Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 4 February 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development Committee
Wednesday, 4th February 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you. 

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Development Committee meeting.
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 this
meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like
to briefly confirm the protocol and address the meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.
Participants must address the meetings through myself as the chair.
If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch your microphone on and also
switch the camera, switch your camera at that point.
You should keep your microphones and cameras switched off at all other times. Please do not use meeting chat facilities. Any
information added to chat facility will be disregarded.
If you experience any technical
difficulties, you must contact either myself or the dramatic service officers as soon as
possible.
I will now ask committee members present to introduce themselves.
Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda
items and the nature of interest.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Sayeed Awad, nothing to declare.
Councillor Gulam, nothing to declare.
CHAIR KUDAHN.
Councillor Iqbal Hussain, nothing to declare.
Thank you.
CHAIR IKBAL HUSSAIN.
Councillor Lilu Ahmed, my landlord, nothing to declare.
I also have nothing to declare.
Now to apologies for Tima.
Have we received any apologies for absence?
We've received no apologies.
Can you repeat your name, please, and any declaration of interest?
No details.
Thank you chair, it's Councillor Dijakcio.
I'm reading online also, I have nothing to read.
Just to let you guys know, councillors that are online, can you redo your introductions
please because we've not catched the name or your declaration, sorry.
I have nothing to declare.
And the other Councillor?
Councillor Coburn from the Bangladesh ward.
Thank you, Councillors.
You won't be able to take part in the vote not being present in the meeting.
Thank you.
Agenda item 2 is minutes from previous meeting.
Can we approve the minutes held on 3 September 2025 and 18 December 2025?
Thank you.
Agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure of hearing objections and meeting guidance.
I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development management planning and building control to
present the guidance.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you very much, Chair.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Good evening to members, members of the public, officers who are joining us this evening either
in the chamber or online.
So this part of the agenda 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 considerations.
When we come to this part of the agenda, the process for considering the reports will go
as follows.
So I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and summary of the recommendation.
And then officers will present the report.
Those registered to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three minutes
each.
And those registered to speak in support, including the applicant, can also address
the committee for up to three minutes each.
And any councillors registered to speak are also allowed three minutes each.
The committee can then ask any points of clarification of any of the speakers and then go on to
consider the report and recommendation including any further questions, debate or advice from
officers.
The committee will reach a decision based on majority vote and I'll confirm that back
to everybody who is joining the meeting this evening.
If the committee propose any changes to any aspects of the officer recommendation, for
example, to add, delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of
formalising those changes is delegated back to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
In the event that the committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must give
their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.
The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the
task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If the committee are looking to propose to make a decision that would appear to go against
the provisions of the development plan or if it could have any other legal implications,
Then the item may be deferred for further report from officers dealing with the proposed
cause faction.
Chair, there is an update report this evening which is fairly brief and just provides a
clarification on a certain aspect of the immediate surroundings of the application site.
I will come to that when we get to the item.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

Agenda item 4, deferred item, deferred items and we have no deferred items to consider.

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

Agenda item 5 are the planning application for decision and we have one application to
consider this evening.

5 a) PA/25/00973 - Iceland Wharf, Iceland Road, London, E3 2JP

Agenda item 5 .1 is planning application for development at PA25 -00973, Iceland wharf,
Iceland road, fish island London, E32JP, pages 31 -116 on agenda item pack.
And I invite Paul to introduce the application.
So as the chair said, this is a planning application affecting Iceland wharf.
The full description of the application is a planning application for the redevelopment
of the site to provide nonresidential floor space and yard space together with associated
refuse stores, plants, secure cycle stores and car parking along with residential dwellings
including affordable housing together with the provision of landscape public open space,
refuse stores, secure cycle stores, car parking for people with disabilities.
The recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to
the conditions and planning obligations that are listed in the report.
I did say, Chair, that there is a short update report and it was just a point of clarification.
So paragraph 7 .135 refers to 417 Wick Lane, which is a building in the vicinity of the
application site and describes it as a nine -storey building.
Committee members should be aware that whilst part of the building does reach nine storeys,
it actually drops down to six storeys.
So it's actually a very tight building.
So we just wanted to be clear about that.
However, that doesn't change the recommendation to your committee.
It's just clarification on that contextual relationship.
I think that's all I have to say by way of introduction, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
I will now invite Nilu Parmali, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.
Thank you.
Over to you, Nilu.
Thank you, Chair.
Can you hear me okay?
Yep, great.
Thank you, Chair, and good evening to members of the Committee, members of the public, and
those viewing from home.
I anticipate my presentation to last approximately 20 minutes.
The application site is Iceland Wharf, it's outlined here in red.
The site measures 0 .5 hectares and is located on the southern end of Fish Island.
It's bounded by the River Lea to the east, Wick Lane to the west, Iceland Road to the
north and industrial uses to the south.
To the south east and further south is this site here.
It's known as the Bow Goods Yard site which has a resolution to grant outline planning
permission for a comprehensive employment led master plan.
The Fish Island and White Post Lane conservation area is located approximately 100 metres to
the north of the site and it starts approximately around about here.
This is a closer view of the site where you can see that the site is vacant and has been
for several years. Key buildings around the site include Incourt, a seven storey residential
building with studio workspace at ground level, that's this building here, the Lighthouse
Public House, which is a locally listed non -designated heritage asset, and Ammonia Works, which is
Yep, so it's here.
Which has been recently demolished but has planning permission for a replacement building
of the same size and scale.
Autumn Studios and other industrial buildings lies directly to south of the site.
This is an image of the Lighthouse Public House at the junction of Wick Lane with Iceland
Road.
you can see in court to your left.
This is a photo of the site taken from the Greenway.
You can see in court to your right and Autumn Studios to your left.
You can see that site is vacant.
The site benefits from an extended planning permission granted in 2019.
This is just an image of that scheme.
The proof scheme allows for the redevelopment of the site to deliver 120 residential units
alongside commercial floor space within use classes B1 to B2.
The extent scheme comprises seven building plots with heights ranging from one to eight
storeys and a maximum height of 26 metres above ground level.
So these are some key headlines for the proposal.
So it's a mixed use scheme.
It proposes 165 residential units, 55 % affordable housing, which equates to 89 units, approximately
3 ,500 square metres of flexible employment space, affordable workspace.
The scheme will deliver four building plots, two commercial and two residential.
Building heights will range between four to 12 storeys and new areas of public space,
the public realm are proposed, and cycle stores and car parking.
This is CGI of the proposed development when viewed from the junction of Wick Lane with
Iceland Road. The lighthouse public house is framed by the commercial blocks, whilst
the rear of the site you can see the taller residential blocks. So these are the commercial
blocks, and the back here, the residential. This is the ground level landscape plan that
shows the building arrangements. The two residential blocks will sit along the eastern end with
block A sited closest to the river, reaching 10 storeys, and block B, which would be the
tallest building, reaching 12 storeys. Block C1 and C2 are the commercial blocks, reaching
6 and 4 storeys. This slide shows the proposed ground floor plan and the location of the
five residential units and the commercial spaces at ground level. So these are the residential
units and these are the commercial units.
Here you have the first floor plan and again here you can see an indication of how the
residential units and commercial units are arranged across floors.
Here you've got a podium terrace for the residential units.
So the scheme has a number of character areas identified as the yard, which is this space
here, which is intended to be a functional space for the commercial blocks, the hub located
at podium level to provide areas of play, particularly for older children, the approach
here, which provides ground level public realm and landscaping, the roof gardens, the dynamic
Scanlon River.
I Emailed it to you and I can download it.
So during the public consultation exercise, 484 neighbouring properties were notified, a site notice was displayed and a press advert published.
There have been 59 objections received, no representations in support. This slide summarises some of the key themes for the objections to the proposal,
which include concerns around design and heritage, overdevelopment, amenity impacts, transport impacts.
The full details of the objections are in the committee report.
Turning to the assessment of the scheme, Fish Island was under the planning jurisdiction
of the London Legacy Development Corporation until the 1st of December 2024, when planning
powers reverted back to the Council. However, until the Council adopts its new local plan,
the London Legacy Development Corporation local plan and the London plan remain the
the primary development plan documents against which this application must be assessed. Under
the LLDC local plan the site falls under the Hackney Wick and Fish Island sub area 1, whereby
the southern end of Fish Island has employment designation and the site itself is classified
as other industrial locations. These are the key planning issues that will form the basis
of the rest of the presentation.
So in land use terms the proposal constitutes a co -location development.
Development Plan policies support the co -location of employment and residential uses on non -designated
industrial sites and other industrial locations where they can, amongst other criteria, demonstrate
that the industrial floor space capacity is re -provided.
The extent scheme established an accepted level of employment capacity for the site.
The scheme proposes over 3 ,500 square metres of employment floor space and will ensure
that the overall employment capacity of the employment floor space is maintained when
compared to the extent consent.
In addition, the provision of new housing will contribute to meeting the borough's housing
targets.
The proposal is therefore acceptable in land use terms.
In terms of affordable housing, the scheme will provide 55 % affordable housing based
on habitable rooms with a 69 to 31 % tenure split between affordable rent and intermediate.
The scheme would be fast tracked in accordance with policies H5 and H6 of the London Plan.
In terms of housing mix, under the LLDC local plan there is no prescribed housing mix.
The relevant policy requires that more than half of the total number of units comprises
two bedroom or larger dwellings.
The proposed scheme delivers 86 units with two or more bedrooms representing 52 % of the
and therefore provides a policy compliant mix of housing.
So this slide presents a comparison between the extent of consent and the proposed development.
The proposed scheme delivers a net increase of 45 dwellings overall and significantly
enhances affordable housing provision, rising from 35 % to 55%, which equates to a net increase
of 48 affordable homes. The scheme also more than doubles the number of family homes increasing
from 15 units in the extent scheme to 32 in the proposed development and notably increases
the provision of affordable family homes. Furthermore, the proposal introduces larger
four bedroom dwellings, a housing type that was not secured under the extent consent.
Turning now to townscape matters, in the Hackney Wick and Fish Island sub area the prevailing
height is established at 20 metres which equates to roughly four to six storeys.
There are existing examples however of where this has been exceeded particularly to the
north of the site where there are developments reaching between seven to nine storeys and
roughly about 26 metres.
The two residential blocks within the proposed scheme will exceed the context height of 20
metres, reaching around 35 metres for Block A and 42 metres for Block B. That equates
to 10 and 12 storeys above ground level.
Policy B .N .5 of the LLDC Local Plan sets out specific criteria for buildings exceeding
this height.
In addition to this, the scheme should achieve significant additional public benefit.
In the next few slides I will run through some existing and proposed views of the scheme.
So this is an existing view from the Lee Navigation towpath. So this is the existing scenario.
And this is the proposed view. In this view the residential buildings will rise notably
the immediate surrounding development and are clearly visible within the townscape.
This is a view taken from Wick Lane, this is existing.
So in the proposed view, sorry, in this view the proposed development will be visible in
the distant middle ground.
The Y line for the Bowe's goods yard scheme can be seen in green to the right, which is
here.
However, until the cumulative scenario is realised with the Bowe goods yard scheme in
place, the proposed opponent would appear visually prominent relative to its immediate
context.
This is a view from the Greenway existing.
And this is proposed.
In this view, with the Bowe goods yard development in place, you can see the wireline here, the
scheme would be obscured from view, however in the interim period until the Bowe goods
yard development comes forward, the proposed buildings would be noticeably taller and more
substantially massing than the immediate adjacent low rise commercial and industrial structures.
Overall, however, in terms of townscape impacts, whilst the scheme will appear visually prominent
in some of the assessed townscape views, this is considered to reflect the transitional
nature of the area and its ongoing change in context and character. The scheme would
be comparable in height and scale to emerging developments, particularly the Bowe -Goods
Yard scheme, as can be seen on this image. The proposal has been assessed against development
plan policies and is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the development plan
as a whole. The public benefits associated with development which include 55 % affordable
housing are detailed in the committee report, however in summary these public benefits are
considered to justify the exceedance in context height.
In terms of heritage the scheme will result in less than substantial harm to the locally
listed lighthouse public house, however this is considered to be at the lower end of the
In terms of quality of accommodation, as detailed on this slide, the development meets all the
relevant housing standards, including achieving good internal daylight sunlight levels within
the development. The scheme will deliver policy compliant provision of children's play space
for all age groups. Plate areas for the children up to 11 years old will be located at both
ground and rooftop levels, while facilities for older children will be provided on the
podium and rooftop levels. All play spaces will be fully accessible to residents of both
residential blocks. The largest plate area situated at ground level will benefit from
natural surveillance from adjacent ground level four bedroom units, enhancing safety
and security. It is noted that there are small areas of play on rooftops, however these are
incidental to wider immediate areas and additionally the nearby Riverside Park, which is located
here, offers further opportunities for informal and multifunctional play. A condition will
also be imposed requiring a play space strategy with ongoing management and maintenance details
to be provided.
The development will also deliver 10 % affordable workspace, which is an increase in 5 % compared
to the extent scheme. Rent levels will be at a 25 % discount for a minimum of 15 years.
So in terms of daylight impacts, daylight impacts will occur to three properties with
overall impacts ranging between moderate to major adverse for Ink Court, major adverse
to the Lighthouse Public House and 429 to 431B Wick Lane. Some sunlight impacts will also
occur to all three of these properties. Focusing on Ink Court as the most significantly
affected property, this slide presents a breakdown of the number of windows and rooms affected.
Whilst the proposed event results in impact in court, this is an anticipated outcome given
that the site is a site that's currently cleared of any buildings and therefore any buildings
of notable scale and massing is likely to have an impact.
It is important to note however that in terms of daylight distribution, which is the measure
of daylight into rooms themselves, the scheme performs generally well with a 65 % pass rate.
Overall, whilst there are daylight and sunlight impacts on neighbouring properties, these
impacts have been carefully considered and are considered acceptable when weighed against
the public benefits delivered by the proposal. In terms of separation distances, there would
be a separation distance of between 16 to 33 metres between the habitable room facades
of Block B and Inghourt. This is considered acceptable to maintain adequate levels of
and overlooking. In terms of transport matters, the scheme will provide policy -compliant levels
of cycle and car parking. The indicative servicing, delivery and waste management plans are all
considered to be acceptable. The environmental impacts of the proposals including air quality,
energy and sustainability, biodiversity and microclimate have been considered and subject
to appropriate mitigation measures are considered acceptable.
The next set of slides sets out the planning obligations that will be secured.
These are fully detailed in the committee report, however some of the planning obligations
include securing the affordable housing with 61 London affordable rent units, 28 shared
ownership units, over £77 ,000 towards construction phase employment and skills training, over
£67 ,000 towards end user phase employment skills training and £200 ,000 towards public
realm improvements for Iceland Road and Wick Lane.
The development will also secure the following estimated amounts of seal which can be used
to fund a wide range of infrastructure.
So in conclusion, Section 38 .6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. The application has been assessed against
the development plan, the national planning policy framework and other relevant material
considerations, the scheme accords with the development plan as a whole.
Officers are therefore recommending this application for approval subject to any direction by the
Mayor of London, a Section 1 and 6 agreement to secure the planning obligations and conditions
and informatives set out in the committee report.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
We have some objectors.
I now invite Thomas and George to address the committee in objection to the application.
You have up to three minutes.
Three minutes each.
Can you all hear me?
Yeah, three minutes each, yeah?
Thank you.
Is that mic working?
Can you hear me?
My name is George Trigatsis, I'm a resident in Inca Court, 419 Wick Lane, which is the
main property next to Iceland Wharf.
I'm here with a few neighbours and speaking on behalf of a number of residents from our
building who have all raised objections to the proposed development.
I think the general precedent, which I'm confident I speak on behalf of a lot of our neighbours,
is that we are in general in favour of sustainable development, but we feel that the proposed
development is a significantly overdevelopment which causes excessive harm both to our building
but also other aspects of our local community and therefore the council should really consider
their position on whether this proposal genuinely brings the benefits that justify the harms
that you are seeing in front of you.
So there's broadly three or four areas that I'll focus on.
One is on lights, two on this being a precedent we feel is dangerous, and thirdly, if I have
time, talking about the impact on services.
On the impact on lights, you saw the numbers just recently.
This will cause a really significant impact on numerous flats in our building, and we're
We actually commissioned an independent report and review by DPR into the analysis conducted by the developer
which showed various shortfalls in the methodology but ultimately confirmed that if anything the impact is understated from the proposed designs.
I think from our perspective that's clear that this will cause a massive overshadowing in our building
and a lot of our families who live in the block will be suffering adversely from that.
More broadly, I think this really does create a dangerous precedent for the local community.
Broadly speaking, the community of Hackney Wick and Fish Island is proud of its cultural and artistic heritage,
and we've been really pleased with the way that LLDC has maintained a consistent approach to development in the area over the last many years,
maintaining that 20 -metre height, but also consistent design when it comes to the old warehouse type feel.
This will really change that from dynamic.
And it's not just a change that's to be taken lightly,
but it's right on the River Lea where so far in that area,
the consistent architecture and height has been to mirror
that same sort of style which has been so distinctive
of Fish Island and Hackney Wick.
And it's something that we really think will change
significantly the character and risk setting that precedent.
There's environmental factors that I'm not sure were mentioned
in the presentation, but I know the Canal and Riverside Trust
described it as an excessive height and also raised concerns over environmental impacts on the Fish Island Conservation Area.
So yes, for those two character and environmental reasons, it's something we really are concerned about.
And then lastly, in my last few seconds, we're really concerned about the raising services, but maybe my neighbour Thomas can elaborate on that point.
Thank you.
Can everyone hear me? Can everyone see me as well?
I also live in in court on the fifth floor directly facing the proposed development.
As George has said and has been noted, there's been 59 objections.
A lot of them will have come from our building
and a lot of them will have been from people directly facing the site.
As has been pointed out before, there was an original proposal
that was approved by the LODC a while ago
and that would have been roughly the same sort of height as our building.
So I didn't particularly like that, but I didn't object to it.
But this, I think, you have to basically acknowledge that we live very close to the building.
Our flat is just 16 metres from the highest block,
and it will just have a very negative impact on a lot of people in our block.
So just to be clear, in court it's six storeys above the ground level and we also have a
lower ground level and a car park which is minus zero.
So this is sort of roughly the size of most of the buildings on Wig Lane and Fish Island
and as George has said I think what is being proposed is almost double the size and it
be right in front of us, be very close to us. In terms of the daylight but also you
know there's other issues. I mean the construction itself will probably be very disruptive. I'm
also concerned about the industrial use which will also be right in front of us in terms
of you know air pollution, light pollution and noise pollution. But the main thing that
We agree that something needs to happen with the site.
It's not been in use and we're not against the development.
We're just against the height and the massing.
And I think it should be amended rather than approved.
Is that three minutes? I don't know.
You've got 20 to 40 seconds.
Yeah. So in terms of what were you going to say about the services?
just, you know, I mean, there is potentially a problem with the traffic. I don't really
understand how this development can work without a car park. Things like that, I don't know.
I mean, you know, there's already a lot going on in the area.
Thank you very much.
But my main point was the height and the massing and the impact on the local residents.
Thank you very much.
Do you want to switch your mic off?
I now invite Mark Francis to address the committee in objection to the application.
You also have three minutes.
Thank you, Chair.
Before I start, can I just, I'm an elected member as well, so just in the interest of
transparency, can I just say that I have no declarations of pecuniary interest in this
application and
But obviously have received representations from objectors
Copied into those haven't had any communication with sanctuary emulation the applicant emulation to this scheme
It would be a trying time if it be really helpful if you could let me know when there's a minute to go if you
Don't mind if you get a chance. Thank you
Okay, so I've long supported the proposed redevelopment of
and for that development to be residential led.
It should actually have been done 15 years ago but the developer demanded too many flats.
It could have been built out following the LLDC's approval for 120 flats but you need
to ask Sanctuary why that wasn't done.
I don't support this proposal though.
While it has much in its favour, particularly the additional affordable housing, the price
is way too high.
Most of us councillors in Tower Hamlets want more genuinely affordable homes and we agree
that planning policy should be sweated to deliver it.
But policy should only be pushed up to its limit, and this application far exceeds that
limit.
The 89 new affordable homes will help homeless and overcrowded families on the waiting list,
but the price will be the ruin of the quality of life of the 40 or so families on the south
side of Inc.
Court at 419 Wick Lane, and a negative impact on the other 80 living in Inc.
Court.
As the report makes clear, the impact on these two tower blocks is that 141 out of 197 windows
in Inc Court will fail to meet the vertical sky component.
Those windows will lose up to 80 % of their daylight.
33 out of 93 rooms will now fall below the BRE guidelines.
Overall the loss of daylight will be at least moderate adverse, in many cases major adverse.
The report before you argues that this is a price worth paying.
Essentially, these 40 households must suffer collateral damage in the march of progress.
But committee members, that isn't true.
This is a deliberate choice of the developer to add several more storeys to a scheme that
already has planning permission.
And it's the choice of our own planning officers to support that scheme, despite it being outside
the parameters of existing planning policy.
For two decades, Tower Hamlets, ODA and the LLDC held a line that development in Fish
Island should be a maximum of six to eight storeys.
Peabody did it at Neptune Wolf, L &Q housing did it at Lock 19, Home Group did it at Rothbury
Road, Southern Housing Group did it at Dace Road, Taylor Wimpy on Monier Road.
That limit is the reason Fish Island is such an attractive place to live and work and socialise
and raise a family.
And yet here we are with Sanctuary busting that limit to essentially double it.
I'm not surprised at Sanctuary but I am surprised this is recommended for approval.
I am really disappointed to note the optimism in this report to justify their recommendation
for approval.
For example, in paragraph 7 .135 it says nearby 417 Whitline is nine storeys and as officers
have now admitted it isn't, it's six storeys.
It only says once in this report that this is only 11 metres away, the distance from
me to you chair that this development of 12 storeys is going to happen.
And at the same time the Daylight and Sunlight report that was submitted by the applicant
had to be corrected after objectors raised their objections.
Nobody else did that.
It was objectors that forced the applicant to do that and that's not right either.
There's other things I wanted to say but I've run out of time.
So apologies but thanks for listening.
I will now invite Sophie and Karrif to address the committee and support the application.
You guys have up to nine minutes to address the committee.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
My name is Sophie Lejeune and I'm a senior development manager for the applicant Sanctuary
Housing Association.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.
Sanctuary is a long established charitable housing association that owns and manages
around 125 ,000 homes, making it one of the largest and most experienced housing associations.
Sanctuary's mission is simple, to build affordable homes and sustainable communities where people
choose to live, ensuring everyone has a safe, quality home.
Since the acquisition of Swan Housing Association in February 2023, Tower Hamlets has become a priority area for sanctuary.
We are working in partnership across many projects in the area.
Late last year we supported Tower Hamlets housing strategy launch at our partnership development project Blackpool Reach.
We have several other development opportunities within Tower Hamlets and we are looking to build over 700 new homes, many of these much needed affordable housing.
Eisle Wharf is a site acquired by Sanctuary with planning consent in 2020.
Since 2020 the team have implemented the extant planning, undertaking extensive remediation and archeological works as required.
During this period regulations have changed, most importantly the Building Safety Act, which requires two means of escape from residential buildings.
Alongside other design challenges, including an overly complex design of the building,
with external walkways and a housing mix we believed we could improve,
we met with Tower Hamlets in April 2024 to enter into a planning performance agreement
to share our aspirations for the site.
We are all aware that there is a critical need for affordable housing in Tower Hamlets.
Sanctuary has sought to maximise the delivery of affordable family homes at Ison Wharf.
We continue to work in partnership with the GLA to maximise the levels and the mix of affordable housing on the site.
Our main focus for Workspace is to deliver usable workspace with flexibility in mind.
Our proposals are supported by an assessment of existing commercial space in the area.
Iceland Wharf supports a range of businesses including creative and light industrial occupiers,
reflecting the needs of the community and area, rather than just one end user.
We would like to thank officers, consultees and community representatives for their time,
experience and feedback on proposals over the past two years.
We believe the scheme brought forward today is one that demonstrates the genuine collaboration
and constructive engagement to date.
Sanctuary is committed to continue working in partnership with the Council to deliver
a high quality mixed use scheme.
Post planning we will be required to go through the Gateway 2 process to start on site and
procure a contractor.
We would therefore welcome your support this evening to allow us to start this process
and bring forward new housing and workspace for the Tower Hamlets community.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Craig Sheeck, I'm one of the architects for the scheme.
We have collectively been working on this project for well over two years.
During that time the proposals have evolved iteratively through a proactive collaboration
and consultation with your offices, the QRP, the local community, along with the GLA and
the LLDC.
Every aspect of this design has, through this process, evolved and been improved in some
way.
Part of Sanctuary's brief to the design team was to improve on the extant consent with
reference to buildability, new legislation such as the Building Safety Act and recent
design guidance.
The current proposals exceed the extant permission in the following areas.
The creation of 165 high quality homes, 45 more than the Extance scheme.
An increase in 89 affordable homes, that's 55%, in comparison to the 41 approved previously.
The provision of 22 affordable three and four bed family homes, compared with only six in
the Extance scheme.
An increase of employment space, a creation of a yard, an increase of the estimated number
of jobs.
An improved biodiversity net gain score of nearly 32 % and the provision of 77 new trees.
Since we submitted the proposals, we have continued to work collaboratively with your
officers.
These improvements to the scheme include improving the ground floor to create a welcoming, safe
and active public realm that includes employment, residential and a cycle hub and that leads
to the river.
We have also improved the private immunity spaces, prioritising family needs within the courtyard for play and engagement.
Addressing your offices and GLA feedback, a sawtooth roof form has been adopted for the residential blocks,
creating architectural interest to the silhouette and linking to the local industrial heritage and emerging character along Wick Lane.
We have tested various heights with officers and through a rigorous heritage
townscape assessment have settled on massing that sits well within the
surroundings and surrounding an emerging context clearly marking the new public
route to the river. The results of the the results of assessment show new
impact to any surrounding conservation or heritage areas. Through the
introduction of beautiful semi glazed blue and green bricks with ceramic
elements enriching the ground floor and bronze, metallic cladding, the proposed materials
are of the highest quality.
Using BRE guidance, the design has fully considered daylight, sunlight and overshadowing for neighbouring
properties and those in the proposed development.
In a dense urban environment with a low baseline and neighbouring receptors built close to their
own boundary, daylight, sunlight and sun on ground requires careful consideration.
Through close collaboration with officers, the analysis shows that it will provide acceptable living standards
and an improvement on the scheme's internal daylight, sunlight and sun on ground to amenity spaces
when compared to that of the extant consent.
Analysis also confirms there will not be any impact on overlooking of privacy on neighbouring properties
due to extended and redirected views and angled windows.
Other supporting technical assessments including transport, wind, flood risk, noise and air quality assessments confirm that where necessary,
there is the appropriate mitigation in place to ensure the quality of living and well -being of future and existing surrounding residents is safeguarded.
In summary, the proposals have been developed in an iterative, collaborative process with officers and consortees and provide the following benefits.
The provision of circa 4100 square metres of high quality employment space, including 350 square metres of flexible affordable work space.
The creation of 165 much needed high quality homes, 55 % or 89 of which are affordable.
73 % of these homes are dual aspect.
High quality public realm, including a new access to the river for local residents, incorporating 77 new trees.
An overall reduction of regulated carbon CO2 emissions by 72 % compared to the policy requirement
of 35%.
Thank you for your time.
And we hope that you can support this exceptional scheme.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much to the objectors and the applicant for sharing your thoughts.
Do members have any questions for officers, objectors or applicant?
I just wanted to confirm, when they say affordable housing, how many of those properties or what
the percentage of those are actually social housing?
I'm just going to bring up the table so you can see it on the screen.
So there's 60, yeah, so I'm just going to share.
So there's 61 affordable rented units.
There are London affordable rent levels.
Social?
No social rent, but the applicant has said that they will look at post -consent, securing
some social rent, but for the purpose of this application there's no social rent at the
Just to be clear, the LLDC policy, which we obviously have to assess this against, it
makes clear that in terms of affordable housing, 60 % of the affordable housing offers should
be low -cost rent, and London affordable rent is low -cost rent.
Obviously social rent is a distinct product, but this is London affordable rent, and it's
also in Tower Hamlets policy as well, we seek to secure London affordable rent, so it is
a recognised low -cost rent product, but it isn't technically social rent.
Just to follow up, when you said the applicant will come back later to look at, could you
maybe explain that?
Yeah, so this Iceland Wharf sits under the previous GLA grant funding scheme, so we already
have an allocation on this site which is the rent that we're referring to, so the low cost
We are in an agreement with the GLA on various schemes.
It could be that there is an element of this with social rent, but we need to get planning
consent before we can have that conversation with the GLA.
Councillor.
So Councillor Francis, can I give you a few minutes to actually complete what you were
planning on saying, because I think you were referring to part of the document and you
were timed out.
You won't be able to do it.
And also, and also.
Ask the question.
It's a part of the document, of the actual document, of the report where he was referring
to and by the time I looked at it, he was timed out so I couldn't get to it, I look
at it so it is quite important that I see that.
Let me seek advice on that because he was given his time already.
Chair, members can I ask any of the speakers obviously questions or clarifications but
not to sort of invite them to carry on delivering a speech if you see what I mean.
So if I can refer him back to that bit where he was speaking about a section, I can't remember
or was it five point something?
But I just keep this time down.
The daylight and sunlight report.
Okay.
Is that it?
Yes.
Is that okay, Jo?
So the reason why I drew attention to that
was because residents,
because the applicant had submitted something
which they said was a credible explanation
of the impact of,
likely impact of daylight and sunlight
of these two tower blocks on the flats and it turned out that wasn't the case
but the only reason that that came to light is because residents themselves
living in Inc Hall commissioned their own daylight and sunlight assessment
from DPR who the council itself has used on other occasions and we've seen other
people use and that found that there were flaws in the methodology which
meant that it was portraying a rosier tinted version of it than was actually
case and then subsequently officers will be able to clarify exactly the process
but they told the applicant to go and do it again there was something that
happened and then the applicants come back with something else so it's
residents themselves like that they're having to take the initiative about the
impact and the report that they've concluded is is what's in here showing
the numbers three -quarters of the windows adversely affected
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I guess this is to the Officers, page 57.
7 .86.
It talks about amendments for daylight and sunlight on the ground floor layout.
Was that subsequently what Councillor Mark Francis is saying and then subsequently the
change has happened or? No, they were just amendments to the application just to improve
the ground floor activation so it had no relation to the kind of daylight sunlight impacts.
In terms of the issue that Councillor Francis has referred to, on schemes like this we always
appoint daylight sunlight consultants anyway so it wasn't off the back of the resident's
daylight consultants, why.
So on this scheme, we appointed consultants
and they did their review.
We actually appointed VRE, who write the guidance.
They did their review and they also flagged up
issues about the methodology.
So if you will, it's almost like in parallel.
Yes, the residents did also appoint
a daylight sunlight review.
That flagged up issues with the methodology,
but so did our independent reviewers. So it wasn't one resulting in the other, the two
were happening in parallel. Just to add to that, just to reiterate I suppose
what Nellipa said, on a scheme like this we would always look to a point, an independent
third party daylight sunlight consultant, and regularly they come back to us and say
this isn't quite right, can you get them to redo the numbers? And as Nellipa's framed
It seems like the process here happened in parallel with the neighbours obviously instructing
their own people, Delver, Patman, Redler, to do it.
And I think essentially what's happened is Delver, Patman, Redler have recognised the
same issues that BRE have recognised and we've gone back to the applicant and then the applicant
has done initial work and that's resulted in the results that we now present in the
report.
Can I come in there as well a bit?
So you know the loss in the daylight and sunlight on the neighbouring properties.
Why do you think these are considered acceptable for the losses?
I mean, they're acceptable because we're balancing the scheme,
so we're balancing the impact, the harm associated with the development against the public benefits.
And those public benefits are the affordable housing, the provision of new housing, provision
of like play space, all these kind of benefits that's associated with the scheme.
So it is being balanced.
I mean the harm is there, there's no denying it.
They are significant harm, but it's the trade off is that you will get a certain amount
of affordable housing.
If I could add as well, the context as well is quite important.
Obviously the site is vacant, there's nothing on it at the moment.
And whenever you have a completely vacant site, if you build up to any height you're going to have failures.
Not to say that the failures aren't significant, they clearly are significant.
But as Nellie has said, in terms of our overall position on this, with respect to the policy,
We basically have found issues with respect to what is the BRE guidance.
It is guidance.
They are in excess of the guidance in lots of areas.
But we have taken a rounded view in terms of the proposals and what the proposals more
generally are delivering and we therefore think that the proposals are acceptable in
the round.
Thank you, chair.
The objector highlighted the concern about excessive height and mass of the development.
So what consideration has been given to address those issues regarding excessive height and
In terms of consideration, if you could clarify what you mean.
The height is the height.
That's the scheme that's before us.
So we've had to assess the scheme based on the heights.
So we've looked at their townscape.
They've submitted a townscape assessment.
We've considered that assessment.
We don't necessarily agree with their full assessment because we do think that it does
rise up in certain views.
But on balance we think that the heights are acceptable and justified.
Just to add, it is clear that the highest building that we're dealing with here is 12
storeys, so one block goes up to 12 storeys and that's the block I guess in the middle
of the site and then there's the block towards the river which is 10 storeys and 12 and 10
storeys is higher than the immediately adjacent context as the objectors have pointed out
and as the council has pointed out.
That is I guess as again as the council pointed out there is a wider sort of context height
in terms of the LLDC area that's been sort of adhered to generally speaking.
However there are exceptions that you'll find in terms of the Bo Goodsyard development.
And I think again just about looking at this proposal in the round, what's really I think
is really important as part of I guess the planning officer recommendation here is we've
got the extent scheme on site, the scheme that got consent and that is rising up to
eight storeys.
This one's going up to 12 storeys, so four storeys higher and it's delivering 45 more
units, but importantly it's delivering 48 more affordable units than the consented scheme.
And so yes, it is going above the consented height and yes it is going above the height
of neighbouring buildings, but it's delivering housing and affordable housing, which is why
we've come to this balanced conclusion that we think the proposal is acceptable in the
round.
So I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
We would be looking to accelerate the affordable housing delivery wherever possible and build
that out first if we could.
Councillor.
Thank you, Chair.
It's been a good discussion so far.
I just want to understand the objectors point.
I understand what they are saying about development and sunlight.
And again when there is an empty space right besides Inkel something would happen at some
point.
But I want to understand more of the benefit for the residents of Inkel what are they going
to get from this in terms of I mean there's commercial space what access would they have
or you know we get the 50 -55 % affordable homes which is really good but I just want to understand
What else is difficult for people, especially in court?
The scheme offers Riverside Park for example, that's not just exclusive to the development,
it's accessible for the wider community. There won't be areas that are closed off,
all the public realm, the areas of children's play as well, that's not going to be closed off,
that would be accessible to anybody that wants to use it.
And we usually, what we typically do is make sure
in section 106 is that we make sure that all areas
of public space are available and not closed off.
The scheme will also have affordable workspace,
as mentioned in the presentation.
It's a very good discount, at like 25 % discount.
So there are other benefits,
apart from just affordable housing,
the good quality public realm,
areas of amenities, play space, there's the podium as well,
which actually the podium might actually be for the development itself,
but everything on the ground should be available for everybody,
for the wider community.
Thank you, Chair.
My question to the officers in relation to design and heritage.
Object to raise the concern that design is poorly designed and this scheme would adversely
affect the setting of the Fish Island conversation area.
Does this harm falls under material planning consideration?
We've assessed the scheme and we don't actually think it does impact on the Fish Island Conservation
Area. So we do think that the scheme is appropriate, it's acceptable in design terms. The only
harm we've identified is to the lighthouse public house, which is a non -designated heritage
asset and that is at the low end of the scale but we don't think that it does impact on
the conservation area.
Thank you, Chair.
My question goes to the officers.
On page 34, 1 .6 it says the majority of the site has a public transport accessibility
level which is PTAL of 1B which is PTA.
My question is what steps are being taken to adjust the current poor PTL in the area
and how will this impact residents' daily lives?
And the transport as well.
Thank you.
I think it is a wider ambition of Dalhamlets now that it is within Dalhamlets control and
to improve connectivity across Hackney, Wiccan, Fish Island,
but the proposals themselves aren't doing that,
and there's no, if you like, there's no direct policy drive
to make them do that either.
Nevertheless, they are obviously making
public realm improvements directly within the site,
and allowing members of the public to improve that.
So I don't know, yeah.
Sorry, there is actually, sorry, I have missed the point.
There is a 200 ,000 pound contribution to local highway work,
So that's going to be actually in terms of like improving the highway itself.
And that has, whilst it hasn't been set out what it will do,
that is actually being set towards connectivity measures which haven't been specified yet.
So there will be some money put aside which will hopefully improve connectivity.
That's more likely to be in terms of wayfinding and signage rather than actually going towards infrastructure.
Questions for the objectors.
If you can clarify which specific impact do you believe would be unacceptable if this
application was to go through tonight?
Which impact would be unacceptable?
That was your question?
If this application was to go through tonight, what do you believe, like, if this application
was to go through tonight, what do you think the major impacts will be?
I think the biggest one is the light, clearly.
I've had to pick one.
But the secondary point for me in some residents was the impact on the character of the area
that I mentioned.
Did you want to say anything?
Yeah, I think it will just have a very negative impact for a lot of people living in this building,
especially people who live immediately facing, I mean not the whole building faces this development,
but there's a significant number of flats that are facing directly onto the site.
I mean the daylight is, I don't think it's acceptable.
And just because of that I think it needs to be amended.
But I mean there's obviously other impacts even if it was reduced.
I mean it'll be a massive building site right in front of our windows for years probably.
And then yeah, I mean we'll just have to see.
I think anything that will be built there needs to coexist with existing buildings and
residents in particular.
That's what I think.
Can I understand a bit more?
Would you want the committee tonight to refuse this application or would you be happy if
there was changes?
I think our position would be that we welcome development.
We're not here suggesting that this should not be out -wide rejected.
I think we would be comfortable with the currently accepted plan that's been put on the table.
So that would be our request.
And just to clarify on the light and the height, we've been talking in terms of storeys in
this discussion, but actually it doesn't really give you the picture.
In terms of metres, I think block B or A, I can't remember which one, is 43 metres high.
That's almost 20 metres higher than Incourt and 25 metres higher than the general average
in the area.
So that's just to give a sense of the scale of the difference, and this isn't an abstract
concept of how much of an impact we'll have.
And also very close to our building.
Could I just add a thank you to everyone for the opportunity.
So I think the loss of daylight and the overshadowing is clearly the most significant issue.
and when London Legacy Development Corporation looked at previous versions of applications
and the ODA before it, who had the power before it, they knocked back higher density schemes
because they didn't fit the policy. This scheme on the table doesn't fit the policy
and yet it's still being recommended for approval. But in relation to the daylight and sunlight in particular,
so it's been said that there is a vacant site opposite and that is absolutely true
and residents shouldn't assume that it will be like that forever,
be a park or something.
But the requirement is either that it's judged against the extant permission,
given by LODC, or a mirror of itself.
And just to remind you, paragraph 7 .238 says,
the Daylight and Sunlight Report presents results of mirror mass
in exercise of Inc. Court.
BRE, the Council's consultants,
have confirmed that although there are windows which would exceed the alternative mirror
image target, there would be 106 windows below the 27 % and the alternative vertical sky component
target of the mirror image used.
BRE confirmed that the mirror massing results demonstrate that it cannot be concluded that
the relative loss of light is due to ink caught where these residents live, itself being a
bad neighbour.
So in other words it is not inevitable that residents in In Court should experience this loss of daylight.
What's happened is that it's solely about the impact of this development.
They have a right to have expected something better and in fact the LODC have given them that.
And now this is recommended for approval.
I think one of the thing I would say is obviously not many committee members will be familiar with this site this location
If you're unsure about the impact the orientation
Like come on and have a look before you make your decision
That might be a good a good thing to do for the committee in general because you're going to get more schemes from fish island
Councillor chowry
Thank you, Chair.
In relation to Mark Francis views and opinion is the loss of daylight sunlight and over shadowing.
We always follow the BRE guidelines.
If it's contradict
with BRE guidelines, how do you
outwit this? Do you understand what I mean?
Yeah, I think it's important that they are guidelines, the PRE guidelines, and they set
out what a developer should be striving to achieve in terms of retaining good levels
of daylight and sunlight for occupants.
But we will, as members of the committee, will know regularly when we have any kind
of application of scale across the borough or any part of the borough, there will always
be exceedances.
it's like very, very, very rare indeed
to find an application that doesn't exceed
in some way, shape, or form the BRE guidelines.
That's not to say that in this specific instance,
there is quite a lot of failures.
But what we, I mean, there's,
to go down into the data a little bit more,
when you look at the failures in terms of Windows,
so that's the VSC test we do,
the amount of major adverse looks quite dramatic
in terms of the amount of failures that there are.
When you actually look at the rooms that fail,
so there's a separate measure of daylight,
which is called daylight distribution,
or sometimes no skyline.
When you look at that in terms of major failures,
13 rooms, which would be an ink hole facing the site,
they would have major impact.
And that's out of the total, I think, about 90.
90, so 13 of 90 would have major failures.
So just to, I guess, to reiterate the point,
we have two differing assessments of daylight.
one talks about windows and the impact on the amount of daylight that you can see a window
and the other one takes a measurement of daylight within a room within the space within a room.
When we look at the windows we're getting pretty quite significant failures when we start looking
at the rooms themselves because obviously rooms will have in some cases more than one window
and different ways of light entering that room that they aren't there isn't as many major
So there's 13 major failures out of 90s.
Sorry, out of 93.
So 13 out of 93 are major failures.
And overall 65 % compliance in terms of the rooms
that were tested.
So the rooms that were tested will be those
on that side of in court.
So the side of in court that's facing the site,
all of those windows will have been tested.
And 65 % of those, sorry, I said windows, I meant rooms.
65 % of the rooms tested meet the BRE guidelines.
35 % don't and 13 individual ones are considered major.
So I guess in our view what we're saying is,
okay, yes, there definitely are failures.
It isn't, when you look at certain measurements,
it can appear more drastic than in other measurements.
And again, coming back to the wider point
about the officer recommendation,
this is a recommendation made in the round
given the other benefits that are being proposed by the development here.
Councillor.
Thank you, chair.
On a separate note, I just want to understand if this was to go ahead around the play area.
So we've got play area in the ground level, which is for I guess more of the smaller children,
and within upper floors for more older children.
How do we, just a question to the applicant, how are we going to control any ASP issues?
We've seen in different buildings where there was plate areas embedded in higher floors,
you had an ASP issue, how are we going to tackle that?
And I've got another question which is completely different, it's more on the seal.
Was the seal calculated on a formula and are we, is this the maximum that we can get?
The financial obligations listed on recommendation 8 .2 are these on top of the SIL amount secured?
I guess the first part was addressed, applicants would pick up the second part, so the SIL is
formula -based, so that doesn't change, that's not a negotiable thing, so the SIL is fixed,
and then the financial obligations are on top of the SIL.
So as a housing association we're quite used to dealing with the management of blocks and
understand the complexities around that. I think typically we'll use sort of full access,
controlled access, make sure that areas are closed at certain times. We've been asked
by officers to really consider as well the age groups if there's anything at roof level
and protection measures against any residential properties that are near that sort of play
area as well.
Sorry if I can add to that, we've obviously worked closely with officers in terms of overlooking
all over the scheme and that's been incredibly granular, down to each individual home and
room to make sure that there's an appropriate level of security and ownership of each of
the spaces so that drives out ASB and anti -social behaviour as well.
Sorry, just on that, one thing we did do as a change was where the playground floor is
for younger children.
We actually put family homes that overspill onto that play space to try and make it a
doorstep play arrangement.
And we think that will be really successful in making sure that the people who are near
that play space will actually want to use it as well.
Thank you for being the application.
I'm just asking about the parking space, because the parking is one of the big issues in the
1200 area, it's always overcrowding.
and if the application going through,
then there will be many residents will come there
and extra and there will be the more cars.
So I just want to ask you,
how many car space you had in the middle of the resident
and other things that during your development
behind or area people can be impacted badly affected?
by the construction work.
So if those kind of problems
coming for the residents, so how are you going to solve that and how many
parking spaces are you going to arrange for the residents?
So in terms of car parking,
this is actually a car free development. Most schemes in Tower Hamlets
are car free. It does have
parking spaces but it's only for blue badge spaces, it's 3 % so it's 17 spaces that's been
provided for blue badge spaces. So we will secure that it is car free so potential kind
of occupiers or buyers of the development, they will be aware that they won't have access
to a permit so they can't park their cars on the street or anything like that. So it
it is essentially a car free development.
And in terms of like construction,
so I mean we do have a number of conditions
on the application to kind of manage
and mitigate things like construction management plans,
noise kind of assessments,
dust management plans, et cetera.
So all of these kind of documents
will manage the whole kind of construction process
and make sure that the appropriate measures are in place
to kind of minimise impact on residents.
Yeah, I believe this one you said that is Carfry Jones building but you know that definitely
I'm just talking honestly the people they're accepting house, nice house when they knew
this one is car free zone but the people who came they have car but then they
struggling and they put the other other other car space so if there is many
people coming according to my knowledge I seeing the other people is badly
impacted for the resident new coming so our Hamlet I know the development is
very important for us this is overcrowding but also we have to think
about the people that live in this area.
We don't want anybody to give about the people.
Is that a question?
Is that a question?
So my question is how you think, how you look that the residents come in car -free zone and
they have car with them and disturbing other and making problem other.
So do you have any arrangement for this?
I guess to the point of the car -free obligation, that's to prevent anyone who doesn't already
have a parking permit within the borough, buying one of these new units and then applying
for it.
They would be legally prohibited from applying for on -street parking permits within Tower
Hamlets or within that residential zone anyway.
One thing that I guess you're probably alluding to that does happen, regularly does happen
is that, and it's something that we obviously are probably aware of and encountered before,
is the permit transfer system.
And that is in operation across the borough.
What that means is that people who are already in family sized, low cost rented accommodation,
if they have a parking permit elsewhere in the borough, they can bring that with them
to their new accommodation.
So if they, for example, get one of these new units and they already have a parking
permit, they can bring that over and that operates across the borough.
But it is important to say that is not necessarily a planning consideration.
It's not something that we can control through the planning application.
It exists.
We have to be cognisant that it exists but we don't have any control within this planning
application to change that fact, if you like.
Thank you.
Ian, you can.
Of course you can.
Councillor, I don't know if you will assist but when legal services, when my team of legal
services draught legal agreements we put the obligations in for the car free elements which
are policy compliant.
And as Simon says, what we ensure then is that the development for all new people arriving
will be car free and the permit exemption applies but people with permits are fine.
And there's also the permit transfer scheme that has been worded to reflect this Council's
change in policy.
I think it's for three or more bedrooms now for car free to enable them to apply for permits
and have a parking spaces on the highway.
So we do build into the agreement
what car parking provisions we are able to,
strictly speaking under section 106,
which is the name of the agreement we're doing,
but we do build into the agreements
under other legal powers to ensure that there is
at least some car provision for those
that have already got it, and those that haven't,
I'd be blind to know they're coming to a car free development because the obligation is for the
owner of the person who's selling the dwellings or the housing association to make people aware of the car free policy
So they know what they're letting themselves in for
Thank you, just a quick question for the officers I want to speak a bit more about the height
How did you consider it as it's how did you consider it been compliant with the local plan?
So the local plan, I mean, yes, it does, the policy, the relevant policy does talk about
a 20 -metre context height, but it also has a number of criterias for the scheme to meet,
for any development to meet, to kind of justify any exceedance in height.
And alongside that is the fact of providing public benefits.
So some of the criteria include things around, you know, like townscape impact.
So we've assessed the townscape impact, we've looked at the submitted townscape assessment.
You know, broadly we think yes, it does, you know, it does kind of exceed the heights.
It is, you know, in particular views, it is more noticeable than other views.
But we do think that, you know, the quality of the architecture probably hasn't come through
in the presentation, but they are using semi glazed bricks.
We've had meetings with them about the quality
of the materials.
So we think that the architecture
will be of a very good quality once it's built out.
So when you look at the scheme itself,
yes, they are tall buildings, but there
are spaces between the buildings that allows view
through the site.
So there's a gap in.
So there are different considerations
that we've looked at.
Yes, it is higher.
I think the good job scheme has to be a consideration.
It is a scheme that's been granted resolution
to grant planning permission.
It does have comparable heights.
So in the round, we've considered
all these different elements and considered that as a whole
that the scheme does comply with the development plan.
was idea of...
When you say no net loss, so I guess I think maybe you're talking about framing it versus
the consented scheme at present, so it's basically securing the same amount of employment floor
space.
So I guess more broadly speaking, when you're talking about how will we ensure it stays
there for the long term, that obviously this is essentially what they're getting planning
permission for.
If they want to change it, they're going to need to come back through the planning process
to change it, and they'll have to justify why there isn't that level of employment space
coming forward given the requirements for employment space in this location.
In terms of securing the space, the affordable workspace in particular will be secured through
the legal agreement and that will secure the part of the overall employment space that
will be affordable, so the quantum, and it will also secure the discount which is 25 %
below the market rent and then furthermore it will secure the length of time that it
should be kept at and that's 15 years.
So that's what we will secure via the legal agreement, which will be working through post
if there was a resolution to grant tonight, that's what we'll be working through post
consent to make sure that's all above board with Ian and his team in legal services.
And yeah, more broadly about employment, that would be basically secured through I guess
the plans and the planning permission and any attempt to change that would have to come
back through the planning process.
Councillor Sayeed Ahmad.
Thank you, I just wanted to understand the waste management.
It's got pretty decent information on 7 .362363.
But I'm trying to understand from the floor plan of the ground map from figure 19,
how the waste truck would go on to the site and then have enough space to come back round.
It does say they send a pick up from the yellow lines on Iceland Road.
But then what's the plan? How is it going to go in and how is it reversed back out?
I just want to understand that please.
The bin lorries are going to come into the site via Iceland Road, which is part of the
proposal that's being extended.
So at present it already exists, Iceland Road, but it's being extended.
The bin lorries will come into the site and we're securing a waste management plan via
condition, which is going to control all of the details with respect to how bins are presented
on collection days.
Obviously the bins themselves are stored within waste stores, within the residential
and the commercial blocks and the waste management plan which will secure by condition will detail
about how these are going to be essentially presented and collected by the waste management
operatives on collection day.
So does it give the waste truck enough space to go in and turn around?
Where's the turn around space?
The applicant can come in if you want.
We submitted it as part of the planning application.
So it did a sweat path analysis so it would reverse into what is effectively the hammerhead
at the end of the site and it's got enough turning space within there.
I was just trying to see if it's in the report but we definitely had consultation comments
as well from the
Page 36 is a diagram.
We have had conversations with your waste officers as well who have been engaged throughout
the pre -app process and the planning process and they are happy with their plans and they
have said it is acceptable.
Thanks I think I understand the acceptance side of it where it says it is going to be
collected from a single yellow line and if that road clearly is not going to be wide
enough and if there is cars parked on a single yellow line there may be risk of mis -collections
Which you would have to review.
And I don't think that should be seen in the yellow line because there would be cars parked
and that would be, that would cause more problems.
Something to consider.
I've got another question.
Yes, Councillor.
Thank you.
My next question was around if this application does go ahead, how would the, what consideration
have we taken with the commercial use, commercial buildings and community space? I haven't really
heard much around anything for community space and anything for local areas during an event
or local community coming together. What's the community vibe going to look like?
To be clear within the proposals there isn't anything secured if you like with respect
to community space, the proposals are obviously for the residential units and the commercial
space. More broadly, I don't know if the applicant has anything to say with respect to how they
seek to engage the community in any of the commercial spaces for example, but we haven't,
because there's not necessarily a planning policy to do that, we haven't sought to secure
any community space if you like within the proposals.
Yeah I mean I guess we'd say there's no physical space like a community hall like you might
We're a housing association so we do a lot of community events and try and build up new
communities where we've got particularly new builds where there's lots of new residents
coming together. Obviously we've talked about the incidental area near the river, so there
is a lot of opportunity on site to probably have more ad hoc community events if you like.
In terms of the commercial usage, I think one thing we've tried to do is keep it really
flexible at this stage. It's going to be a while until it's actually completed. We want
to make sure we're engaging the right kind of people. I think if you go around the area
you'll see there is a lot of empty commercial space in Fish Island and we really want to
prevent that happening. So it's got a certain classification of use, we're looking to attract
a certain type of person but until we get there and are building it out we won't know
who the end user is ultimately.
Quick question to the applicant.
What specific measurements will you put in place to protect noise from the neighbouring,
from the construction?
We wonder if this application was to go through, how would you protect the neighbours from
the construction noise and everything else?
So I think as we said it would be secured by condition in terms of construction management plan.
We'd make sure we were working within whatever hours were specified within that.
Working under considerate contractors.
It's something we're used to dealing with in London, so it would be just as required for the site as officers seek.
So with the commercial side, I understand as actually you're going to look to bring
someone on board, but can we explore from the council side of what social benefit we
on time from this, social value out of this. I understand it is going to be more of a business
proposal for you, but I'm trying to understand where we can come halfway, find the gap and
make a community space somewhere or benefit through a social value target.
Thank you, Councillor Chair.
One aspect we could look at is with the affordable workspace element.
It is common for us to include legal agreements, requirement to submit strategies about how
the providers of that will engage with local businesses and local community.
Fish Island is, colleagues mentioned, some of the new build commercial space may not have been let.
It's actually a very thriving ecology of small businesses in that wider Fish Island, Hackney Wick area.
So I'm sure that if the right engagement strategy was in place, then it might actually encourage people to come and occupy that space.
and in a way sort of add to that what you describe as social value because that would
be aimed at sort of smaller businesses, start -ups, those who are wanting to get a foothold on
that sort of creative industry ladder as well.
So I think there's probably work we can do around the 106 linked specifically to the
affordable workspace elements, if that would help.
Thanks, Paul.
I think can we add that section 106 part in it and to make sure that we find a social
I think that is what the government is looking for.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Aykbar.
Thank you, Chair.
Just in support of the proposal made by Councillor Ahmed, in page 38, the need for additional
commercial spaces, many units remain vacant in artificial island.
So based on these statistics, I think the applicant can consider to transforming or
turning some of the commercial space for communities that can be considered in my point of view.
Thank you.
and the other is the use of the application.
So, we have to consider the use of the application.
So, we have to consider the use of the application.
What I would say on that, I understand the point.
That isn't actually what we have to consider, you know, the use
classes that are in the application that have been
applied for, there is also a bit of an issue around the policy
to be provided.
Now that's not to say that if, for example,
permission were to be granted,
if for example the development did go ahead
and there were issues around letting some of the
non -affordable workspace, then obviously
the applicant could come back to the council
and sort of have a discussion around
what other use classes could go in there.
But as it stands at the moment,
we would have to consider it based on the employment
space that's being provided.
Also, it does depend very much on the policy context.
So at the moment it's being assessed against the LDC local plan.
In due course the council will have its own new local plan which will also apply to Fish
Island.
The current one doesn't.
So we would have to look at it in the context of a revised policy framework in the future
as well.
question for the officers. How significant was the 55 % affordable housing offer in balance
with the harm of the application? Yeah, I guess it's a good question. Like very significant,
We obviously take housing and affordable housing very seriously, given the waiting list for
housing and the general need for housing in the borough.
And so therefore when we make any kind of planning assessment, when there is housing
in particular, affordable housing is at the foremost of our thoughts when we're making
any recommendation and doing the balancing exercise.
And, yeah, 55 % is a really good affordable housing offer.
Would members like to share their thoughts or debate the application?
Okay, thanks chair.
So just to share my thoughts after this discussion is that I do welcome this development, I must
say because it is offering more affordable housing, which is a key priority for the council
and it's increased it to 55 % and an additional 48 units and these are very
important aspects and I appreciate the objectives and concerns but then when I
asked around the trade -off we have community benefits of better space,
green space, improved area, better public realm, I think it helps sort of come to
that sort of negotiation and also adversely affected windows was something like 13 or
19 out of 90 something.
So I think that is considerable for myself and the financial obligations I think are
good for the local area with still and the additional money that's being sort of requested
With the points I have added when it comes to waste collection from the single yellow
looking at something else, making sure the Section 106 has proper social value implemented,
with all of these caveats I think I'm okay with this one.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
Definitely, this proposed development have some identified harm in relation to the heritage,
but identified harm would be overweight by public benefit, and also it is already acknowledged
that there are some limited departure from the guidelines.
However, the scheme is compliant with development plan and would result in considerable public
benefit through the redevelopment of the site, particularly in terms of housing delivery.
So I am supporting this procedure.
So I'd like to thank you for bringing in this application.
Normally I spend a lot of time talking about PlaySpace.
And this application has fulfilled that criteria.
I think what concerns me the most is the daylight and sunlight and also the fact that this has come back to us after giving permission at a different height, a taller height.
And that's given me concern. I think also that whether this gets developed or not, we've sat in these committees, we've given permission and things have come back to us again.
extending and getting taller and taller and I think that has given me a sense of concern.
But more so it's the BRE, the daylight and the sunlight issue and I understand its guidelines.
But they are there for a reason and we have heard from the objectors and there has been several people that have been also objecting to it.
So I do have concern over this development.
But overall it has been one of the positive developments that I have seen in this committee.
So thank you.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
So I'll be honest.
This isn't a perfect scheme.
And I do not dismiss the concerns raised this evening.
But our role is to weigh those impacts against the benefits and in this case there are substantial
holes.
The application brings forward 165 new homes with a genuine significant 55 % affordable
housing including affordable rented homes.
Officers, I'm sure you guys worked hard on this application.
And I see there have been clear that the impacts identified, including daylight and building
heights, which have been carefully assessed by you guys with the answers I got.
So for those reasons, I think the scheme, the application is quite balanced for me.
That's one of the, yes, so the application, I think is quite good.
I'm quite happy with everything and this is why I will be supporting this application tonight as well.
Now I would like to go to Paul and Austin, principal lawyers planning legal service,
to share final advice before we move to Paul.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you as always to members and everyone else who has contributed this evening to weighing
up the planning issues associated with this application.
I suppose the report is in front of you and you can see how we have come to our view.
Yes there are impacts associated with this development, I think that everybody has appreciated
and they are largely a matter of impacts to do with daylight and sunlight.
And there are, this would be a development that is taller than what was permitted previously
and it would be taller than the prevailing height.
but we've explained how we've assessed that and how we've come to a view on that.
I think the affordable housing offer does, certainly from our point of view, weigh heavily
in favour of granting permission and the reason that I say that is firstly it's unusual for
development to come back and seek increased density and for not just all of that increase
but actually proportion more than is what's being proposed
to be increased in terms of floor space
is actually affordable housing.
So that in itself is quite rare.
I think also we have looked at it in the wider context
of where affordable housing sort of sits at the moment
and the challenges of delivering development generally
and the challenges of bringing affordable housing forward.
So I think where there are opportunities,
It's not to say that that's the only reason that permission should be granted, but I think
it should be weighed heavily in the balance, and that's how we've come to that.
It would be perfectly reasonable, of course, and the objectives have articulated very well
why they feel that the extant scheme is a better option, and that would be a perfectly
reasonable decision as well.
It is all about the balance between the harm and the benefits of the scheme.
So, hopefully we've set out clearly why we think it should be recommended for approval
subject to conditions of 106.
We've taken on board the points around, particularly around waste collection, ensuring that that
is dealt with appropriately and also the, how we can add a bit more social value and
I think that can be channelled in a number of ways.
I've noticed that the non -financial obligations did actually have requirement for an affordable
work space statement.
I think we can base, you know, if committee members agree, I think based on Councillor
Armant's suggestion, we can go a bit further than that and make that into more of a statement,
but a proper engagement strategy and also add a social value element to that, just because
of the important character of the area and making that space work as hard as it can to
enhance that character and benefit the local community, including local small businesses.
Beyond that, chair, I don't really have anything else to add.
Thank you.
Ian, would you like to share your last vote?
I think chair Paul has said everything.
Beyond saying, Councillor Amode, you raised the question earlier about noise, construction,
and the like.
If and it may all members if you look on the council's website, we do have a construction management plan page
31 page document detailing what's expected of developers in respect of noise
and how they'll behave during the construction period and it's something that we do enforce we
Do to take responsibly it's got the hours of work
Management details who the contact details are out of hours all that time for information
So have a look at that document.
Other details what Paula said thus far.
You've got your material considerations in front of you.
You've got the balancing out.
You've got the two local plans.
The London local plan and the LLDC local plan.
You can make a decision accordingly.
Thank you.
Now moving on to the vote.
Can I see all those in favour of this application?
All those against?
Any abstention?
Can you please confirm the committee decision?
With a majority vote of 5 in favour of the officer recommendation, one against one abstention,
the committee has voted to grant planning commission for the redevelopment of Iceland
wharf set out in item 5 .1 of the agenda subject to the conditions and obligations listed there
and referral process to the mayor of London and also subject to additional matters concerning
waste management and affordable workspace strategy and social value that have been discussed
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
That concludes the business for this meeting.
The next meeting will take place on Wednesday, 3 March 2026.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.