
The applicant has justified the need to adapt the cinema offering at the site.
An equality impact assessment was undertaken and identified potential negative impacts
to seven out of nine protected characteristic groups.
These are as a result of the loss of the Genesis Cinema as it currently operates and a lack
of proposed mitigation measures.
On balance, in considering what planning can and cannot control, the repurvided cinema
is acceptable in land use terms.
In terms of design, the proposed building presents a significant increase in height
and bulk.
A design led approach to optimising site capacity has not been followed and instead presents
a form of development which fails to respond to the site's context, both in terms of
scale and townscape.
The building is overly dominant and overbearing.
It is disappointing that the cinema has been placed entirely within the basement.
There are some positives though.
The mile end road frontage maximises activation and the detailed design has been improved
since pre -application stage.
However, these do not outweigh the inappropriate height, scale and massing.
Ultimately, the design is not a sensitive response to the site's heritage -rich context.
As mentioned previously, there is no nominations agreement and no provision of affordable student
accommodation.
The scheme is therefore contrary to planning policy in this regard.
In terms of standard of accommodation, officers have identified some shortcomings.
Some rooms are as small as 11 .92 square metres for a cluster bedroom and 17 .76 square metres for a studio,
although it should be noted that there are no space standards for student accommodation.
There is also a large number of single aspect north facing units and there are also quite significant sunlight failings.
Ultimately, for this form of accommodation, the shortfalls in the living standards are not sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal in isolation.
However, in this instance they do speak to a general lack of a design -led approach to
redeveloping the site.
The existing cinema, as mentioned, is classified as a non -designated heritage asset and is
within a conservation area.
The scheme includes the whole -scale demolition of this asset.
This is considered to result in some harm to the conservation area, a position agreed
by Historic England.
The proposed development would also cause harm to the conservation area and harm to
Grade II listed buildings.
The identified heritage harm would need to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.
This is discussed at the end of my presentation, but to summarise, officers are of the view that the public benefits are limited and are not sufficient to outweigh this harm.
So just looking at the harm in more detail, this harm includes the Grade 2 listed terraces at Bellevue Place.
The existing blank façade contributes to the character and sense of place, creating an oasis of great heritage value.
The proposal, however, would cause harm to this appreciation and experience and would be visually dominant.
Harm is also caused to the early 18th century Grade 2 listed terraces at 107 to 113 Mile End Road,
a very early surviving example of a Georgian London terrace.
The development would erode the quality of this part of the conservation area and would erode the formal architectural quality of this terrace.
Moving on to neighbouring immunity, the proposal presents an unneighbourly form of development
with adverse immunity impacts to neighbouring properties. Residents at Bellevue Place, Coopers
Close and the flats at 99 Mileland Road would experience an undue sense of enclosure and
overbearing impact. On the screen is an image indicating where the worst daylight impacts
would be experienced at 99 Mileland Road. This property contains flats and many are
to be single aspect, meaning their only aspect would be significantly impacted.
Now looking at transport and waste, the images on the screen show the long stay cycle parking,
bin storage and vehicular routes. Some concern has been raised about the potential conflict
on this route, as it is to be used by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. There is also insufficient
short stay cycle parking. Other environmental considerations, including land contamination
and flood risk have been found to be acceptable. As mentioned earlier on in this presentation,
the heritage harm identified would need to be outweighed by the public benefits of the
scheme. These benefits are limited and include standard employment and training opportunities
secured with any development of this scale, market student accommodation and sill payments.
Overall, the harm caused by the proposals significantly outweighs the public benefits.
The shortfalls include heritage harm, poor design and significant immunity impacts.
The limited public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh this harm.
The proposal therefore does not pass the tests outlined in the MPPF and on this basis should
be refused.
So for the reasons outlined in detail in the Committee report and summarised on these slides,
Office's recommendation is to refuse planning permission.
Reasons include failure to secure an affordable accommodation element, lack of
nominations agreement, demolition of non -designated heritage asset and failure
to provide a contextually appropriate replacement building, harm to local
townscape, harm to the conservation area, harm to listed heritage assets, as well
as adverse immunity impacts to Bellevue Place, Coopers Close and 99 Marland Road
as well as inadequate cycle parking facilities. Finally there is the lack of
legal agreement to secure employment and environmental planning obligations and the proposal also
does not include a legal agreement to include measures to safeguard against the potential
negative impacts to seven of nine protected characteristic groups.
Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
I will now invite Nick Neve and Louise Price to address the committee in objection to the
application.
Thank you, Councillor.
Should I stop?
One second, please.
So you have
each of you have
three minutes, up to three minutes.
When you're ready
you can start. Thank you.
So this is
prepared so I'm going to end up repeating
some of the points raised.
My main
talking points
are about the framing of this
application.
So as we've heard, to canvas support for the application,
the applicant sent to quite a substantial mailing list,
was a heartfelt appeal to secure the future of Genesis,
in quotes, and highlighting how it's more than a cinema,
it's a gathering space, it's a creative hub,
it's a cultural institution deeply rooted in East London.
So it's all true, but the narrative being told
is that this application is the only way to ensure its future.
And it also claims in the first email
that everything that the community loves about Genesis,
including its look, feel, and ethos will be kept.
And as we've heard multiple times,
this is an intention only, and there's
no legal guarantee for this.
So I would say that this is a misrepresentation in order
to come to support.
and I would also bring into the fact that demolition is never mentioned in any one of these emails.
You kind of have to go on to Tower Hamlets to the planning documents to actually get there,
to actually understand the sort of scale and the motion of the cinema to a basement,
and also the full -scale demolition at all.
And obviously that's a major part of the Genesis' appeal is the actual building itself.
So it seems like self -harm in that regard.
And the fact that the emails don't really address this and you have to go digging for it,
I think I would just ask the committee to consider if the supporting voices would maintain their position
if they knew these two things basically.
And they weren't just trusting the emails.
And the other part of my objection would be that the actual framing of the proposal is
strongly based off this options analysis document, but there's no, I don't think we should take
this options analysis at face value because that's the foundation of this only way we
can solve this problem.
And the reality is that this is a property deal and this isn't really about saving the cinema,
it's about maximising land value, maximising the profitability for the new owner of the student accommodation.
So basically they want the most units possible, they want the cheapest price for those units
and they want to house tenants that pay the maximum rent.
So, you know, I think that's clearly reflected
in the design choices here.
You have two seconds.
Sure.
And, you know, this has been caught in the report
as overdevelopment, and I'm happy to see that in there.
And it's also un -inclusive, so, yeah.
Thank you.
May I start?
Yeah, thank you very much.
Well, I speak on behalf of local residents who don't have the resources or means of the applicant,
but who are firmly opposed to this application.
We consider that it will have a really negative effect on the residents of Tower Hamlets,
and particularly those people who live close by.
The application is for a building which is enormous.
It's contextually inappropriate.
The proposal is for the whole -scale demolition you've heard of a non -designated heritage asset,
The cinema, in other words.
The local plan states that development in this area should enhance its distinct character and strengthen it.
The application does quite the opposite.
The proposal entirely overshadows and dwarfs and changes the character of what is a conservation area.
It's an asset for Tower Hamlets.
Such that the heritage aspects of the surrounding buildings will be irreparably damaged.
The harm to the valuable heritage assets of the area cannot be outweighed by any potential
perceived public benefits of the scheme.
Nor does the application meet the local plan because it doesn't respect the existing residents'
amenity.
We agree with the planning officer that the proposal would create what can only be said
to be a horrible sense of enclosure where we live and have a hugely overbearing impact.
You can see that from the photographs you've just been shown.
It would create a loss of privacy to the properties in Bellevue Place, Coopers Close and 99 Mile
End Road.
The overlooking I want to add is not only into the gardens of the property but also
into the rooms that people inhabit.
The proposal, the building, is considered by the residents to be frankly menacing given
how dominant it is, given its mass, its scale and its form.
It is, and we'd echo the words of the planning officer, entirely unneighbourly.
It's something we find to be unneighbourly.
There's a clear risk of increasing antisocial behaviour, given the suggested use or the
proposed use, and that's already a very big issue where we live.
The surrounding houses are family residents.
Children grow up and play there.
If the application is allowed, their standard of living will clearly be decreased.
Also, Tower Hamlets will lose an important community venue.
The cinema business is going to close.
It says it's going to reopen.
But, as you've heard, the Greater London Authority has written to you to say that where a business
is displaced, often in their experience that displacement becomes permanent.
The development is not socially inclusive.
It's not mixed use.
It doesn't provide any affordable homes.
The Equality Impact Assessment concludes it's going to negatively affect the promotion of
equality in the borough.
This is high -end student accommodation.
It's not going to benefit the local residents.
There are plenty of student houses already available.
Pacific Court, which is owned by Unite, is literally a matter of metres away.
Thank you.
Matter of metres away.
I'm almost finished and it has available accommodation ready for this September.
If the application is allowed it would create an exclusive social enclave that dominates
and simply undermines the peace for the residents around.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I hope you can hear me.
I'm going to stand so everyone can see me.
Thank you for all the information on the objections and yes, it's very true, the landscape is
going to change if we do this development.
I wish we could do it another way so that didn't happen.
I've been running and owning the Genesis Cinema for 26 years.
So I've been a neighbour to these guys for that amount of time.
And I believe I've been a decent neighbour.
I don't want to upset anyone but we are in a really really dire situation.
Over the last five years we have had a £10 million less income because of the way the lockdowns and everything else has gone on.
Cinemas are closing all over the country and I think as they have said they know that the cinema industry is in a terrible situation.
I'm not going to argue the points back and forth about what the planning officers recommend.
Because obviously what that put forward, you can definitely go for a refusal.
It's quite simple.
I know the people over there have said that there's no other way to do this.
Or there are other ways to do this.
Well no one has come up to me in two years and told me how else to do this.
My Mum and Dad went to the cinema.
If I could save the cinema without knocking it down I would do.
My family has run businesses, created employment, created income into Tower Hamlets for over half a century.
So when people are saying that I won't be running the cinema after that, that's certainly not the case.
I can only talk about what I've done and what my family have done for 55 years.
We've always contributed to Tower Hamlets.
To give you some figures, we have had over 8 million visits to the cinema over the last 26 years.
And we've put back into the community over £81 million into Tower Hamlets in income.
If the cinema closes, which it will do if we can't redevelop the cinema, then that will be none of that.
Before we had the cinema, before I bought it as a derelict site, with our own money.
It had been shut for 10 years. There was zero income, zero jobs, zero visits to the cinema.
That will happen again if we can't redevelop the cinema.
It's a choice you guys have got to make.
Do you want the cinema to close on your watch or do you want the cinema to remain open?
It really is as simple as that. I accept all of the upset in the room.
Believe me if I could have carried on doing the cinemas I have been doing for the last 26 years I would do.
But we have had 5 terrible years and it is not going to get any better any time soon.
What I want to do, yes I want to maximise the value of the site, of course I do.
I want to get as much money in as I can so I can secure the future of the cinema for the next generation.
My mum and dad went there, I've been there, my kids are going there.
I want the next generation of Tower Hamlets people to be able to go there.
We've supported communities through Rainbow Film Festival.
Anyone who knows the cinema knows what we do.
And to suggest that I'm just going to develop this site and then give the cinema to someone else is offensive and ridiculous.
I've been open and honest right the way through this whole process.
And that's all I'm saying. It really is as simple as that guys.
You can recommend for refusal.
It's quite a simple choice that you've got to make.
I hope that you want to represent the people you're supposed to represent.
And you've asked yourself the question.
Would they be happier with you closing the cinema on your watch?
Or would they be happier if you saved the cinema on your watch?
It really is as easy as that.
It's a difficult choice for you as far as the planning, but it's really a simple choice for the people you represent.
There is no other choice and when you say about the emails were misleading, the petition that was put forward from the people who don't want this to go ahead,
stole an image from our website, put the petition up as if it was from us and it said that there was no cinema going back into the development.
So that was complete misrepresentation.
All of our emails that went out had a link to the plans.
So that's...
You have 30 more seconds.
I've already spoken, yeah?
You've already spoken.
So that's where we're at with the whole application.
It's entirely up to you what you want to do.
My options are we get the plan in and we develop the site,
we save the cinema for the next generation,
or we don't get the plan in.
I sell the site that's what will happen. You will not have us running the cinema.
There will be no cinema because a more aggressive developer will come in.
They will maximise the property there. We already know that the will of the area is to put a
tower block up there to get residential in there with with other housing and if
that's what you want that's fine. I mean that I will just walk away sell it and
That's it.
You won't have dinner for cinema.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr Walker, for your presentation.
Do members have any questions to the officers if they can please indicate?
Councillor Baston.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you. I didn't catch your name, I'm so sorry.
Ellie.
Ellie. Thank you for your presentation and your report. Your presentation was very damning,
I thought, listening to it, but very clear as to what the Council's view is. Can I ask
you about the EQIA, because it's noted in here and it's noted in your presentation,
but it's very much related to how the cinema currently operates.
From a planning perspective, given what you've said about the...
we don't know who's going to be operating the cinema,
how much weight should we be putting onto the EQIA,
given it's dependent on how the cinema is run?
So it is a material consideration, but obviously that is sort of
knowledge in that there are some aspects of it that planning can't control, so it will
vary from EQAA to EQAA for how much weight we can afford to that. In this instance the
report is very clear that there are obviously some areas that planning can't control, but
I think that the main point is that there are some mitigation measures that could be
put forward, some things that could be agreed in a legal agreement and these haven't been
controlled by planning, obviously the genesis could close tomorrow and we can't control
that, but we also can't control that they do come back in.
So this is sort of just a way of assessing that impact, albeit we potentially don't have
control over a lot of that.
Councillor Francis.
Can I ask a question to the objectors?
So I guess it's less to the objectors representing those living around and more to those who
are opposed to the redevelopment of it.
So can I just understand, is your objection to the principle of the redevelopment of the
site or is it only an objection to this version of a redevelopment involving the demolition
and some of the heritage assets that you mentioned and that are referenced in the planning officer's
report?
Yeah I don't think I speak for most people, I mean that we, my neighbours basically, that
We're not anti -development for that site at all, but if you just look at it, it doesn't
seem appropriate as a proposal.
The objection is that the full scale demolition cannot be the only way to make that site viable
for a business to run on it.
That's why I was talking about not taking this analysis at face value, because that's
whole condition for that whole argument is this document that is essentially produced
by someone with a vested interest to produce that document.
So we're not against development, like flat out, we're not NIMBYs, but we would welcome
sort of a more sensitive creative development proposal that kind of takes into account all
of the points raised here and in the report.
So, yeah.
That's great, thank you.
And so a question also to the applicant, if I may.
So one of the things I guess that I was surprised at
but perhaps shouldn't be in Tower Hamlets
is that the choice is around student accommodation.
And I just wondered if you could explain the rationale
for that choice as opposed to C3 residential,
which might have a stronger requirement around affordable housing or at least to be fast -tracked through the GLA zone process.
Yes of course, I mean this is one of the things that we looked at because we knew that would have been an easier route through.
We know what's going on. But unfortunately with the size and shape of the site, if you do residential you've got to have things like balconies,
the units have got to be larger etc etc.
So it would only realise maybe 80 units maximum if we can do that at all.
If you go for 80 units of residential and then social housing,
you don't realise enough capital to be able to repurpose the cinema in the basement or wherever else.
So it wasn't, I mean that's definitely, if someone else wants to do that,
that's what they can do on the site,
because if there's no cinema there,
I'm really not interested in it.
But that might make, like I say,
they may go ahead and resell the site,
but there will be no cinema in the basement,
because it doesn't realise enough cash to do that.
And just to ask, obviously we're only looking
at the application in front of us,
which is 290 rooms of spaces for student accommodation.
did you consider the co -living option for the site as well or your architect
consider that or agent?
We did look at co -living as well we looked at a number of different options
that we could do but again co -living didn't realise enough capital to put the
cinema back in into the basement and you know as I say as far as cinema
I know you said about the legal document that we could put forward to say that we would run the cinema.
I didn't realise that was available and if that had been told, if we had been asked for that, I would definitely do that.
Like I say, we've worked for two years to try and look at all different things.
We even looked at repurposing things in the existing building, trying different businesses in the building,
from crazy golf to casinos.
We have done a hell of a lot of work and we think this is the only way we can save the cinema.
Can I come back to you?
Councillor Ramon.
Thank you for your presentation.
Of the policy conflicts identified, which single issue carries the greatest weight in your recommendation for refusal and why?
I would probably say the heritage harm as that needs to meet the tests of the MPPF which
is quite strong. You identify heritage harm on a scale, we have identified this as less
than substantial harm to a number of properties, so it's not just one, it's to the Bellevue
Place Terraces which I don't know if you have been but they are so unique, I had no idea
they existed before I went.
And so we feel the harm to those is quite significant.
And then also to 107 to 113, which
has one of the few early surviving examples of Georgian
terrace in London with an uninterrupted roofline.
And Historic England agree with this on that,
that that would be significant harm to that quality.
So probably the heritage point.
But I think heritage harm can be outweighed and I think that's something to stress.
You can outweigh that level of harm by public benefits and the key point here is that we
feel there aren't the significant benefits to do that because there's too much tilting
it away.
So that's when you sort of view it holistically and then you see the unneighbourly form of
development, the impacts to the residents around it, the design impact on the townscape
and the lack of cycle parking, if that makes sense.
So it's tilting too much away for us to outweigh that harm.
Councillor Ahmed?
Questions to the petitioners. Obviously we've heard that this site has been going for 26 years
and it plays a significant important role in people attending that cinema
and for the continuity of businesses as well as entertainment industry.
and also the significant level of local jobs that are available etc.
All the benefits that this cinema has already given for the last 26 years.
You mentioned that you don't object to development and you say that there could be development made without demolishing the site.
What would you recommend as residents?
what would you feel strongest in that sense that will help continuity of that business?
Can you repeat the last bit again, the question?
So the continuity of the, I mean the gentleman mentions that without demolishing there could be a sizeable way the cinema can survive.
what would you recommend as local residents living within that area that will see significant change that will help Genesis continue its business which it has done for the last 26 years?
Well I mean you'd have to look at accounts and money to actually work out a plan and we don't have access to that.
So I mean I can't really speak with any authority on it, only just sort of make loose suggestions which I don't think are very useful here.
But, you know, it's my main point in my objection was about the sort of scale of money on the
table here and that's what's shaping the direction of this proposal rather than essentially just
maintaining the business as is.
So I think in the planning document there's something like, there's a number, it's like
maybe a hundred and ninety thousand pounds or something of shortfall. I don't see how that kind of shortfall requires essentially full demolition and you know,
dig out a basement and all this stuff. Like within the site there must be more inventive options to raise that money and you know create more jobs and bring in more money that way.
That is the sort of thing.
I don't have a suggestion for how to save it
until more information comes out.
Thank you, Councillor.
You have one more question, Councillor?
Go ahead.
So, to the applicant,
just in terms of the cinema,
what was the rationale in moving the cinema to the basement?
First of all, cinemas don't, it's not just the basement, there is the basement and ground floor, which I think was missed.
But cinemas don't need any windows, so if we push, we don't want to go too high, we've tried to keep it as low as we can.
So we thought if we dig down into the basement and put the cinema in the basement and then the ground floor level, you maximise the area.
It's a huge cost that then you know everything's got to be balanced so we've tried to.
We didn't want to go too high we wanted to get as low as we possibly could.
So we didn't upset too many of the neighbours I know we have done but that it really is the lowest we can go.
So if we go into the basement we can put all of the screens down there and the entertainment area down there.
Because they don't need any windows and then there's better soundproofing which will improve the quality for our neighbours as well.
And energy as well, it's a more energy efficient building, it's easier to access for disabled access and everything else.
So it's modernising the whole thing and the shortfall that we've got, like I say, has been £2 million a year.
We've not been able to reinvest in the cinema and we need to invest a hell of a lot of money into the cinema just to stand still at the moment.
And that's why we're facing within 12 months we will be closed.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, officer, for your
presentation.
My question to the applicant.
One of the
objection is the loss of privacy and
outlook and loss of light and
overshooting upon nearby properties.
How do you justify this?
Yes, that is definitely a concern.
We have
looked at the rights of light.
I think there's less than
substantial harm across the whole development. There is one property that there is more harm to.
We've tried to see what we can do about that. We've looked at everything we can.
I think because the way that the numbers work is there are balconies above the windows anyway
and the light already going into that property is quite diminished.
So therefore when there is an extra harm it multiplies, it seems a lot worse.
but of course that's not a good thing and if we could do a development in
London without harming light in other areas it would be great but there is going to be some harm
unfortunately for that. As far as the privacy is concerned especially with Bellevue
we've redesigned it a number of times so now we've got all the windows that are
facing in the other direction so nothing is actually it's not possible for people
to overlook the gardens. Sorry I'm going to interrupt that's actually not true
that's just categorically not true. When you look at the development you can see
that's what we've done we've altered the windows and the lights of the
light is actually probably improved in Bellevue because we're taking down a
massive flank wall that we've got and the objection really is that they've got
a lovely private area with this great big wall which I understand is lovely
But by taking the cinema down there is more light coming in but as far as privacy is concerned
the windows are, we've altered all the windows so they are now facing, what are they called these windows?
Oriel windows, so they're not actually looking, overlooking.
So we've done, again we've listened to everything within those who have a number of consultations with the neighbours
and we've tried to make it as best as we possibly could.
Thank you Councillor Francis.
I'm really concerned that it's just not true.
Sorry, you had your time. I can't allow that, thank you.
I'd like to just ask officers about the student accommodation aspects of it,
because I understand the strong rationale around heritage
and potential loss of community immunity,
but just on student accommodation.
So part of, which was one of the recommended grounds
for refusal, talked about the inability
to make, from the applicant to make a commitment
to 35 % affordable student accommodation.
So my first question around that is,
what does that look like in practise
in terms of what's the difference in the margin
between a market rate and an affordable rate
for student accommodation, just to give us some indication.
I think we would know in C3 residential,
but I don't know here.
And then my other question is just about our own local plan
and the obligations that are on Tower Hamlets
within London as a whole.
So in paragraph 712, it says about the London plan
says 3 ,500 bed spaces per year across 32 boroughs, which
and I can work out roughly what that means on average.
But it does then say that Tower Hamlets has made
quite significant contributions of over 3 ,500 already
and another nearly 1 ,500.
So what weight should we place on that
in terms of the need for student accommodation overall,
not just the affordable element of it?
Thank you.
So just first coming to what is student accommodation,
Great question. The definition is just on the screen now so I'll just read it out.
So this is within the London plan. So the definition of affordable student accommodation
is a purpose built student accommodation bedroom that is provided at a rental cost for the
academic year equal to or below 55 % of the maximum income that a new full time student
studying in London and living away from home could receive from the government's maintenance
So essentially they will only pay a capped amount to what loan they can get and that
makes it genuinely affordable.
And then just coming on to the point about need, you're absolutely correct, Tarhamlets
has an immense amount of student accommodation.
We have far exceeded our targets, exceeded targets for more than our borough, and so
So my advice there is to afford limited weight to that.
A great way of demonstrating need for student accommodation
is the nominations agreement.
And obviously what that does is demonstrate
that a specific higher education provider wants to take on that.
And they obviously wouldn't take it
on if they didn't feel there was a need.
We don't have that in this instance.
And they're also less likely to take it
on if there's no affordable element as well.
So obviously, it provides a form of housing.
So there is a benefit there, but in terms of what the borough needs we all know what
that is.
It's not necessarily student accommodation, the acute need is for C3.
So in terms of the balancing exercise you could apply a lot lower weight to this form
of accommodation.
I hope that answers your query.
It does, that's really helpful thank you.
I just have one more quick follow up.
So, and just obviously if this is residential housing and it's affordable, in the first
instance, lettings go to people in housing needing Tower Hamlets.
Is there a similar arrangement for affordable student accommodation in either in terms of
access, favourable access to Tower Hamlets residents or London residents as a whole?
Is that the driver, not just in terms of meeting the policy, but actually delivering beneficial outcomes for students?
So it's not specific to place. So say you had an element of affordable student accommodation
and this was managed by a specific higher education provider, call it QMUL, which is just down the road,
they would then manage who got that. So it wouldn't necessarily be favourable to residents within the borough,
It could be overseas students, it could be someone from York.
It could be it's not done the same way that our own C3 housing is done.
Thank you, chair.
Quick question for the applicant.
Policy requires affordable student rooms or a nominated agreement.
Why does your proposal deliver neither?
and what prevents you from meeting the policy agreements?
As far as the affordable part, we are again, we're trying to maximise the value of the property
so we can guarantee the, bring back the cinema and guarantee the future of the cinema.
And as far as we understand it with policy, we can offset some of that by bringing back a community asset, i .e. the cinema.
Then, sorry, what was this other part of your question?
Oh, the nomination we've met with, we met with...
Do you want to pick up on that?
Yeah, my name is Matthew Rowe, I'm a town planning consultant from Rock Planning,
who specialises in PBSA.
The way nominations agreements work at the moment is that there's a commitment in the legal agreement,
which will come forward.
but universities won't sign up to nominations agreements till closer to the point of delivery of the scheme.
But it will be secured in the legal agreement that the majority of the beds will be under nominations agreement.
And that's always in the section 106, on all student schemes.
Yeah, we've spoken to Queen Mary's University at some length and they've told us that they see, they have said they need more student accommodation
and they see that whole corridor as that's where they want student accommodation.
And we also see student accommodation as relieving the pressure on the local housing that had been taken by students.
So this will hopefully help the local housing stock to keep their rents low and keep the prices low, the benefits to the community.
Can I just answer on the affordable fixes, I'm partnered with Trone in Development.
we've had a number of engagements with Tower Helmets on the viability assessment.
I'm Dominic Trainer, I'm a partner with Tyrone in the development.
We've had a number of engagements with Tower Helmets on the viability assessment and our
position still is that in order for, you know, we've a couple of issues in terms
of challenge, in terms of the cost of finance, we're at odds with
Tower Helmets in terms of their suggestions that we can get 7 % interest
our development finance we've said now, there are a number of challenges that we have and
disagreements that we have. We see that discussion not being closed yet but what we've concluded
is that in order to actually deliver the community asset we basically have expended all the funds
to be able to actually re -provide affordable. But that negotiation with Tower Hamlets we
believe is still, we still have that potential.
I can just provide some clarification there.
So first of all, in the legal agreement, obviously we haven't drafted this, but it tends to be
worded as best endeavours to reach a nominations agreement, so it wouldn't guarantee that one
would be met, would be agreed.
And then also just to point out, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we've
seen any correspondence between any university.
I don't think it's in the submission and there's obviously no way for us to secure that.
No, you haven't seen any.
I don't think you've seen it.
We have had discussions and we've said at the meetings that we're having.
Can I answer that please, okay?
Just on the nomination, as I said, the HAI will not sign up to an agreement this far away from delivery.
But I was at the Lambeth Committee about two months ago and UCL were actually saying they've not got enough
purpose -built student accommodation for their first year students.
There was only actually 1 ,200 beds provided completed in 2023 and 1 ,400 in 2024.
That's way below the target.
So there's definitely a need for more PBSA across London.
And Tallahassee is popular because it's in a good location.
Councillor Bastien then I'll come back to Councillor Childry.
Thank you, Jack.
Can we get some advice on the nominations agreement please?
Because I'm sure I've been in committee meetings before and seen applications where there have
been nominations agreements for student accommodation and I couldn't tell you which ones.
There's a number of points to make.
So there are some applications you've seen which have had a nominations agreement.
There are also ones where the local planner, very often a nomination agreement isn't agreed
when it comes to the decision maker.
But we have seen that there is advanced discussions with an education provider and then there
is a commitment to it.
But I think we need to look at the nomination agreement, but also whether an education university
provider would want to enter into a nomination.
The London Plan policy is very clear that for student accommodation it has an equal
responsibility as C3 housing to provide that mixed and balanced community.
For example, just more hypothetically than specific to this case, but it's just a matter
of fact that Queen Mary has a very proud record in terms of being very inclusive students
from poorer backgrounds and so forth.
The, they have a responsibility to widen in participation
or all universities and they're very much interested in,
when they bring, when PBSA is offered,
that that affordable housing,
that affordable student accommodation is within that offer
because then obviously provides that opportunity
to have students of all incomes part of that.
We have to assess the application as it is before us and as the fourth reason for refusal.
There is a, you know, we don't agree that this is provided in the maximum amount of
affordable student accommodation as we could.
Just probably I should have said earlier, we have two offices actually from our financial
the financial viability team if you have any specific queries.
I will come back to Councillor Khaled.
Thank you, Chair.
My question to the officers.
When we make decisions in any development or any planning application, it is based on
material consideration, planning material consideration.
Do you think any planning material consideration is false under this application which we will
think to decide either grant or refuse any material consideration?
Sorry, could you repeat that?
I'm not quite sure I understand.
I'm sorry, either grant or refuse mainly based on planning material consideration is the
main core points.
Do you think any planning material consideration falls in this application which would highlight
to make our decision, either refused or grant?
So of the material considerations, officers have made an assessment based on these and
that is where the recommendation for refusal comes from.
So of the five reasons for refusal, they're all material planning considerations and they
are all reasons to refuse the application.
There will be some reasons in it to approve.
Any application has...
Sorry to interrupt you, can you bring this slide for Councillor Hintish?
Thank you.
So most schemes will have positives and negatives, this definitely has positives.
An example of the positive is we feel that the frontage on Bight Mile End Road has been
done quite well, the cinema has a nice sort of appearance on the front, that's an example
of a positive which would weigh it in favour, but ultimately there is a significant number
of negative material considerations and that's why we are recommending refusal.
If I just supplement what Ellie said, so obviously in the first instance the responsibility of
the council acting as plan authorities to determine the applications against the development
plan and then other material considerations. Now all the reasons of refusal before us are
about the material considerations at odds with the development plan policies, it's not
that there are other material considerations outside the development plan that are providing
reasons why we are refusing the application or other instances that are sometimes material
considerations you might say that are positive, that weigh in favour of it when there is,
when the development is in certain respects against the development plan.
But all the reasons of refusal are material planning considerations and those material planning considerations is in the opinion of officers
They are not consistent with the development plan objective those relevant development plan policy objectives
Thanks
councillor
Khalid
Thank You chair
very quickly to the officer
you did highlighted that almost the similar numbers of
of objections you received and also in favour.
I would like to ask you whether the reasons
of those objections predominantly,
is it reflected in your decision
in respect of the reasons you provided
for the recommendation?
Yes, so the objections, a lot of them were quite lengthy
and included objections against land use, so the student accommodation, reduction in
cinema, heritage harm, design, immunity impacts, lack of meaningful consultation by the applicant,
there was a broad range of reasons. In terms of support, some of these did have some support
for the student accommodation but the vast majority of support was simply a line stating
that they wanted the cinema to remain as the genesis and I would just like to remind members
that this planning application would not secure that. Planning cannot control the end user
of anything. So there would be no, we couldn't put in a legal agreement that it would be
operated by the genesis, it's simply not something we could control. So of those, that's sort
of why we phrased some of them as comments, because they are supporting the genesis as
being independent. I'm sure we'd all love to support the genesis as being independent,
but we can't secure that in planning.
in respect I think if I may yeah very quickly do you have any kind of
assessment in respect of because you're hard from the applicant that if this
planning application goes down is minded to sell the property to somebody else
and then if this happens how much revenue the council will lose which we
would have got in the form of business rights, council tax and so forth.
Sorry, council, do you mind if I answer that question?
It can't be.
It's not a material planning consideration.
Thank you.
Quick question.
If the committee were to be minded to approve, what specific change or condition would be
necessary to overcome the identified harms or
Do you think the harm is too big to be mitigated?
So the reason we're refusing is because we don't feel there's any condition
that could outweigh it so it would be for members to
Disagree with my assessment on that level of harm
So you would have to say that you don't think there's as much harm and therefore that changes the balancing exercise
so
So we are of the view that if the assessment remains the same, there aren't conditions
that could overcome it, you would fundamentally have to disagree with the assessment and take
a different view on that level of harm.
And then determine that other material considerations have outweighed any harm identified in any
of the other shortcomings of the scheme.
Thanks, Elika.
Councillor, do you want to...
Just to supplement that, if we as officers and you as a committee thought that you could
address those concerns by condition or by 106, then obviously there is a responsibility
on the plan authority and the council acting as a plan authority to do that.
But it is officers that we are very clear as we set out in the report that we do not
believe the tensions of policy can be met by changes in conditions.
Councillor Dabney.
Thank you.
Questions from the officers.
I'm not sure, did the applicant have a pre -application prior to the application?
Yes, thank you for the question.
Yes, the applicant came in per proi app.
It was between around June 2023 and November 2024.
At those pre -apps we saw a student led scheme.
The applicant came in and it was between June 2023 and November 2024.
It was around four meetings.
The scheme that was presented was a student led scheme but it did re provide the cinema
within that.
Thank you.
Advice was given according to the planning framework that you presented.
Was that consideration considered?
Under the same framework that we presented today, there's been no material changes within that.
Councillors will be aware that our new local plan went to full council quite recently,
but the weight afforded to that new local plan has not changed,
and our assessment has therefore not changed since we were engaged in those pre -op discussions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do members have any more questions?
Thank you.
Before we move on to next, do members have, would like to share their final thoughts or
debate on the application?
Please indicate.
Councillor Choudry.
Thank you chair. We always welcome any development. However, this development would result in a
significant loss of heritage and community value and local amenity and constitutes over development
of the site. This development would also result in the loss of an important cultural venue with
The land is valuable and should be used responsibly,
particularly at a time when there is an acute shortage of
housing.
So I am refusing the application and I am
supporting our officer's recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Chaudhry.
Any members?
Councillor Francis, thank you.
Thank you.
I agree with Councillor Chaudhry.
So, I think that the issue of the land is not only
It is difficult because we as a committee and as a community and as a council,
we want to do what we can to support an important community asset.
The risk of losing an important community asset is clearly very great in this situation.
But we're not here ultimately to make a decision about that.
We're here to look at the built environment.
and it seems to me that the council on behalf of the people of the borough,
and particularly Stepney Green, are being asked to pay too high a price
towards safeguarding, or potentially safeguarding the future of Genesis or another cinema.
So I think, I want to say, I think the officer's report on this is really excellent.
I think it is balanced, but over and over again it comes down
and making it very clear of an adverse impact,
particularly in relation to their heritage,
the local heritage, conservation area,
and also the other grade two listed buildings nearby.
And I also welcome, support the recommendation
about the lack of affordable student accommodation,
and I support the comments that are in this report at least about
Tower Hamlets already having over provided an amount of student accommodation
and in fact it has done for many years for some strange reasons so that's not a
reason for refusal when there were so many other clear -cut reasons that have
been put forward but I think that is an important thing to bear in mind as well
So I strongly support this recommendation to refuse
Thank You councillor Francis any other members council Sebastian
Thank You chair, I think this is
Such a shame in so many ways. It's really horrible and we get applications that just split the community
it feels
planning, I think one of the roles of planning committee is to bring
communities together and when in this in this case you know it feels like we
can't necessarily make everyone happy. I really want to thank the members of the
public for coming in today it's great to see so many people engaged in this and
to the objectors for speaking so well. I do have a lot of empathy for the
applicant and the situation that they find themselves in.
It's, you know, it's spoken incredibly emotively about the financial struggles of the cinema
and the industry.
And I wish there was a way that we could find through planning a solution to that.
I agree with Councillor Francis.
I think the report and the presentation has been really excellent, so thank you.
and I think it would be very difficult for us to go against the office's recommendation to refuse the planning application.
I hope there's been enough of a discussion here today for the applicant to be able to reflect on some of the points that have been made
and maybe consider how a fresh application may be able to get permission, but that's
not for tonight and I will be supporting the, my colleagues but also the officer's recommendation
to refuse.
Thank you, chair.
After reviewing the officer's report and the committee's comments, I am minded to refuse
the application as well.
The development would cause serious harm to Stepney Green, conversation area and the settings
nearby listed buildings are replacement provision.
The student housing fails to meet policy requirements for affordability.
Neighbouring residents would experience loss of daylight privacy and increase of a bearing
impact.
While I recognise the potential benefits of redevelopment that are outweighed by the harms
identified, for those reasons I agree with the officer's recommendation to refuse this
application tonight.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you, Councillor Lautman, for your thought.
Any other members?
Thank you, Chair.
I really don't have an awful lot to say.
I think it's been a good discussion and there's been rightly a lot of compliments about the
clarity of the reports and the presentation today, so I really, there's really very little
to say.
I just say we've talked about the heritage and the harm to that and that is clearly a
function of the scale of the development that's been tried to put on to the site and that
being not contextual in heritage terms.
But it's kind of two sides of the same coin, if you like.
The third reason refused in terms of the amenity impacts and it being detrimental to residents
and neighbours again is clearly a function of the same thing.
of the building envelope being too ambitious.
We can't, the principle of student accommodation
we can't object to on this site.
However, clearly there isn't a nominations agreement.
We disagree on the viability of the scheme
isn't provided in that mixed to balanced
student accommodation offer that we require.
And so that informs the refusal around that.
and I've really got nothing more to say at this stage.
Diane Phillips, our planning lawyer.
Sorry, most of the councillors here have indicated that they are likely to go along with the officer's recommendation.
Just a quick reminder that councillors must make decisions in accordance with the development
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
If the committee were minded to make a decision contrary to the officer's recommendation
and that decision would also be contrary to the provisions of the development plan, then
such motion may only contain the committee's initial view and must be subject to a further
report containing the committee's initial views and then we would then be subject to
a further report detailing the planning issues raised by such a decision. Further consideration
of the matter would be adjourned to a future meeting of the committee where officers would
a supplemental report setting out the proposed
permission position and explaining the implications
of that decision if you were to go against
officer's recommendation.
And there's also the other option of deferring
the application to allow renegotiations of some
of the points raised in the committee as well.
So that's basically all I wanted to say.
Thank you for your advice.
It's a very
high profile
application. While I'm appreciating
the service, the link, the association
the Genesys Cinema has with this part of
East end at the same time we need to balance
Which is most important and
Beneficial for the community. So now I'm going to ask members to vote
Can I see all those in favour of this application?
Sorry the replication of the recommendation. Sorry
My suggestion is to just invite members to vote on the recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We will now see vote on the recommendation to refuse.
Do I need to see all those?
No.
Not needed.
Thank you.
Could you please confirm the committee decision?
Thank you, Chair.
Just to say in line with the officer recommendation, but a unanimous decision was to refuse the
application as in line with the officer's recommendation.
That concludes the business, this meeting.
Thank you everyone for your contribution.
Thank you.
Thank you, sorry.
I need to repeat this.
Let's conclude the business for this meeting.
The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 29th January 2026.
Thank you for your contribution.