Strategic Development Committee - Thursday 18 December 2025, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development Committee
Thursday, 18th December 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

Good evening and welcome to the Strategic Development Committee.
My name is Councillor Amin Rahman and I will be chairing this meeting.
This meeting is being webcast live on Council's website and public and press may follow the meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this I would like to briefly confirm the protocol and addressing the meetings including the virtual meeting procedures.
Participants must address the meetings through myself as a chair.
If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch your microphone on and also switch your camera on at that point.
You should keep the microphone and camera switched off at all other times.
Please do not use meeting chat facility. Any information added to chat facility will be disregarded.
If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Demographic Service Officer as soon as possible.
I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves.
Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in this agenda items and the nature of interest.
Just to let you know, I have no declaration of interest at all. Thank you.
While a couple of the microphones are switching on.
Thank you.
I will give you a few minutes.
Thank you, Councillor Syed Ahmed. DPI only is that for the second applicant here, although
The applicant is University College London.
I did work in the building previously.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Gullang, you've achieved nothing to declare.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now to apologies for Tima.
Have we got any apologies for tonight?
We've received no apologies even for the absence
I've been made aware now from council Shubol is saying that Lulu has given his apologies
Thank you
Councillor, would you like to introduce yourself from online and declare any of your interests?
Can you please switch your camera on as well, yeah?
Councillor online, do you want to introduce yourself?
And can you switch your camera on please?
Hello, I can't hear you guys so someone needs to unmute you.
Can you hear me now?
Councillor, can you hear me now?
She is facing technical difficulties.
Can you switch your camera on, please, and can you introduce yourself and can you let
Can I ask about your DPI please?
My name is Councillor Asma Began and I don't have any DPIs. I will be switching on my camera in a few minutes.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
Agenda item 2 is minutes from previous meetings.
Can we approve the minutes held on 22nd October 2025 and 12th November 2025?

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

Thank you.
The minutes from the 3rd September 2025 will be approved at the next meeting.
Okay.
Okay.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Agenda item 3, other recommendation and procedures for hearing, objection and meeting guidance.
I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development, management, planning and building control
to present the guidance.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good evening.
Good evening, members of the public who are watching this evening and officers who are
here in the meeting.
So this item sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications, including
the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development
plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.
The process for considering the reports on the main part of the agenda will go as follows.
I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and summary of the recommendation.
And then officers will present the report.
We normally then hear from any speakers who are registered either in objection or support
or any Councillors, but I think I understand, in fact, nobody has registered for this meeting.
So I'll skip that part of the report.
So then we would go on to so the committee will consider the officer recommendation,
including any further questions or debate or advice from officers.
Then the committee will go on to reach their decision based on a majority vote and I will
confirm that back to everybody in the meeting.
If the committee propose any changes to aspects of the officer recommendation, for example,
to add, delete or amend planning conditions or planning obligations, then the task of
formalising those changes is delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
And in the event that the committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must
state their planning reasons and then propose and agree an alternative course of action.
Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task
of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If it seems that the committee are likely to make a decision that would appear to go
against the provisions of the development plan or could have any other legal implications,
Then the item may be deferred for a further report from officers dealing with the issues
There is no update report this evening chair. So I think that concludes

Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much agenda item for deferred item and we have no deferred item to consider

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

5 a) PA/21/02188 - The Royal Foundation Of St Katharine, 2 Butcher Row, London, E14 8DS

Agenda item five are the planning application for decision. We have two applications to consider this evening. I
Have also used my discretion to vary the agenda order to deal with
Item 5 first.
Agenda item 5B first.

5 b) PA/25/01807 - Forty Sixth and Forty Seventh Floor, 1 Canada Square

Agenda item 5B is an application for proposal material change of use within one Canada square,
pages 91 to 106.
I now invite Paul to introduce the application.
»» Thank you, Chair.
So as you've said, this is a planning application affecting the 46th and 47th floor of No. 1
Canada Square at Canary Wharf.
The application is a material change of use from use class E which is offices to a flexible
use within class F1 learning and non -residential institutions and use class EG, which is offices.
It only affects two floors within the building.
The recommendation to your committee is to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Just to explain the reason this is coming to committee is it's technically a departure
from certain aspects of the development plan as it says in the report.
But there are other factors that balance in favour of it because of the amount of floor
Because the trafficInCode being Samuel said that 70 ,000 people mess trapped into programme
So the application site, One Canada Square, lies within the Canary Wharf Metropolitan
Town Centre and it's also within the Central Activities Zone.
Canary Wharf is a preferred primary office location.
The site is in an area that has excellent public transport accessibility and it's located
close to both the Canary Wharf underground stations and DLR stations.
So this slide shows an aerial view of 1 Canada Square.
The building currently provides over 115 ,000 square metres of floor space, most of which
is currently in use as office.
However UCL, the School of Management, currently occupy four floors of the building.
These changes of use from office to the learning floor space have previously been granted by
strategic development committee in 2015, 2020 and 2024.
So these images show both existing and proposed floor plans of the 46th and 47th floor, so there's no substantial changes to the internal floor plates.
And combined it's a total of 4 ,800 square metres that would be subject to the permission.
So as mentioned previously, whilst the loss of office floor space is contrary to local
plan policy, the proposed change of use is considered to be acceptable in this instance
for a number of reasons.
So firstly it's a relatively small amount of office floor space given the context of
the building as a whole and also the existing pipeline of consented office floor space in
Canary Wharf that's coming forward so both in in Wood Wharf and North Quay development sites
The site is also within the metropolitan town centre
So it's very accessible and an education use is consistent with the range of uses that would be expected to be found within a metropolitan
centre
it's also a
Consideration that UCL will be the occupier and they're considered to be a centre of excellence. And so that's for its leading research and
and with UCL in place, the use would be strategic central activities zone use and that would
be in compliance with London Plan policies for this area.
And so finally, UCL have built up strong connexions with both local businesses and surrounding
occupiers since moving to Canary Wharf and this proposal would help them to continue
the work that they're doing and again, in compliance with the relevant London Plan policies.
So whilst there is a partial departure from the development plan, officers consider that
the land is acceptable in this specific instance and it's recommended that Planning Commission
is granted subject to conditions outlined in the report.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
application.
As we have no registered speakers for this application, I will now move on to members'
questions.
Do members have any questions for officers?
As we have no questions, I might as well.
Will the proposal have any impact on any other usage of the building or surrounding area?
Would members like to share their thoughts and debate their application?
It's within this existing floor space.
It's just a change of views, isn't it?
Does the Council benefit from the change of views in any way financially?
Yes, it is just within the floor space.
Not directly in terms of financial benefit, there's no, for example, planning obligations
that are triggered by this.
I suppose what it does do is it contributes to that kind of diversification of the Canary
Wharf estate, so you'll know that obviously the office market can be a bit sort of in
flux.
So Canary Wharf have got that sort of wider aspiration to bring in other land uses and
I suppose in a way you see, as you can see in the report, UCL have actually, because
they're postgraduate business schools, so they've established within number one Canada
Square quite successfully.
They want to be in that location because it's got that synergy with local businesses and
some of those major employers so it really helps their postgraduate students and I guess
that success has meant that they just require more teaching space.
But having said that, the majority of the building would still be in office use, so
it's sort of, if you've ever been in No .1 Canada Square, it's quite self -contained,
the way they manage it, so different lifts approach different floors, for example.
So I guess the benefits are more in terms of just that diversification and bringing
a different kind of offer into the estate.
Thank you.
If no one likes to share the thoughts, I will just say I will be supporting the officer's
recommendation tonight.
I think the proposal makes use of the building, to be honest.
So I will be supporting tonight's application.
So before we move on to the votes, Ian, Paul, do you have any last thoughts on this debate
or anything?
»» Thank you, Chair.
Probably not too much to say.
I think probably I've covered a little bit in answer to Councillor Ahmed's question anyway
of what I probably would have said in summing up.
So thank you.
»» Okay, moving on to the votes.
Can I see all those in favour of this application?
Paul, can you...
No one's against it.
No abstentions.
So Paul, can you?
»» Thank you, Chair.
So in accordance with the report item 5B of the agenda, time permission is granted for
the change of use of two floors within one Canada square from Class E to a mixed use
Class F, Class E as set out in those details.
Thank you, Chair.
»» Thank you very much.
Thank you.

5 a) PA/21/02188 - The Royal Foundation Of St Katharine, 2 Butcher Row, London, E14 8DS

The agenda item 5A is application for development at the Royal Foundation of St Catherine's
number 2, Butchaw row, London, E14, 8DS, pages 29 to 90.
And I ask Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies, I was just scrolling back to the correct page.
So the Chair has announced this is a planning application affecting land at the Royal Foundation
of St Catherine, No. 2, Butchero, in the Limehouse area.
And this planning application proposes the erection of a part 3, part 5, part 7, part
9 storey building in mixed use that will comprise residential uses, visitor accommodation, offices,
flexible community uses, including affordable work space, community cafe and community hall,
on the ground and mezzanine floor, and including new public realm, blue badge car park and
landscaping associated works.
The recommendation to your committee this evening is to grant Planning Commission subject
to conditions and completion of 106 agreement for delivery of planning obligations.
Yes, there's no update report, sorry, with this application.
So that concludes the introduction.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Paul.
I will now invite Robin Bennett, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening.
Good evening, members.
The application site is shown on the screen here.
It's outlined in red.
And I've also indicated on there land which is within the applicant's ownership in blue,
just below the red edge line where it says RFSK and Chapel.
In terms of the application context, the Royal Foundation of St Catherine is one of the oldest religious charities in Great Britain.
The focus is on worship, hospitality and service. They have existing operation next to the application site.
The photo at the bottom left shows public entrance into their complex at the moment from Butcher Row
and the photo to the right shows the existing courtyard within the buildings in the Site Edge Blue,
so just adjacent to the application site, and that's bounded by existing facilities for the Foundation,
which are guest accommodation, conferencing and chapel.
This is a photo of a key building within the Site Edge Blue next to the application site.
It's referred to as the Masters House.
It's in the York Square Conservation Area,
and it's a Grade 2 star listed building.
And this is a view looking across Butcher Road
towards the application site.
So you can see just behind that red vehicle
there's a shipping container,
and then further into the site
there's some tent -like structures.
And that's because at the moment
there's some meanwhile uses on the site
which are operated by the foundation,
and they comprise artist studios, community facilities, with a café, community office and open air cinema.
You might have heard of the Yurt café that's on the top photo there.
The other photos are just looking through the site.
So in terms of what's actually proposed, it's a residential led development,
but it's alongside some other uses, some hotel accommodation for the foundation,
and some community space alongside affordable workspace and some new office for the foundation.
How that lays out on the site is on this ground floor plan that you see on the screen here
at the top in the grey stripe just at the very top edge of the screen, that's the railway viaduct
for the DLR and the C2C and then just below that is a new connexion that's proposed to go between
between Ratcliffe Lane and Butcher Road.
And then you've got the main bulk of the development,
which is set around a central courtyard.
And the community and public sort of facing
and affordable workspace uses are located
along that northern edge next to the new connexion
between Ratcliffe Lane and Butcher Road.
And then you've got hotel accommodation
around the bottom and the side edges,
and the residential above that.
This is just to give you an idea of the quality of the architecture and what the elevations that propose this.
The north one facing the DLR and the C2C viaduct.
So rising up to nine storeys at its tallest, closest to Limehouse station.
And then dropping down towards Butcher Road.
And this is the east elevation, again showing the tallest part, closest to Butcher Road.
Stepping down into a lower section which is where the affordable rent properties would be.
And then just at the very left of the screen you can see the scale of the existing foundation buildings in white outline.
This is just to give you an idea of how the proposal would fit within the street scheme, alongside existing listed building on the site.
So the Masters House is the two star, the great two star building, and the proposed development just to the left of that.
This is an image showing the proposed connexion between Ratliff Lane and Butcher Row.
In terms of statutory public consultation, we undertook two rounds, the first one in May 22
and then the second one more recently in October 25, after we received amendments to the application.
In total there were 112 written representations, 109 in support and three in objection.
Those in support raised issues of affordable housing provision, community facilities, public realm improvements, design quality, biodiversity enhancements, economic and employment benefits and improvements to safety and security as the reasons for their support.
And those in objection raised issues around height, scale, loss of green space, amenity,
construction impacts, traffic and parking, infrastructure and the pre -application consultation
process. Whilst all the statutory and non -statutory consultations are included in your committee
pack, I just wanted to draw attention to one in particular, because the site is partly
in a conservation area next to high grade listed buildings. So it was just Historic
England, just to note that they've considered that harm remains to the setting of RFSK listed
buildings and the Org Square Conservation Area and that that harm should be given great
weight and permitted only if outweighed by public benefits and I'll come to public benefits
later. In terms of the key issues, the number of
they are land use, housing, design and heritage, neighbour, amenity and transport and environment.
In terms of land use, housing is acceptable on the site because the site has previously
developed land in a very well connected area with good access to local shops and services.
There's a good amount of residential in the locality so introducing more residential is
compatible with that. In terms of the visitor accommodation there's already 45 guest rooms
on the foundation site, so adding an extra 25 to that is complementing the existing provision and is acceptable.
In terms of the community uses, I mentioned the meanwhile uses that are on the site at the moment
and have been there for quite a number of years now, operating very successfully by the foundation
and when we look at the representations in support they're clearly very valued and cherished by the local community.
So the proposal would provide a permanent home for those community users, which is acceptable
when we think about our local plan policies on retention of community users.
Moving on to housing, there are 115 units proposed in total.
There's 35 .2 % affordable housing by habitable room, which is policy compliant in accordance with the Fast Track Threshold approach,
which requires 35%. The tenure split is 73 % in the affordable rent tenure, 27 % in the
intermediate. That's a slight exceedance on the affordable rent relative to our local
plan policy which is 70%, but that's a welcome addition. I just wanted to highlight in the
family sized, so three, four and five bedroom accommodation, which is welcomed. This table
is just showing you the percentages in each of the tenure types against the policy targets
set out in the local plan. There's a lot of information here, we can come back to it if
you wish, but again I just wanted to highlight a couple of things, which was the local plan
policy targets for three for the larger family sized units requires 45 %
provision and the affordable rent tenure but this is actually providing 59 % by
habitable room and we're actually getting one five bedroom unit here so
it's a welcome over provision on that front. In terms of play and amenity space
there was a slight error in the committee report so this table is just
correcting that. Table 6, paragraph 7 .87, just had slightly the wrong numbers on the
proposed on -site play space, but as reported in the Commission report and as shown here,
the proposal is still over providing where nought to four play space and five to 11 play
space is proposed on the site. 12 plus remains via an off -site contribution. In terms of
how the play space would be provided on the site. There's one ground level area which
is what they're calling East Walk so that's an area which is to the east of the building
and that would serve, that garden would serve access to the North Core and the East Core.
The East Core is where the affordable rent units are, North Core is a mixture of private
and shared ownership or intermediate. So that play space would, sorry that ground floor
garden would provide for nought four -year -olds five to eleven as well as some communal amenity
space and then the other two areas that are proposed on site are at roof level and the
east and the north core share a space so the affordable rent and the private and the intermediate
in the north core would share that roof level play space
and again there's a mixture of each of the types,
12 plus off -site as I mentioned before,
and then west core which has its own
separate stairwell and access requirements
closer to Butcher Row,
that would also have rooftop play space.
So in terms of design and heritage,
I'll show you this slide before,
it just shows the proposed development in the setting of the Grade 2 star list of building
when you view this from Butcherow. As you saw from the existing site at the start, the
site is currently only occupied by sort of temporary, very low level structures, so clearly
adding something of this scale into the backdrop is going to change the setting, and as A .G.
Historic England said there needs to be a balancing exercise where that's concerned.
So this is just another view looking across Commercial Road through the York Square Conservation Area
with the proposed development sitting behind the white swan.
So you can see the tallest element just to the left and then the lower element to Butcher Road to the right.
Again obviously you can tell it's higher than the predominant scale of historic buildings in the locality
but we don't consider the scale to be excessive, and especially when you consider the quality of the architecture that's proposed,
which you can see in a bit more detail on this slide.
Very interesting form, good sort of top, middle and base approach to the architecture.
And all the way along this new route, along what they're calling St. Catherine's Lane,
between Ratliff Road Lane and Butcher Road, you've got the active frontages.
adding a building onto what is essentially a gap site in the conservation area
which detracts from the continuity of the street scene at the moment
adding this form of development there.
Officers consider that's beneficial from a design and heritage perspective.
Obviously there is some harm arising from that but we'll discuss that in relation to public benefits later.
In terms of neighbour amenity the site benefits from not having too close a proximity to that many residential properties.
The main ones really are to the east on Beakesbourne Street and John Skirr House.
John Skirr House is the one that faces directly towards the site next to Limehouse Station.
But there's a separation of 28 metres there so a really good separation in excess of what the local plan requires.
And then the other two closer points of 8 and 12 metres, that's on to the gable end of the properties on Beaksbourne Street, so there's no issues with overlooking or invasion of privacy in that respect.
In terms of transport and environment, the new route from Radcliffe Lane to Butcher Road would be the main servicing route through the site.
and that would be controlled by retractable bollard conditions in place to make sure that the service and deliveries are managed to minimise the
any impact on that particular road because we want it to be a nice pedestrian cycle friendly route.
I've highlighted in yellow as well along the new St. Catharines Lane there's three or space for three blue badge parking spaces there
should there be demand for those and that would be secured by condition as well.
Other access is via Butcher Row, so just you can see down at the bottom where the vehicle is sort of sweeping in.
That's just to show you how a refuse vehicle would get in there.
There's been no objections from our highways colleagues or waste colleagues.
And in terms of any other matters to do with the environment, so things like controlling air pollution or energy,
that can all be adequately controlled through conditions and Section 106 as set out in the report.
So I mentioned there's public benefits and need to balance those against any heritage harm that there is.
So I've listed them here, the key benefits that have been identified.
Development of a gap in the conservation area, 35 .2 % affordable housing,
and as I showed in my tables, an emphasis on larger family units, particularly in the affordable rent tenure.
100 % affordable workspace at a very good discount, 65 % below market rates.
The new public route along St Catharines Lane, which provides a really good alternative to access Limehouse Station,
a nice alternative to Ratcliffe Lane, which isn't the best under the railway viaduct at the moment.
And then there's the new publicly accessible courtyard garden, which would be available for not just existing, sorry, proposed residents of this, but existing people in the area as well.
The permanent home for the community café and meeting space, which is on the site at the present.
Strategic infrastructure, this is important because the site, the building is technically just into the threshold of being a tall building,
So the applicants had to comply with the exception criteria because it's not an allocated site.
So they're proposing to contribute to improve cycle super highway 3 where it crosses Butcher Road,
which is deficient in some ways at the moment, so that will be a really beneficial improvement.
And then the addition of visitor accommodation to the existing at the site in terms of how that benefits the Foundation
in the wider economy of London. So moving to the planning obligations, the financial
ones shown on the screen, there's some relating to employment and skills, there's development
coordination and integration, the carbon offset fund contribution, £320 ,000 towards the crossing
upgrade at Butcher Row, contribution to offsite provision of the 12 plus year old play space
plus maintenance, and that comes to £602 ,000 in total.
And then there's the non -financial obligations, securing the 35 .2 % affordable housing,
local labour and construction requirements, the 100 % affordable workspace with its 65 % discount,
the permanent community facilities, decan facility for the existing uses on the site
to make sure there's continuity of provision,
transportation, transport matters, access provisions, enhancements to the Grade 2 Star
Master's House landscaping and energy requirements. In addition to the Section 106 requirements
there's also an estimated requirement for Tower Hamlets Community Infrastructure Levy
of just over 4 million and then to the Mayor of London, SIL, of just under 8 million.
Officers recommend the committee resolve the grant permission, subject to any direction
by the Mayor of London and a Section 106 legal agreement including obligations as well as
the conditions and informatives as set out in the committee report.
Thank you, Robin, for the presentation.
As we have no registered speakers for this application, I will now move on to members'
questions.
Do members have questions for officers?
Thank you for the presentation.
I would like to understand why you mentioned about the seal.
Where is this in the report for 8 million pounds?
And just over 4 million for 100s.
I've looked at 7 .77.
Numbers are a bit different to what you just mentioned.
Stupid
Apologies, very well spotted.
The ones in the committee report are the correct ones.
What is the correction?
Can you?
So committee report looks like 3 .6 million when it comes to seal.
But I couldn't find and the mayor of London is under 1 million.
It says 8.
This is nearly 8 million.
It's under 1 million here.
So it's a huge difference in this life to what we have on the back.
Well spotted, Councillor.
Ian, would you like to come in here and maybe assist us with this?
What paragraph in the report are you looking at?
This is paragraph 7 .77 on page 67.
Sorry, 76.
Sorry, on page 76.
Sorry, I forget the ideas.
My apologies, Councillor, I have paragraphs 7 .7 on page 56 or something.
So my apologies, I was on the wrong page totally.
Yeah, Councillor, I think the way to do it is the report here indicates that the Tower
Hamlets Community and Treasury level would obviously be three and a half million roughly
and under a million from the Mayor of London's sill.
I think that's unusual, those figures are accurate because I think from experience every
other report we've dealt with the Mayor's sill is always generally double, if not similar,
if not more than our own sill.
If Mr Bennett is able to confirm the figures for the report, I think I'm talking to buy
him some time so that he can see if he can find the information to confirm those figures.
If he can confirm those figures, I content for you to proceed on the basis of a further
update and we'll obviously have it recorded in a minute that these figures were confirmed
as whatever they, whatever Mr Bennett confirms they are and then we can proceed on that basis.
Is that right, Mr Bennett?
Yes, I've got an email, I just need to locate it from colleagues in CIL teams.
Did you want to adjourn for five minutes to allow time to find it?
Let us carry on, yes.
Any more questions?
Councillor.
Thank you, Chair.
I think the paragraph 7 .38, the table, I just mentioned the proposed development will be
115.
So 115 affordable homes.
Actually we are getting, if I calculate the percentage, if we get 35 .2%, we are supposed
to get 40 affordable homes rather than 17.
So I need to get a bit more clarification on that.
It's because of the way policy requires
the calculation of affordable.
So it's by habitable room rather than by unit.
So because there's an emphasis on the larger units here,
they have a larger number of habitable rooms.
So yeah, it works out as 35 % of the total number of rooms
that you can actually live in on that site does turn into,
translate into those 17.
Thanks, Jay.
Just to confirm, that's quite common where the housing mix
is skewed towards larger properties,
because as Mr. Bent said,
they have more habitable rooms within them.
So, for example, a three bedroom flat would have four habitable rooms within it.
A one bedroom private flat would only have two habitable rooms.
So policy does require that we calculate it by habitable rooms rather than number of units.
So you will get that disparity.
I'll ask a quick question, Mr Bennett.
Can you confirm this application complies with the planning policy for this site?
So it's not an allocated site, it's almost what you'd call a windfall site, so we just consider it against the policies in the local plan, the London plan in the round.
So obviously it's residential led and we do accept residential on allocated sites and indeed welcome it, so yes it does comply in the round, hence the recommendation for approval.
Thank you, chair.
A question to Robin.
It says 100 % affordable discounted workspace, 65 % discounted workspace.
How long is this for?
Is it for lifelong or any?
In perpetuity, so it would be secured in the legal agreement.
If the application was to be granted, when would the construction start?
I'll pick that one up.
Approximately the end of 2026 is the anticipated time scale.
And it's around a two and a half year construction programme
Joe I appreciate Kirsty
Indicated under 2026, but where you might need to grant permission tonight
There is still the section 106 to negotiate which will take a period of time and obviously into each into that chunk
So we're not looking at the fast fast scale. We're actually building in the work needed as well to get the permission out the door
Councillor Ciarri.
Thank you chair.
Thank you for your presentation.
My question is in relation to the affordable rent.
If we look at one bedroom, our policy target is 25 %
but proposed one is 18 % is less than 7%.
Compared to two bedroom, same is less than 7 %
Our policy target is 30%, but proposed one is 23%, is less than 7 % again.
And final one is this three bedroom one is same, our policy target is 30%, but proposed
one is only 12%, is less than 18%.
I want to understand this, please can you clarify?
So it is a deviation from strict application of the policy, but the applicants considered
they were aware of the need for larger family sized homes in the borough, so they offered
to provide a five bedroom unit alongside some fours and to reduce the three's I suppose.
So it was just a way to offer something that they were aware was in need in the borough.
Thank you.
My question is around image 8.
Image 8 is on page 63.
I've been to the site a few years ago and it's a very nice secluded area.
It's very relaxing in the middle of the city.
You'll be surprised.
Once you're in there, it's very quiet as well.
But I just want to understand, on image 8, where we have the existing buildings and then we have the development at the back,
in terms of building and demolition, which existing buildings will be demolished?
I couldn't really work it out.
Yeah, so if you remember at the very start in the existing photos,
I showed one of the, sort of looking above into the existing garden of the foundation,
It had the existing buildings encircling that.
So this is from within the garden.
So the two storey buildings that you see in the foreground are the existing foundation
buildings.
And then you've got the new buildings, the taller buildings behind it.
So the lower two storey with the sort of orangey coloured roof and then the grey roof, that's
the...
I had to put it up on the screen again.
Yeah, sorry, I had to close my presentation to try and find that email.
I'll see.
So if you look at that photo on the right hand side, that's sort of looking down onto
the garden that's in image 8.
So you can see that in fact it's probably the same tree that's in both the photos in
image 8 and on this one. So you can see the roof of the two -storey existing building of
the foundation with the reddish, I'll just use the pointer there, that's the one in image
8 that has the terracotta coloured roof on it and then the grey one just going off to
the side. So those two -storey buildings remain two -storey, the existing foundation ones and
new development is behind those on where those meanwhile uses are at the moment.
Thank you.
My final one is regarding the consultation, because one of the objections is the lack
of consultation with affected resident and inadequate community engagement.
How do we justify this?
Thank you.
Sorry, was that about the community engagement?
So that was a comment about the applicant's own pre -application consultation process rather
than the consultation that we've done, which I mean we followed the sort of normal statutory
requirements.
So we did letters, sign -offs, et cetera.
So that comment was almost like a criticism of what the applicant did, but I've set out
in the committee report a summary of what the applicant did and they held various consultations
before they submitted the application and sought the views of any interested parties.
So sometimes there are people that sort of wish things might have been done a bit differently
or it's sort of an objection that we, or a point of objection that we see, we have seen
before but ultimately the applicant did carry out a community consultation which they should
do as required by our statements of community involvement and they've summarised the things
that they did and the responses that were given and they've also set out how they responded
to the consultation feedback that they got, which was summarised in the committee report,
so they definitely took on board the things that people that attended those consultations
said and improved the scheme accordingly.
Thank you, Cheryl.
What would happen to the existing cottages on the site, like business cafe, would they
have this business supported or compensated, if they have to go will they be compensated
or will they be retained within the development?
So the existing business on the site, I mean the existing, it's basically run by the Royal
Foundation, St Catherine, as it is, so as part of the agreed section 106 there's a requirement
to do what we call a decant sort of strategy to make sure the existing uses on the site
So they have the John Skir Community Centre just outside of this site, so I believe the
plan is to utilise that as part of the sort of re -provision during the construction period
of this development.
So everything these, the cafes are part of this foundation, St Catherine Royal, St Catherine
Foundation, the cafe run by them.
So the profit, do they make any profit or where do the profit go?
I couldn't say whether they make profits, I mean they're a charity so I'm assuming that
anything that they do make goes back into their charitable work.
How will the construction work be managed to reduce disruption to the local residents?
So one of the conditions that we're recommending is to make sure that things like construction
logistics and site compounds, any sort of air quality issues through construction, all
those sorts of things, hours of construction, routing of vehicles, all that would have to
be approved by Tower Hamlets before they could start anything on the site. So we've got colleagues
in various sections across the council that look at those submissions when they come in
and make sure that all the details are to normal standards and to make sure that existing
residents are detrimentally affected.
Any more questions?
Is there any fair and open process in place for people to register the interest for work
station?
The interest for what, sorry?
The affordable, sorry, discounted work station, if anyone to register the interest for a work
station space, is open and fair.
So how does it, how would,
yeah, so one of the heads of terms
is to have a strategy in place, a plan in place
to make sure that the affordable workspace
targets those in the locality.
So it wouldn't be something that somebody
from out of Boer could access.
It's got to be Tower Hamlet specific
and the applicant is very much about providing things
for the benefit of Tower Hamlet so they offered and are very keen to ensure that that workspace
goes to people in need of affordable workspace in the locality.
Councillor it may help because the Affordable Works Committee obviously fought to pass with
the section 106 negotiations and the start point for any draught in the section 106 agreement
that we have in the agreements that we work with legal within legal with the applicant
is that they're made available to the definite the words and we've got at the moment micro
small start -up businesses with it in the local area so the local businesses have got to be
the local area so we look to secure that within the specific terms of the section 106 agreement
Any more questions?
Councillor.
Chair, do we have the final figure for still?
Finding out.
Yeah.
You're all right.
Cool.
We'll come back in 7 .35.
Is that all right, Robin, or should we give you a bit more time?
10 minutes or five minutes?
7 .35.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Robin, are you okay?
Yeah, go for it, yeah.
It's fine, chair.
I would have preferred the previous figure for the top section, not the bottom section.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Councillor, do you have any questions?
Any more questions?
OK.
Would members like to share their thoughts or debate the application?
Thank you, Chair.
I think this application is quite a good application in terms of the applicant has been very respectful
to the surroundings vicinity, not high rise buildings.
So as a good application would benefit the
Community and
100 council with housing
providing affordable housing
Over 32 percent 35 percent of it will housing. Thank you
Thank You chair and just I want to echo it counsellor equal
Though we don't have getting enough
three or four bedroom but at least from this proposed development we are getting
studio flat one bedroom flat two bedroom flat at least it will reduce some of our
coding so I am supporting this.
Yeah all good I think we've had rigorous discussions it's a good site we'll give
it some feature because it is indeed the meanwhile use area so I think we'll give
At the same time I will get some housing and some ceiling.
I will be supporting the officer's recommendation as well because the proposal redevelops an
existing site and produces a mixed use of uses including housing, community space and
improvements to the surrounding area.
Officers have assessed the application against the planning policy and considered the local
environment.
I am satisfied with the matters.
So yeah, I will be supporting this application tonight as well.
So before we move on to the votes, I would like to ask Paul and Ian, would you like to
I think the only thing I want to say to you tonight is we've had the big discussion about
SIL but I don't think since we've come back we've seen it on the screen but I don't think
anyone has recorded verbally that the Tower Hamlet SIL contribution is 3 ,660 ,000.
and the London Mayor's Seal is approximately 862 ,901 .45. We've seen it on the screen but
we've had the discussion with different figures just to confirm those figures. Apart from
that I don't think I've heard anything further to say on the recommendation itself.
I think this scheme, the architects have worked really, really hard and collaboratively with
officers and they, I think, Councillor Hussain used the word respectful. I think that's really
important because the Masters House is not just a Grade 2, it's a Grade 2 star listed
building and less than 6 % of all listed buildings across England fall into that category so
they're really, really important and I think what the scheme has done is found a way to
balance the effect on the setting of that building with actually delivering all those
other benefits such as the housing and the other community benefits that are included
within the scheme.
So we noted that Historic England said there is still some harm but we've done the MPPF
test and we balance the harm against the public benefits is what we're required to do in policy
terms.
So, you know, we feel pleased to be able to recommend it to you.
And just my apologies on behalf of the team about the mix -up with the CIL.
So the figures in the report were actually correct.
And I think what had happened is the slide on the screen that we had before you took
your break was actually a slide from a different application that had just crept in through
typographic.
So I really apologise for that.
But the report was correct.
It is material consideration for you.
So I'm grateful to Councillor Ahmed for picking that one up.
So thank you, Chair.
// Thank you, Paul.
Yeah, we don't normally have these errors.
So it's okay.
We understand.
Okay.
Now moving on to the votes.
Can I see all those in favour with the application?
Thank you.
Paul, can you please confirm the committee vote?
It was a unanimous vote of all members in favour of the officer recommendation to grant
Planning Commission for the redevelopment of the land of the Royal Foundation of St
Catherine in accordance with the details set out in item 5A, subject to planning conditions,
planning obligations and the still liability.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Paul.
This concludes business for this meeting.
The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 4 February 2026.
Thank you very much everyone and see those greetings. Thank you