Strategic Development Committee - Tuesday 3 March 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development Committee
Tuesday, 3rd March 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
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Good evening, everyone.
Good evening and welcome to the Strategic Development Committee.
My name is Councillor Ayman Rahman and I will be chairing this meeting.
This meeting is being webcast live on Council's website and the 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 of addressing this meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.
Participants must address the meeting through myself as chair.
If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch your microphone on and
may also switch your camera on camera at the point.
You should keep your microphones and camera switched off at all other times.
Please do not use meeting chat facility.
Any information added to the chat facility will be disregarded.
If you are experiencing any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Dramatic
Service Officer as soon as possible.
I will now ask committee members present to introduce themselves shortly.
Before I do that, I've got nothing to declare.
and also committee members to state any declaration of interest, please.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone.
It's Councillor Ikhwan Hussain and I have no interest to declare. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone.
Councillor glomkubria -chev
Thank you, everyone, my name is Amadou Khan and I'm substitute for castle aside damage
Must make a development. I'm one of the resident
I'm the resident of Canada Wolf and must make our development is in Canada. Thank you chair
Thank you, everyone.
Now to apologies, Fatima, have we received any apologies for absence?
Sorry, before Fatima, before I go, I think there's a few members online.
Members online, would you like to introduce yourself, please?
Is it Asma?
Asma, would you like to introduce yourself?
Yes, thank you.
So as Councillor Asma Began, I don't have any DPIs.
Thank you.
Councillor Shubha Hussain, no DPI.
Thank you.
Councillor, you've got your hands up on the...
Do you have any other questions or anything?
Thank you, Councillor.
Yeah, do you want to switch that off, Councillor, yeah?
Thank you.
And now to apologies for Tima.
Have we received any apologies for absence?
We have not received any apologies.
Please, Councillor Shibu Husein did contact me to let me know that he would be joining
online and he does know that he has no right to vote.
Everyone online would not have any rights to vote but you can join the meeting and ask
questions and then that is no problem.
Agenda item 2 is minutes from previous meetings.
The previous meeting from the 3rd September 2025 and the 22nd October 2025 will be approved
at the next meeting.
Minutes from 4th of February. Can we approve that?
Yes, that's fine.
Ok, that's fine. Not a problem.
Agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objection and meeting guidance.
I will now ask Paul Beckinham, head of development management and planning building control to
present the guidance.
»» Thank you, Chair.
Good evening.
Good evening members, members of the public and officers who are joining us for the meeting
this evening, either present or online.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant development
plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.
The process for considering reports and recommendations will run as follows.
So I'll introduce the report with a brief description of the application and the summary
of the recommendation.
Then officers will present the report.
And then if we have any speakers who wish to raise objections, then we'll hear from
those first and they have three minutes each and then anyone registered to speak in support,
including the applicant, can also address the committee for up to three minutes each.
Then also we can hear from Councillors, although I believe none are registered today.
The committee can then ask points of clarification of the speakers.
And then the committee will go on to consider the recommendation, including any further
questions, debate or advice from officers, and then the committee will reach their decision
based on the majority vote and I will confirm that back to the Chamber.
In the event that the Committee propose any changes to certain aspects of the officer
recommendation, for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations,
then the task of formalising those changes is delegated back to the direction of planning
and builder control.
In the event that the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation, they must give
their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.
The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the

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

task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If the committee proposed to make a decision that was seen 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 a further report from officers dealing with the proposed course
of action.
Chair, there is an update report this evening dealing with Item 5 .1 on the agenda which
I'll come to you when we get to that part.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
Thank you very much.
Agenda item 5 are the planning application for decisions.

We have two applications to consider this evening.

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION

5 a) PA/25/00908- Mastmaker Court, 20-34 Mastmaker Road, London, E14 9BU

Agenda item 5 .1 is planning application for development at Mass Maker Corp. 20 to 34 Mass
Maker Road, London, E14, 9BU.
The report is on page 31 to 114 of the agenda.
I will now invite Paul to introduce the application.
Thank you very much, Chair.
So as the Chair said, this is a planning application affecting Masmaker Court 20 -34 Masmaker Road
in the Isle of Dogs, London.
And the application is what we call a hybrid planning application, so it's part detailed
and part outline.
And it comprises of the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on the site
and the redevelopment of the site as follows.
So the detailed part is for construction of large scale purpose built shared living accommodation
along with residential units and community space alongside the provision of a public
accessible open space, public realm improvements, landscaping access, servicing and other associated
works.
And then the outline component of the application is for the delivery of a school.
The application is accompanied by an environmental statement and the recommendation to the committee
this evening is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning obligations.
Chair, if I may, I'll just take you through briefly the update report.
So this really deals mainly with some corrections and clarifications since the agenda was published.
So very briefly, there are a couple of tables dealing with the housing mix in paragraph
7 .41.
The numbers are correct, but the labels on those particular tables are not quite correct
in terms of tenure.
So we've updated that.
In paragraph 7 .49, it talks about the nature of the residential units.
We should say, it did say that all of the housing units with the dual aspect, it should
actually say 95 % of the units with the dual aspect.
Also, just confirmation that all of the co -living units are in excess of the minimum 28 square
metres and have an overall average of 22 .6 square metres, excluding the wheelchair accessible
units.
Clarification that's about the internal illumination of some of the kitchens.
I mentioned that the application is EIA development and we always have the environmental statement
reviewed by a retained external consultant.
At the time we published the report,
we hadn't had our consultant's final report.
That's now been received and they've confirmed
that all matters are resolved
and the environmental statement meets all the requirements
of the EIA regulations.
So for our purposes, we can take on board
all the information in there and making our decision.
Finally, the calculation of the carbon offset contributions
was slightly incorrect, not by a huge amount.
This is based on the carbon reduction achieved by both the detailed elements and the school.
So we just corrected the calculation for those section 106 financial contributions and you'll
see those in the officer's report when we come to that.
But all that taken into account, that doesn't change our overall recommendation to grant
planning commission.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you Paul. Yeah, that was very useful. Yep. Yeah, you're coming. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you chair briefly members
I just wanted to say although there are only four members present in the chamber. You are quarant for the purposes of this meeting
Any members who now join the chamber the item is under discussion, so we'll not be able to take part
In in the item, so it's the four of you are the decision makers for this particular item
Councillor Hussain, Councillor Bekham, you are online and as said earlier, you do not
have the right to vote on this particular matter.
Thank you for joining and seeing the matter through.
Thank you, Ian.
I will now invite Sally Fress, our Planning Case Officer, to present the application.
Thank you, Sally.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, members.
A note to those watching.
So as Paul mentioned the application is a hybrid application for the redevelopment of
the site at Mass Maker Court. This is just an overview of the location of the site within
the Isle of Dogs. A closer up view of the site, the site contains a number of two storey
parking space in the centre. The warehouses contain light industrial uses which are pretty
much all now empty and also some educational space which is also now vacant. As you can
see it's quite a large and underutilised site that doesn't at the moment make much contribution
to the local area. The streets are marked on a plan, I think you can just about see
Alpha Grove to the west, got Mask Maker Road to the east.
And you can't really see it, but there is a path, an east -west path that links Alpha Grove with Mask Maker Road just to the north of the site.
Site and site allocation, and it's in the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area, which is identified for significant growth potential over coming years.
There's an image of the site looking north along Masmaker Road. This is the site here.
You can just about see the entrance to the site. This is the pedestrian pathway that
I referenced. This is the site. This is the adjoining development known as Phoenix Heights.
And this is to the west of the development site, looking north along Alford Grove with
the tall buildings protruding to the north and to the east. And the site is just behind
these two and three storey dwellings. So just in summary, the proposal overall proposes
is a new school, which is intended to be an alternative provision school, an overall provision
of 42 % on -site affordable housing, which consists of 153 affordable homes and 843 co -living
homes, a community hub, 5000 square metres of public space, including public park and
landscaping and new pedestrian connexions through and around the site.
An overall view of the proposal, the outline element is shown within the red line.
This is sort of the maximum parameters it's intended or would be at its maximum parameters
of four storey height block.
Here is the 43 -storey co -living block, which contains within it obviously co -living studio -type
units with kitchenettes and bathroom facilities, and there's amenity spaces and rooftop terraces
throughout the building.
And this is the C3 affordable housing block, which also has amenity spaces, internal and
external dotted throughout the building on the rooftops.
And this is the post public park.
There's landscaping also throughout site.
And you can just see this is where the site entrance comes in.
So just in terms of consultation, we received 23 letters of objection and 7 letters of support.
The full list of matters of objection are outlined in the report. This slide gives a
summary of the main themes raised by the objectors. So just turning now to land use. National
and Development Plan policy puts substantial weight on the use of brownfield land for homes
and other identified needs.
The proposal would regenerate this underutilised Brownfield
site and provide a mix of uses that
would optimise site capacity in an area identified
for sustainable growth.
And it would align with the site allocations specifically,
which seeks to provide an alternative provision school,
open space, and landscaping.
Proposal would lead to the loss of around 4700 square metres of light industrial and
office floor space. This floor space is outdated, it is largely vacant and doesn't currently
provide a meaningful or active employment floor space. During the earlier iterations
of this scheme during extensive pre -op discussions with the LPA that was some industrial floor
space provided into the scheme. But it was found during discussions that doing that really
negatively impacted on site capacity, it created a vehicle dominated site layout and it impacted
on future resident immunity and also the provision of green infrastructure within the site itself.
The site isn't within a protected industrial site and in addition to that the site obviously
provides substantial benefits including the alternative provision of school and the 42 %
affordable housing, public park or community space that clearly we deem outweighs the loss
of the industrial floor space and the proposal is acceptable in land use terms.
So just moving to housing, generally for developments that provide co -living like this, current
London Plant Policy seeks an affordable housing contribution in lieu of providing some affordable
co -living accommodation. Over recent years it's become an accepted and beneficial route
really, instead of providing the contribution to actually provide traditional C3 affordable
housing on site, which is what this development proposes. So that being said, generally where
there is a loss of industrial capacity on the site, as there is in this case, the threshold
amount of affordable housing that the London Plan asks a development to provide is 50 %
as opposed to the usual 35%.
And during pre -app discussions with the applicant and in consultation with GLA, we determined
the circumstances of the site, the fact that the re -provision of the industrial floor space
would lead to poor planning outcomes and given the significant benefits and the significant
housing contribution that this development was eligible to follow the fast track route
given that it would only fall slightly below what would generally be required in terms
of the threshold. So it can follow the fast track route and not requiring viability testing.
So just moving on to the specifics of the housing, 153 affordable homes, a 10 year split
of 87 % social rent or low cost homes to 13 % intermediate homes. And it's also the case
that co -living homes count towards the borough's housing target at a ratio of 1 .8 co -living
homes to one C3 dwelling. So overall the development will provide a total of 621 homes towards
the borough's housing targets. This shows the unit size mix of the C3 housing, the low
cost rented homes are in pink, the intermediate homes are in orange, the top numbers, hopefully
you can see them are the unit numbers, so the total of 121 low -cost rented units and
32 intermediate units. 66 % of the low -cost rented homes would be family sized homes,
which is 80 homes in total, really exceeding local plan targets. There is an under supply
of larger intermediate homes but the emphasis on larger social low -cost rented homes is
welcomed. Sixteen of the affordable rented homes will be wheelchair accessible and four
of those will be family sized and all on the lower floors of the building. The left hand
And the image shows a typical C3 floor plan.
It's chamfered form provides good dual aspect homes, good light, outlook and privacy.
The proposals include areas of external community space, as can be seen here, on rooftops chamfered
across the building and also at ground floor level.
and internally as well in quantum terms in excess of the policy requirement.
This is the community hub that you can see here and this is the public park that adjoins
the Seafrew housing block.
Apologies. So in terms of play space, 1 ,615 square metres of external children's play
space adjoining the block is provided. There is an oversupply for younger children, there
is an undersupply for older children of 624 square metres and this is mitigated by a financial
contribution. A typical floor space of the co -living homes. Again the chamfered edges
creates good outlook and good light and privacy. This is one of the immunity floors. There's
various dining, co -working, communal, external, internal living space in excessive quantum
So turning in terms of height and scale, the left hand image shows the proposal in blue
with surrounding buildings in grey and on the right hand side there's also the consented
developments yet to be built in red. Two tall buildings are proposed within the development.
the site is not within a tall building zone but it does a join the middle in a
dock tall building zone so the proposal doesn't strictly comply or strictly
align with the local plan step down approach towards the edges of the tall
building zones but in this case we do think that the proposals height and
scale and mass is appropriate given the heights and positionings of surrounding
tall buildings to the north, the south and the east. And the proposal also steps down
to the west towards the lower built form. There are no harm to heritage assets, to long
range strategic views or to the prominence of the much taller Canary Wolf cluster. Just
local townscape views, this is a view from Alfa Grove existing and proposed. You can
see that as existing you do see the protruding tall buildings to the north and to the west
and that built form is brought closer to the dwellings in the proposed scenario. The proposed
scenario, I don't know if you can see, actually includes the consented development to the
north which are outlined there at that is Ensign House and then there's I think 56 Marsh
Wall next door. This is looking south down Masmaker Road from Marsh Wall. This is the
development here. There's some additional what you might call canyoning effect but largely
the proposal is in line with the pattern and scale of development and the proposal also
would be set back from the pavement line. The architecture of the building is striking,
is high quality materials and has been applauded by the Council's quality design review panel.
These are the ground floor areas, the public spaces, the community hub here and the pink
lines show the pedestrian connexions through the site and to this existing east -west pedestrian
route.
This is an indicative image of what the school might look like in terms of design at the
parameters, the extent that is proposed and with the immunity spaces around the site.
So it's in terms of neighbouring immunity, the existing site is low lying and the neighbouring
windows are largely unimpeded, the proposed development would add significant built form
to the site and result in daylight losses. The most effective windows would be those
adjoining the site, looking onto the site where some impacts are classified as major
And those are two Phoenix Heights, Salver Tower, 15 Indus Can Square, Gainsborough House
and 11 to 37 Alpha Grove.
This table shows the most adversely affected receptors where major adverse impacts have been identified.
And this table shows where windows and rooms within those receptors would see reductions in daylight, which would exceed 40%.
So there are some failures. It is relevant to note that in quite a few instances, notwithstanding
that some windows would see major reductions, rooms themselves being lit by other windows,
in other aspects would be less affected. And I would also say that any redevelopment of
this brownfield land would inevitably see reductions to light surrounding development.
Development has been designed to mitigate the impacts as much as possible in terms of
stepping down towards the Alpha Grow properties to the west.
And the distance between the proposed buildings
and the surrounding buildings mean
that there are few adverse impacts in terms of sunlight
and outlook and also enclosure.
Quickly on to transport.
Residential blue badge spaces are in green right next
to the affordable block.
Park, there's a servicing bay for the co -living. And on the right here this shows the school
route for the minibusses driving in and out of the site. In terms of urban greening 0 .2,
an urban greening factor of 0 .2 is proposed through extensive provision of soft landscaping,
tree planting and green roofs, the outline component would achieve a UGF score of 0 .3
which is also in compliance with the targets and there would be a biodiversity net gain
of almost 600 % against the 10 % target which is very strongly supported. Just moving to
financial contributions including towards construction, skills and training, end user
skills and training, carbon emissions and development coordination and non -financial
contributions including things such like a co -living management plan, public access to
the mugger which would sit on top of the school building, travel plans for both elements of
scheme and then the sill obligations that would be provided by the development. In summary,
proposal would bring back into use of Brownfield site in compliance with opportunity area and
by allocation aims, some elements of the proposal do not fully comply with policies, but these
are outweighed by the significant benefits of the scheme.
The affordable housing with emphasis on large social rented homes, green community and social
infrastructure, the development complies with the development component as a whole.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sally, for your presentation.
Very useful.
As we have no registered speaker for this application, I will now move on to members'
questions.
Do members have any questions?
Thank you, Chair.
Given the height of the building, I just want to understand what does the current safety
standard in terms of fire safety and does the plan meet those standards?
Thank you, Councillor Lee.
Yes.
That's a good question.
It wasn't covered in my presentation.
Both buildings are tall buildings, so there is a requirement for the submission of a fire
statement, which was submitted and was interrogated by the Health and Safety Executive on the
Council's behalf.
They were comfortable that the development would be fire safe as it applies to the planning application process.
There are additional and more rigorous fire safety regulations that come in later in the process.
But from a town planning point of view, there are no concerns.
My leading question is, so has the test been tested?
Was the average time tested, evacuation time required for people from the top floor?
Has it been tested?
or any thought on that?
Sorry, tested in terms of...
Could you repeat your question?
The required tests have been done as it applies to this planning application and what policy
requires has been applied to this planning application.
They've submitted a fire statement.
The fire statement has been reviewed and found to be sound.
The next step of the process is in relation to building regulations and they will look
it presumably from a construction point of view, but from compliance with planning policy
it complies.
Paul, do you want to comment a bit more on that?
Thank you, chair, thank you, Councillor, for the question.
So I was just looking in the report.
So it does the report does include the comment from the health and safety executive.
So effectively it's past what we call gateway one of the fire regulations.
So gateway one is about the design of the planning stage.
So what the HSC would be looking at for example is issues to do with sort of all the adequate
number of lifts, is the two staircases, is the right layout to get a fire tender close
to the building to be able to fight a fire in that scenario.
I don't know for certain that at Gateway 1 they would deal with the detail of the evacuation
strategy because as Sally mentioned that probably comes more at Gateway 2 which is the building
control stage in the event that planning commission is granted.
But it has, I can reassure the committee that it has got the sign off for Gateway 1 which
is the first stage of fire safety.
Thank you, thank you.
I know you've acknowledged major adverse on daylight and sunlight impacts to neighbouring
properties.
Can you explain why these impacts are considered acceptable in planning terms and how this
complies with local plan policies?
Thank you, Councillor, for the question.
I was telling you, can you just bring up the slide with the...
the slide which indicates all of the properties around the site which we have assessed to
have major adverse impacts. As Sally set out already, the existing built context of the
site is low rise, so any additional height on this site is going to lead to increased
daylight failures. Notwithstanding that, when we get to the slide, there are quite a lot
of failures with respect to the VSC in particular.
So that's impact on windows.
And we've got a number of properties
where there's quite a lot of major failures
in terms of the impact on windows.
And as Sally again sat out in the presentation,
when you start to look at,
interrogate the data a bit further
and then there's the separate test,
which is called daylight distribution
and that looks at the daylight to rooms themselves,
the impacts aren't quite so severe or quite so dramatic
as you would see within the windows because obviously some rooms have more than one way
for light to enter the room. So that's the table. So all of these properties that are
listed there, we would regard them as having major adverse impacts. So the top two there,
they're on Alpha Grove, so to the west of the site, and they're low rising context.
And then the remainders are to the north, east and the south and they're higher buildings.
The low rise ones, I guess contrary to what I just said in terms of the variation between
the VSC, the window test and the daylight distribution test which is the room test,
the daylight distribution of the room test doesn't perform quite so well in those instances.
However, generally speaking on Alpha Grove these are low rise residential single dwellings
and I guess you can picture that for example the rear windows might be affected but the
windows aren't affected. And generally where we're seeing failures on Alpha Grove, they're first
floor rear windows and they are major but typically you would imagine that first floor rear windows
are bedrooms so you might attribute less weight to that impact than you would say for a living room
or another kind of habitable room. As we move down the table so we've got the other blocks that I
mentioned that are taller and when we start to look at the results for those you can see that
the VSC, again, quite a significant amount
of VSC failures or window failures.
When you start to look at the rooms,
it becomes less dramatic because there's less
major failures with respect to the number of rooms.
And I guess, generally speaking,
back to the point of the question,
why is this acceptable?
Broadly speaking, in this kind of area,
when you have high -rise development,
you will see, it doesn't matter what the scale is,
when you're taking an existing low -rise block
building it up, you're going to have failures.
And when we look at these kind of failures,
we obviously take a balanced view of them.
We look at the other things that the application is bringing
forward.
You'll have seen in the presentation the amount
of housing, and in particular, low cost rent,
affordable housing that's being brought forward.
You'd also note that there's a school
to be delivered in outline, and then there's
other benefits of proposals we'll bring forward as well.
And whilst obviously there will be impact to existing
residents in terms of their daylight levels.
We think in the round that this is acceptable given the other benefits of the scheme.
Questions?
I'll, do you have a question?
Yeah.
Thank you chair, thank you officer for your nice presentation.
One of the objections is the proposed development is out of scale and out of character with
the surrounding low rise development and this proposed is just outside the TPG is called
low building zone. How do you justify this?
Yeah, I mean it is clear. So when you look at the, I guess you can see from the images
on the site. This building is in kind of a transitional zone between low rise properties
such as those on Alpha Grove and when you move towards the west the context is generally
a lot lower but then when you move immediately to the east and also to the north you have
this higher context and as existing yes the scale is low and this is going from low scale
to high scale and as you mentioned it's outside of a tall building zone. But we're broadly
Generally speaking, we're comfortable with the proposed heights given that they align
with the buildings that are adjacent to the site, to the east, and also the way that the
scale has been distributed across the site.
So you can see the school building, which is in the image on the screen closest to us,
that's relatively low rise and accords with that lower, I guess the lower existing built
form to the east of the site, and then, sorry, to the west of the site, and then we get additional
height as we move across the site towards the east.
Obviously it's always a balance with these kind of things.
If we're going to be delivering the level of housing and affordable housing that this
proposal delivers and the significant benefits that accrue from that housing and affordable
housing, we do have to obviously develop at some scale.
To the specific point about the tall building policy, when the building is outside of a
tall building zone we have these exception criteria that it must meet. There's four,
and it does meet two of those in that it's in an accessible area and that it is contributing
to strategic infrastructure, notably the school. So that's a significant, I guess, piece of
a weight in favour of the application.
The other two points about is it in,
should it respect the stepping down
of the tall building zone, it doesn't necessarily do that,
but if you are looking at the scheme in a wider context
when you take into account the Canary Wharf cluster
to the north, it is effectively stepping down.
And then the other one is about it being
in a metropolitan area, it isn't in a metropolitan area,
or sorry, a metropolitan town centre or district centre,
it isn't in those, but we feel that on balance,
given all the other considerations, this is acceptable.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your nice presentations.
Chair, most of my questions are related to the developer,
instead of the officer, but I still have to ask the officer's questions,
that is there any way in this development, as a council officer,
you think that you are not sure about it,
but the developer is explaining and they're providing.
Is there anything that you are not sure about
or you are a bit worried about it?
I mean, I think the presentation and the report
sets out the officer position.
I guess, I mean, more broadly,
talking about the application process,
this has been through extensive pre -application discussions
and there will have been, as Sally alluded to,
there would have been like testing exercises
through that pre -application.
So for example, there's a policy position
about loss of industrial floor space
and should we be re -providing that
and I guess at the start of the pre -application process,
that would have been one of our concerns.
But they went through an exercise
where they demonstrated that actually
if you retain the industrial,
there will be impacts on other, I guess,
requirements of the site allocation
in terms of the delivery of housing
and delivery of green space in a park.
So I guess through an iterative process
with the applicant where we've had queries, they've worked to address them through the
pre -application response, but more broadly where we are with the application now, and
as you can see from the report and the presentation, we're recommending approval, on balance we
think the proposals are acceptable, and where there are issues, so say for example the daylight,
we think these are offset by the benefits of the proposal.
I
Do that 27 storeys building will provide the affordable homes. I want to know is this
this development the
Affordable home is that they will able to best answer me this one or the developer. I don't know but question is the
153 homes would be provided
affordable home and that will be 27 storeys building.
Who will look after the building?
Who will run the building?
Who will kind of look after building?
Or is separate then co -living buildings?
This will be two set of what you call it?
Two set of block.
Two block and two different organisation
will run this development because we can see
that of the new development, once they develop,
The affordable one they hand over to the one organisation and that other one they kept themselves
So what happened is that when as a counsellor we go to meet the resident?
We can see they're facing a lot of issues regarding that who is know who is responsible for
Some thing in the affordable home and was not responsible for something in the
Core living sites sort of private development. So I would like to know who will run this
both development and who will own it, or is a separate organisation around this organisation?
Thank you, Councillor. You're correct to say, yes, so in terms of the two separate blocks,
they will be essentially managed by two different organisations.
The applicant, or part of the applicant essentially, will be responsible for the co -living block,
but in terms of the affordable housing block, the details of that and who will run that are to be confirmed,
and that's quite common at the application stage,
that for example the registered provider or the other body
that would run the affordable block isn't yet confirmed.
Nevertheless, as we see with other schemes like this,
basically what we want to do is link the two buildings together
in terms of their delivery.
So for example we don't want to have all of the co -living block
sort of occupied prior to a registered provider being identified
and the start of the occupation of the affordable housing block.
I understand that the applicant has been engaging
with relevant registered providers
and those registered providers that we see more commonly in the borough,
but at this stage it's not clear who that will be.
Nevertheless, it obviously will be a registered provider
because they are the people that have to manage and operate social housing in this...
So in a way it will be like...
It will be a different organisation
around the
affordable homes
and they are not sure
who will take
their responsibility.
What happens
when we
visit those
affordable homes
we can see
the lift is not
working
and when they
contact
their provider
and say we are
not responsible
for the lift,
the developer
is responsible
for the lift
and they are
not sure
who is responsible.
So many things
on those developments
happened with the affordable home that even residents don't know who is responsible, even
who run this affordable home, they don't know who is responsible.
That is like putting residents really in stress.
Thank you chair, thank you councillor, I think that's a really well made point and I think
We do recognise that that sometimes can be a problem for residents.
I wouldn't say that the planning decision has all the answers, but I was just in thinking
about the issues that you've raised.
So one of the conditions that's recommended in the report, that's condition number 58,
is a management plan for the affordable housing amenities spaces internal and external.
My recommendation is if you are minded to to grant planning commission that we actually
expand the scope of that condition and we have we have
And we phrase it along the lines of an estate wide management plan. So it's really clear who's responsible
Not just for the external space, but who's responsible for the different blocks and that can be built in
It's correct to say that the moment we don't know who the the Housing Association
That's quite common with planning decisions.
Obviously it depends on how those homes come forward and who's available to take up those
106, section 106 homes.
But I think if we had an estate wide management plan, I think that would give some additional
sort of certainty around how the whole estate, if you like, so all the public realm and the
two blocks are going to be managed and who's responsible for each component.
So that might give some comfort to members.
I just want to know a bit about the community centre now.
If you could tell me a bit about the community centre and if there's any formal way where
Tower Hamlet can maybe secure the community centre on this application?
So the community centre as set out in the application, like the detail of it, isn't
fully confirmed yet.
Obviously this issue with respect to who's going to run the community centre has come
up at previous committees and mindful of that we've had some discussions with the applicant
and they have said that should the council wish to have the first right of refusal for
the community centre they'd be willing to enter into that agreement.
So do we need to formally do that or what's the possible way?
It's not in the recommendation or in the report, but we can...
But, Jeff, I may.
It's something that we would pick up when dealing with the community space and the like
in the Section 106 agreement.
Broadly speaking, as a bit of background, member, so you're aware, because we do get
community centre questions frequently, we are working now more towards a cascade type
scenario.
So if you've got a developer that's been working with specific providers and they're so well
we move to the next stage of the process. But I think Simon's indicating the developer
on this when he's prepared to work with us and that we'll build that in to the agreement
of the community centre. First right of view to the council, if we don't exercise that
right within a certain amount of time, then they can move on to the next stage which might
be looking at other providers or renting it out in other ways as a community space. So
and we will pick that up.
I have one question.
Yes, here you say that there will be a disabled person
parking provided on site.
Are you able to tell me how many disabled persons parking
will be provided on site?
Please.
Yeah, I would just bring that slide up again.
You can't see it very clearly but on the left hand side there you can see that the green spaces that immediately adjoin the affordable housing block
are for the residents of that block. So the provision in terms of number of parking spaces
meets with policy requirements in terms of the 3 % provision from the off.
And there's also another additional parking space next door to it and two spaces for the school as well.
And that may be for, well probably for teachers or for students who have particular needs
to park adjacent to the school.
My question is for the residents who are going to live in their affordable home and some
of them are disabled, they need a disabled parking bay or space for themselves.
I want to know about them, how many of them will be provided to them, please.
There's a question, will there be any disability parking for the residents for the 42 %?
There's five parking spaces total for affordable housing.
For blue badge parking.
For disabled persons parking.
So it's five for the affordable homesite, not including the school teachers and the
school students who are disabled.
Correct.
There's additional parking spaces for those other uses.
The five parking spaces for the affordable housing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to know, will there be any pick up or drop off point for people to bring their
shopping scene, pick up disabled people, drop off disabled people with limited mobility,
will have any pickup point. So some families, particularly in the Asian
family, they have big bulk of shopping when they should do shops. So if they don't
have any pickup points they have to go four or five times up and down to take
their shopping. So are there any specific or specified drop -off pickup points?
Thank you.
Yeah, so there's been quite a few iterations of the site and how the site works in terms
of servicing requirements.
There's a number of uses on the site and we have to accommodate for them all, including
traffic for the school and then drop off and pick up of deliveries for the co -living residents
and then also for the affordable housing residents as well.
The co -living block has a designated servicing bay that directly links into the building
so any deliveries by vehicle could happen there. There is an ad hoc servicing bay that's
adjoining the entrance to the site and also adjoining the entrance to the affordable housing
block which is here. The entrance and roadway itself is pretty generous in terms of its
width and it has turning points here and here. So I think the answer is yes and there's
opportunities for drop off and pick up just outside of the co -living block here as well.
So that has all been accounted for and assessed by our transport team and also TfL who are
comfortable with the proposal.
Do you know when the phases of the buildings will be built? Do you know if the school will
be built first or at the end? Do you know anything about it?
It's a good question and the answer is no. We don't know the delivery programme. There's
three scenarios that were presented in the environmental statement that was submitted
with the application and the intention is that obviously the demolition of the buildings
will come first and that will be the site wide demolition of the building.
And then there are two phases identified after that, one of which is the two residential
buildings, which is designated as a phase 2, and then 3 is designated, the school is
designated as phase 3. Depending on when, so the school is being developed by a third
party, by the Department of Education, they will have to submit a reserve matters application
for the school before they can start works. So there are kind of three scenarios, one
where it all happens concurrently, the school and the two residential buildings built together
and completed together. It may be the case where the residential element of the scheme
is completed before the school, if the school are not ready, or it could be that the school
is completed first. So there is a phasing condition for a phasing plan and delivery
programme to be submitted prior to the commencement of works and we will want to ensure that of
commence on site as soon as they are able to do so.
But also not to preclude the delivery of the other elements of the site.
Thank you.
If I could just add as well, just as I mentioned earlier,
Sally, do you want to switch?
We'll obviously be linking the delivery of the affordable block to the delivery of the
co -living block as well, because we wouldn't want to see a scenario where the co -living
block comes forward and the affordable block doesn't.
So that will be linked in the legal agreement.
Any more questions?
Last question.
Question for the officers.
Are you happy with the waste management plan?
Did you have a good cheque on this?
Because with the high rise building we always have problems.
With the waste management complaint, missing collection.
and they have said there will be an internal additional private waste collection service
per week, would there be any additional cost to the residents? Thank you.
Yeah that's a good question and it was a matter that was the point of some discussion during
pre applications, this is a constrained site and we have a building with 800 units within
it. There simply isn't the capacity to provide that number of bins that would be needed for
for weekly only deliveries.
So notwithstanding that our waste colleague quite rightly says that it's obviously the
Council's requirement to collect bins, we've consulted with the legal team who advised
that we would be carrying out our statutory duty to continue to collect bins for the co -living
occupiers on a weekly basis and then the additional private collection is something that will
be organised by the management of that block and subject to a management plan that will
scrutinised by ourselves so we are comfortable with it we're comfortable
that it would work the residue see -through residential element of the
scheme works as any other residential scheme does I'll just pick up on a
weekly basis by the council whether there'll be a charge to the occupiers of
the co living block I don't know the answer to that that might be a question
for the developer.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Paul, do you want to come in a bit more?
Thank you, chair.
And again, excuse me, council, thank you for your question on that.
Just reading through that section of the report again, it appears that the additional base
collection to supplement what the council normally does is for the co -living elements
of the private elements, if you like, rather than for the affordable housing element.
That's my reading of 7 .285.
But I'm just checking with colleagues that I've understood it correctly as well.
So those in the affordable housing block would just benefit from the usual council collections.
Thank you.
Councillor online, you've got your hands up.
Thank you, chair.
I wanted to ask if I didn't get it earlier.
if this development is in line with the local plans?
Yes, we are recommending approval
because we have assessed the application and deemed it
in compliance with the development plan as a whole,
so that's in compliance with the London plan
and also our local plan and also the Isle of Dogs neighbourhood plan. There's always
a balance and there's always some conflicts with some policies for development of this
scale but we are required to take a balanced view on compliance with the development plan
as a whole and the significant benefits certainly outweigh the limited conflicts with policy.
Thank you.
Any more questions?
Would members like to share their thoughts or debate the application?
Thank you, Chair.
I think the balance, the benefit of having 42 % affordable spaces or accommodation will
help the challenges or the pressure or the concern raised by the objectors.
So on the balance I think that will bring a benefit to the council offering 40 % affordable
living space for the people of Barak.
It is our waiting list and provide decent home for the people I've been waiting for.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to echo with Councillor Iqbal, the provision of homes will help to reduce housing
crisis and also the useful benefit of the resident as well.
But on the other hand, I want to add the responsibility for the management and day -to -day operation
of the community hub or community space. It should be on the council's head.
Thank you. I did ask quite a few questions, although the colleagues have asked. I echo
my colleagues that it is very essential that we have an affordable home because we are
overcrowded, a lot of people big size, family size, 80 accommodations and we need more of
them. So look into the balance of that. I know every development has some issues but
also the council has issues. The council issue is that the council needs home, they need
I will request a developer to start with the affordable home building first, finish it
up and give this affordable home to those people who are really waiting in homeless,
waiting in overcrowded conditions and their health is suffering. I will request them and
urge them to start this building first and finish them and provide the essential affordable
affordable home for our residents.
Providing that, we also like to,
that resident community hubs,
which are community centre, whatever it is,
should give you the responsibility of the
Government Council to run,
given the responsibility for,
to come to the Council,
so they can run the community centre
if you will,
the needs of the residents will live by.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councillors.
Having listened carefully to concerns raised practically around the height and daylight
impacts, I do recognise that there are harms identified in the report.
However, this site sits within opportunity areas identified for growth and regeneration.
The proposal delivers 42 % affordable housing, including a strong proportion of low cost
rented family homes, a new SEN school, significant public open space and a dedicated community
centre, I'm hoping.
On balance I consider the public benefits, especially the affordable housing, schools,
provisions and the community facilities.
To outweigh the identified harms for those reasons I will be supporting the officer's
recommendation as well.
Thank you.
Would other Councillors online like to share your thoughts before we move on to the vote?
No, it's well, actually, in principle, I agree with the 42%, which I think is great, but
concern was with the community hub as there's a number of community hubs nearby like Phoenix
Heights, Alpha -Growth Community Centre and not being used to the maximum potential so
that was one of my concerns. But other than that I think it's good that they're giving
42 % affordable homes.
I would now like to ask Paul and Ian, principal lawyer, planning, legal service, governance,
to share final advice before we move on to votes.
Thank you very much, chair, thank you, councillors, for scrutinising the report and the application.
Just a few things just to sum up.
I think it's just worth noting that this combination of land uses, we have seen a few schemes a
bit like this coming forward where co -living which is a particular form of
sort of shared living privately you can actually beneficially subsidise the
amount of affordable conventional affordable homes that could come forward
on the site so I think this is an interesting approach that the applicant
has taken obviously you've recognised that that in itself yields some quite
significant benefits I think the we recognise that the site is outside of us
buildings there but it is directly adjacent to one and I think hopefully you've appreciated
that the character and the scale of the area is changing quite rapidly and I think the
design of the scheme is doing its best to respond to that with that transition in scale
from the tall building to the northeast and the slightly lower one and then the lower
school building to the west adjacent to Alpha Grove.
Just in terms of some of the points that members have picked up on, so in terms of the community
Senator Ian's already commented that there's a there's a cascade mechanism now that we can use in section 106 reports to give the council
First refusal if it turns out the council doesn't want that then it can go it can go to to another community group
But at least we would get the opportunity to to have that first refusal if it comes forward
And then also just to pick up on again members points around
sort of management of the
Estates if you like as a whole and again, we can expand the wording of that condition to cover that
Thank you very much now moving to the vote can I see all those in favour of the application
Paul can you please confirm the committee decision?
Thank you, Chair.
So in terms of those members that are able to vote on this item, we have unanimous votes
in favour of granting Planning Commission for the redevelopment of Mass Maker Court
as set out in Item 5 .1 of the agenda and the update report.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Agenda item 5 .2 is planning application for development on 35A commercial road London
E1 1LB.
The report is on pages 115 to 202 of the agenda.
I invite Paul to introduce the application.
// Thank you very much, chair.
So as the chair has mentioned, this is an application affecting land at 35A commercial
road in Old Gate.
And the application proposes the demolition of the existing building and the erection
of a new residential building of 19 storeys with a community flexible commercial floor
space at the ground floor and associated access, cycle parking and landscaping.
The recommendation to your committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject
to conditions and planning obligations.
There isn't an update report for this one, Chair, but I understand that we do have an
object to register to speak and also the applicant to register to speak.
Thank you.
I will now invite Ronan Murray, planning case officer to present the application.
Just loading the presentation up.
While we are waiting, do the applicant want to come here and the objector, would you like
to come and sit here?
There's another one.
We are quarant, and the two members are familiar with just how you did during the previous
application.
Thank you.
Over to you, officer.
Thank you.
Good evening, members.
This presentation covers an application that is not a public hearing, but is a public hearing.
for the full Planning Commission and the description of development is as shown on this slide.
So the application site is 35A Commercial Road, highlighted in red on this slide.
It's on the north side of Commercial Road at the junction with Adler Street.
There's an existing building on site which is five storeys in height and it contains
34 one bed or studio apartments.
The surrounding area has a mixture of uses, residential, student accommodation, hotels,
educational, religious and commercial.
So that location is outlined in red here.
And there's a fairly extensive planning history on this site with the principle of development
or redevelopment being tested through planning applications and appeals.
And in particular it's been established that the demolition of the existing building on
on site and an increased built mass would be acceptable subject to residential uses
being re -provided.
This is just an aerial photo of the site to give you an idea of the context of it, the
typical size of buildings, street layout, such details.
These are just some photos of the existing building on site.
It's what's called a model dwelling or industrial housing type building.
So it's got a few notable heritage features, most notably these quite nice black iron railings
that form the main balcony and deck entrance in the middle of the building.
So I'll point them out there.
But apart from that, not too much of architectural value about the building.
These are just some of the neighbouring buildings that we'll come on to later.
Neighbouring residential buildings.
This here is Cornell building which is to the north of the site, about 20, maybe 200
metres away.
And this is the Dryden building which neighbours the site to the east.
On the other side of Commercial Road here we have student accommodation and residential
buildings.
This visualisation here just gives you an idea of the local townscape.
As you can see here, this is where the site is.
You can see all the tall buildings next to it, sort of step up, and you've got the Aldgate
tall building zone, about 100 metres away from the site.
So as I mentioned, the existing building on site, it's from 1875, it's known as the Morrison
buildings north, an example of a modern dwelling, and it's considered by the council to be a
non -designated heritage asset.
The site is also within designated strategic views of the Tower of London, a World Heritage
site.
I've got that there in yellow, you can see the proximity.
And it's also in the vicinity of a number of Grade II listed buildings.
And these are just some photos of the local Grade II listed buildings.
here on the left this is St. Boniface Roman Catholic Church, Grade 2 listed. Up here,
Gunmakers Proofing House, about 100 metres from the site on Commercial Road, Grade 2
listed. And neighbouring the building, the John Walker & Sons Warehouse Building, Grade
2 listed. So the proposal is for the demolition of the existing building on site and the construction
of a new 19 -storey building that will be about 78 metres in height.
And it's large -scale residential development with 70 new homes, of which 13 are affordable.
Market units, they contain a mix of studio, one -bed and two -bed apartments, and the affordable
contain, that's all family -sized units, it's three -bed and four -bed units.
So just looking at the image here for the breakdown of the building, on the ground floor
You've got entrances and a community facility.
On the first floor, you've got communal amenity space
and child play space.
In the middle of the building here,
we've got the affordable family sized units.
Upper floors, market units, rooftop, we've got plants,
and a bit more communal amenity space.
Some more about the proposal here.
We've got a visualisation of the proposed building.
It covers the full plot width and it's got an emphasis on high quality architecture and
good materials that respond to the local heritage context.
Just another visualisation there of the eastern facade of the building.
And here the ground floor of the building, which is at a double height frontage onto
Adler Street and Commercial Road.
So for public consultation, I've just got the key dates on the left there.
Number of letters sent out, sign notes displayed, advert in the local press.
And this was undertaken in line with the council statement of community involvement.
There were five letters of objection.
All raised the issue of loss of amenity to the neighbouring Dryden building which I pointed
out earlier.
The east of the site.
And that's going to be addressed later in this report.
Also, the issue of a tall building being inappropriate for the location was raised in objection.
So the material planning issues considered are outlined on this slide here.
Firstly we come to land use.
The proposed land uses are fully compliant with the development plan, local plan policy
is completely acceptable and supported.
As I said, we're going from 34 units to 70 units on site.
That's a big uplift in housing.
It's considered a significant public benefit, considering that the site is quite constrained.
And especially because it's 35 % by habitable room, affordable housing.
That's all social rented, all family sized units.
That's addressing an acute need in the borough.
Given the site's constraints, it's considered that the amount of housing and the amount
of development, the size of the building is the maximum possible that can be achieved
here.
A bit more information on the housing breakdown.
As I said, 70 units in total.
35 % affordable by habitable room.
That meets the local plan policy.
And a large number of wheelchair accessible homes, 23 in total, whereas policy would only
require 10%, which would be 7.
So significant provision of wheelchair homes.
In terms of the quality of the units, the majority of the units are dual aspects.
So 60 of the 70 units.
There'd be ten market studio flats in the east that I'm pointing to here that would
be single aspect only.
The residential units are large.
They meet the London plan standards and they comfortably exceed them.
And they meet additional London plan guidance which gives best practise for room layouts.
And in addition to them being large units, generously sized units, they've got ample
internal storage and good provision of private outdoor amenity space.
And in determining and assessing the application, officers consider that these larger units
with the benefits they entail are necessary because of a lack of outdoor amenity space
and play space being delivered on site.
And in addition to that, they addressed an issue
of some units not meeting daylight standards,
but this failure to meet daylight standards in some units
is partially a result of the site's context,
partially a result of design features of the building
to preserve the privacy of residents and neighbours
and to maximise passive cooling.
So some child play space is being provided on site 123 metres 97 of that's indoors 26
outdoors.
You can see that in the image here on the left.
The outdoor space being provided on balconies at first floor level.
Now officers have questioned the quality of this both in terms of it mostly being internal
and the external being on balconies next to the commercial road which is noisy and potentially
polluted.
so through conversations internally with our parks department and conversations of the applicant they the applicant has agreed to a
substantial contribution of
80 ,000 pounds towards improvements to rowport gardens
So that slide that image on the right there that's rowport gardens within about 500 metres six minute walk of the sites
And that figure that we've arrived at 80 ,000 comes from conversation to the parks team
That would largely fully cost identified improvements to rowport gardens
Just a couple of pictures of Roquefort Gardens there to give some context.
Things that would be delivered would be an improvement in gym equipment, landscaping,
environmental improvements, fencing and lighting and other improvements for this.
You can't quite see it actually, not the best photo, but there is a sports pitch there I
promise.
Moving on to the design of the building.
It's a tall building outside the tall building zone.
100 metres outside the Old Gate tall building zone, highlighted in blue here.
So it's not far from it.
And in the tall building zone here, some of the tallest buildings are in excess of 80
metres.
The proposed building would be about 78 metres in height.
Also you can see highlighted in blue and purple here, other buildings that would be considered
tall buildings outside the tall building zone.
Application site highlighted in red.
This slide shows the proposed building, a visualisation in its local townscape context.
Proposed building here.
So as you can see, it matches up to the heights and small in the tall building zone here,
but it is markedly taller than the building to its west and it is a bit of a step up from
the building on its right, so it is considered to disrupt the townscape to some degree.
As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, the existing building on site is nearly 200
years old and it does have historic value, so it's considered a non -designated heritage
asset and its loss is assessed as less than substantial harm.
I also highlighted neighbouring heritage assets.
John Walker, Grade 2 listed warehouse building here, it's considered that the proposed building
would have a negative impact on its setting and this is also classed as less than substantial
harm.
And as previously mentioned, townscape is slightly disrupted, particularly in this view
here from the west on Commercial Road.
As mentioned again earlier, the site is within a protected view of the Tower of London World
Heritage site.
You can see it there, sort of visualisation.
So a townscape assessment was made by the applicant and in consultation with Historic
England and Historic Royal Palaces, it's been established that the building wouldn't appear
in views of the World Heritage site and therefore no harm would be caused.
Back to the architecture and design of the building.
It's got that double height ground floor frontage, which you can see here, which provides activation
to the public realm, natural surveillance, and we consider that enhancement of the public
realm.
The building's got a clear middle section with a regular coherent articulation of punched
windows and balconies, which we consider a good quality of design, making a legible building
of a high quality appearance.
And finally, at the roof level, you've got just what we call a crown, some setbacks like
recessed element where plant and amenity space would be.
A couple of the details on the design.
It's going to be handset brick, London stock bricks with buff tones which tie in with the
heritage and materiality of the area, which is a nice touch.
And then dark bronze coloured aluminium framing behind it to give a bit of tonal variance
and make the building a bit exciting.
And a noteworthy feature of the building is, I mentioned earlier the existing building
has this black metallic railing.
That's being incorporated and reused in the new building to preserve some of the heritage
already on site, which is a good feature.
Coming on to amenity, as mentioned, there are residential buildings in the vicinity
of the site.
I'm just going to point them out here.
Cornell building to the north, Dryden building immediately neighbouring it, some student accommodation
to the northwest and residential buildings on commercial road.
Image on the right shows a visualisation of the proposed building.
So as you can see, it is a fairly large increase in mass on the site from a mid -rise building
to a tall building.
In terms of impacts on overlooking or loss of privacy, that would mainly be to the Dryden
building to the right here.
It's a separation distance of about 10, 11 metres, which is not uncommon for an urban
context.
For instance, this street to the north of the Dryden building, that's got the same separation
distance.
This street on the right side, that's six metres, so even less.
So it's considered that impacts on privacy and overlooking would be acceptable.
This has been established through previous appeals, noting that this is a normal kind
of distance for inner urban development.
In addition to that, the scheme has been designed with features to protect the privacy of that
neighbouring building, namely on the east elevation here, a lot of the windows are set
back behind balconies or any windows at the building's facade are somewhat recessed.
So that further offsets overlooking and loss of privacy at that neighbouring building.
Officers are satisfied with this approach.
The most harmful impacts of the building on amenity would be to the Dryden building to
the east, with 58 windows seeing major adverse impacts on levels of daylight received.
And all of those windows are on the western side of the Dryden building immediately facing
the application sites.
Minor levels of harm are caused to the Cornell building and buildings on Commercial Road,
but not beyond what would be expected for development in an urban context.
So in summary, the scheme will reduce amenity for some neighbouring properties, with the
Dryden building experiencing the most noticeable daylight impacts.
These impacts arise from the narrow street pattern and the close relationship between
the two buildings.
While some harm will occur, officers judge it's not so significant as to outweigh the
benefits of the scheme and warrant a reason for refusal.
The application has been reviewed by the Council's highways team and Transport for London who
are satisfied that there will be no adverse impacts on the transport network and is therefore
fully compliant with local plan and London plan policies.
A noteworthy feature is the applicants agreed to provide free access to TFL cycle hire for
residents of the building.
This slide just shows the ground floor arrangement for waste storage.
That's been agreed upon by waste officers.
And mezzanine cycle storage contains a range of cycle storage, larger spaces for accessible
cargo cycles and space for two mobility scooters as well.
And then final issue, sustainability and environment.
It's been reviewed by the Council's sustainability team and it fully complies with Development
Plan policies.
Following obligations would be secured.
These are mostly standard obligations with the exception of this 80 ,000 which is above
and beyond what standard obligations would be required.
So that's been delivered by the applicant, agreed to by the applicant to offset maybe
the lack of child play space on site and provide some biodiversity improvements in the borough.
Nonfinancial obligations are set out here.
Affordable housing, accessible housing would be secured as stated.
And just in regard, second point here, just in regard to the community facility on the
ground floor, we've already been in discussions with the applicant.
We started drafting a legal agreement and they've agreed to a mechanism where the council
would get first right of refusal, an extended period of time to decide if they want to take
that community facility on.
The council don't want to do that.
They can then flip it to commercial space, which we consider would be beneficial because
that way it would still be occupied and provide activation to the streets.
And finally, this is the amount of steel that would be secured by the scheme.
So in determining the application, we have to balance the nonconformity with development
plan policies against the public benefits.
Nonconformity is a tall building outside a tall building zone, which causes harm to the
townscape.
There's less than substantial harm to heritage assets.
There's loss of daylight in neighbouring properties and a lack of adequate child play space on
site.
But the public benefits include 70 new homes and uplift from 34 on site and the 70 new
homes are in a mix of 10 years, one bed, two bed, three bed, four bed.
13 family sized social rent affordable homes.
That financial contribution towards the improvements of a local park and the activation of the
public realm through the design of the ground floor of the scheme.
In balancing these and making their assessment, officers have recommended that planning commission
should be granted, subject to direction from the mayor of London, the imposition of planning
conditions and planning obligations and the completion of a legal agreement.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ronan, for your presentation.
I now invite Eloise MacDogge to address the committee in objection to the application.
You have up to three minutes.
Thank you.
Good evening, Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this evening.
My husband and I own and live in a flat in the Dryden building, which for context is
eight storeys high, immediately facing the site of the proposed development.
I'd like to start by saying clearly, we are not against development.
We support new housing and growth for the Tower Hamlets community.
Our concern here is the height of the building.
19 storeys in this location is simply too much.
Firstly, the impact on the area.
This part of Commercial Road is mostly mid -rise, 6 to 10 storeys.
The site sits outside the Old Gate Hall building zone, as highlighted earlier,
and this part of Commercial Road is meant to be a point of transition in height.
A 19 -storey tower does the opposite. It dramatically increases scale at a point where it should reduce.
While there are taller buildings further west and across the road, the side of the street is noticeably lower.
That gives the street a human scale, a place where people live, walk and visit local shops comfortably.
A 19 -storey wall here would feel out of place and overwhelming, changing the character of the street for everyone who uses it.
A moderate height building, on the other hand, could fit in without creating that harm.
Secondly, the impact on our home and our lives and what this means on a human level.
Our flat has four windows facing this site.
They are the only windows in our home.
We both work from home full -time and as a result are rarely out of the flat.
So natural light is essential for our well -being.
We bought this flat because of its light. It felt like the right place to start our life together and to build a family.
The developers own report shows our windows would retain as little as 5 to 9 % of recommended sky visibility against a recommended guideline of 27 %
Sorry, yeah, 5 -9 % recommended sky visibility against a recommended guideline of 27%.
And some rooms would receive no wind to sunlight at all.
With tall buildings already to the north and south, this new tower would effectively act as a wall directly outside our windows, blocking our outlook and any view of the sky.
Even at just 8 storeys high, we would lose daylight completely.
19 storeys would overwhelm our home, affect our daily lives, our wellbeing and future plans to raise a child here.
It would also significantly reduce the value of the home we bought with our entire life savings.
We have taken legal advice and have been told we have a recognised right to light.
We sincerely hope we never have to have recourse to this to defend our home and would much rather see a sensible decision made here,
One that reduces the height and prevents that harm in the first place. We are simply asking for balance
Development is more than welcome, but it should respect those who already live here protect the natural light well -being and the home that we love
Thank you very much for listening. Thank you
And now invite Noel Emmett
Farmer to address the committee in support of the application you have up to three minutes as well
Good evening, Chair, members of the committee. I'm Noel Farmer, Head of the UK for the applicant
Gamuda Land. I've been working on this application since its inception. I'd like to start by
commending Tower Hamlets and our design team. The proposals are the result of extensive
and collaborative work between all parties, including planning, design and housing officers,
and we've worked hard for two years to put forward a scheme which will deliver considerable
benefits to Tower Hamlets and the local community.
We have six projects in the UK, five of these have signed construction contracts.
This is a testament to our commitment to delivery.
When we own a site, we develop and deliver it regardless of the circumstances.
Outside of the UK, we have completed 57 ,000 homes.
It's in our DNA to meet housing needs.
I won't go through the background, you have the report which lays out all the facts of
application and resolutely recommends approval. I want to focus on five key points relevant
to your consideration for the proposal. Firstly, the proposals will deliver high quality, new
homes to meet the needs of Tower Hamlets residents. 35 % of the homes will be provided as social
rented housing and all of these homes will be family sized. We have pursued the delivery
of housing the borough needs the most, homes which give families the ability to flourish,
improving health and education prospects.
Secondly, the building will provide a new community facility at the ground floor
which will be made available to the council who have the option to take on the management and operation of this space.
This space will provide a new community facility for Aldgate, an area currently lacking in this space.
We know this will provide social value and improve civic society in the local area.
Third, the team has worked closely with officers and consultees over the last 18 months to
shape a development which is right for this site.
We've listened to feedback and refined the proposal to improve the scheme's housing type
and mix, height and design, transport and ground floor use.
Fourth, the scheme is designed by an award -winning architect and is of excellent design quality.
Externally, it will make a positive contribution to the townscape.
Internally, the homes are well designed, frequently exceeding space standards, and is served by
private outdoor space and communal amenity spaces.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate our track record of delivery.
As you'll be aware, the delivery of housing schemes in London is incredibly challenging
in the current market.
This scheme balances requirements for new homes, but also being deliverable and achievable.
To conclude, the scheme delivers a range of important benefits for Tower Hamlets, including
35 % affordable housing and all affordable homes being family sized social rented dwellings.
Along with the new community space, this building is designed to provide the highest environmental
performance and a financial contribution towards improvements to Robewalk Gardens.
We respectfully urge members to support the officer's clear recommendation and resolve
to grant permission this evening.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr Chamichael.
Do members have any questions for officers, object and applicants?
I'll go for the first question to an officer.
Can you please confirm that the scheme fully complies with local plan and London plan policies?
So, I'll put the planning balance slide there.
I say there are some aspects of local plan policies it doesn't fully comply with.
But we consider the development plan in the whole.
And the aspects that it does comply with, which is the majority of the policies relevant
to it, means that it does comply with the development plan in the whole.
That's all.
Thank you.
Chancellor.
Yes, objective have said that they don't have any issues
with development, but what they have,
they lose their sunlight.
What the developer have addressed about her sunlight,
what they do that to improve her sunlight.
We've taken, we've addressed in terms of the sunlight, we've completed daylight -sunlight studies
and because we're in a high density urban location with narrow distances between buildings
the challenge is always providing something of scale that's viable to deliver
that is feasible to bring forward and build that provides the right amount of affordable housing
that meets the needs of the borough and that's a conflict we've had to manage and unfortunately
there are some injuries within that but the overall benefit of providing the affordable
homes far outweigh the injuries. So whilst it's taken into consideration and we've brought
down the height considerably from the first pre -app meetings we had from in excess of
30 storeys right down to where we are today at 18, it's been a work in progress that's
led us to today.
Thank you, Michael.
Thank you, chair.
The question may be to the applicant.
How have you mitigated the imminent pressure on the local amenities due to these proposed
massive height of the development?
Sorry, sorry, constraint.
500 square metre area.
Would you like to introduce yourself?
No, I'm sorry.
It's a 500 square metre area site.
Would you like to introduce yourself?
I do apologise, yeah.
My name is Mark Kelly.
I'm an architect at PLP Architecture.
So the site is very constrained
and it's only 500 square metres in its overall area,
which means that in order to actually
sort of incorporate a mix of uses that we need to achieve
and all of the requirements that we need to achieve
both from a commercial point of view
in respect of the actual offer of market and affordable social rented housing and the necessary
amenities, there is a sort of a balance to be created in respect to those amenities.
And therefore with the height, the height enables us to actually dedicate a space at
ground floor level as a community space. There is a play space at first floor level as well,
And there's an internal community
Sorry an internal amenity space at that first floor level two for the occupants of the building
At the roof. There's a further amenity space for the market residents
Thank you
I've got a question for the officers
How satisfied
What are you that the impact on the neighbouring residents is acceptable in planning terms?
In the report and in the presentation we acknowledge that the daylight impact is adverse, major
adverse.
But it's not uncommon for this context.
And if you look into detail at the daylight and sunlight report, the kind of figures that
would be experienced in that western elevation.
Bear with me.
I'll get a slide that helps a little bit.
So for instance, this is, on the left here, you've got the, that's the western elevation.
In blue, that's daylight levels that fall below, is it 13 %?
13 % VSC. On the right here, you've got the existing western elevation.
You can see a lot of the windows there are already blue. So that's an existing situation
for the area.
And if you look at maybe one of the early slides I showed, just the image, you can kind
of get an idea.
I mentioned as well the separation there on the other sides of the building.
It's a narrow street pattern.
So for development in inner London, it is harmful, but it's considered acceptable and
appropriate, especially when weighed against the benefits, the affordable housing, family
In terms of other impacts, privacy and overlooking, we are satisfied that wouldn't be a problem
through the design features and the separation distance.
I hope that summaries it.
Thank you, chair.
So in line with the guidelines, the properties, those have been, will be significantly impacted
by daylight and sunlight.
Are they entitled to recipient compensation if they do?
And how have you consulted, will you be contacting those resident about that?
Thank you.
I think Paul will comment.
Yeah, thank you, chair, thank you, councillor.
They're two slightly different matters.
So in planning terms we have to consider the effect on the amenity enjoyed by those properties
and what that change would be in terms of daylight, sunlight and other effects separately
to that.
In common law there is what's known as a right to light and I don't know quite where this
site stands in respect to that but if there's any compensation it would be through a right
to like claim rather than through through the planning process I hope I've
explained that satisfaction I'm just defer to me and if you wanted to add to
that to help yes counsellor thank you sorry I apologise I haven't looked at a
right to lie whilst the discussions have been going on so I haven't followed a
lot of what's happened since but the gist of it is that the the idea behind
the right to light is to ensure that owners of existing properties maintain access to
natural illumination.
It's not about guaranteeing things like views or direct sunlight or anything like that or
improvements, it's making sure that you've got access to the natural illumination.
Effectively, what's the minimum level of natural light needed for the ordinary use of the properties?
So think an artist's studio wants lots of light, a photographer's darkroom doesn't need
lots of light so that sort of scenario there so it could vary from property to property.
The right to light issue doesn't prevent development.
This is where the conflicts between planning law and what you as a local authority on local
planning authority, this is where the conflicts between that decision as a planning authority
and private rights that citizens, residents may want to have outside the planning system
conflict. So effectively, yes you can grant planning permission if you look at the local
plan, all the material considerations, benefits and the disadvantages and you come to the
conclusion that development is appropriate in these circumstances. And one of the things
you've heard about the debate is the immunity, the light and the, sorry I forgot your name
but as very eloquently put, how the light will be affected in that property.
So again you balance all that out and then on the flip side you'll balance out the benefits
that the scheme itself offers and you've heard about those from the officer during the presentation
and come to your decision in planning terms.
Yes, there may well be a remedy for right to light but that is something that the resident
We will be taking against the developer directly because of the impacts of the what they are
proposing to do on their land.
You are saying in planning, what you will be saying in planning terms is that this development
is acceptable but as with all planning decisions they have to make sure that everything else
is in place beforehand.
Have they got a licence to build on the property?
Do they need to get particular permission from anyone?
Do they need permission from the Riverside Canal and Riverside Trust to do something
to the water side?
So there's lots of other things that need to be done.
to be put in place before development starts. So yes, that conflict is there, it is recognised,
but it is largely dealt with outside the planning field. Your decisions as local planning authority
may be challenged if it is unreasonable such as a decision that no reasonable planning
authority could reach in the circumstances, but you are doing the balancing exercise against
all the elements of this case.
And if there is a particular right to light issue, that is something that is addressed
in private or outside the planning field.
So I'm afraid, Councillor, the press will not help you very much, but it's a balance
and exercise for you to carry out.
That was very useful to understand.
I have a question for the objector.
I've heard your objection.
How do you weigh your concerns against the benefits this development will bring?
Thank you for your question.
As I mentioned at the very start, we're not opposed to development.
In fact, we strongly encourage it.
The building that currently sits at the site is not in good condition and the area would
definitely benefit from development.
Really, the primary concern here is the height of the building, which to the point that was
made earlier about the fact that it has already been reduced from a 30 -storey down to a 19 -storey
doesn't change the fact that the Dryden building remains an 8 -storey building.
And anything that goes beyond 8 -storeys will, for all of the properties there, obstruct
complete view of the sky.
As a resident there, having purchased the property only just over a year ago now,
we fully expected to be able to make good use and enjoy the property for its light.
If this proposal does go ahead, as mentioned, we will lose all view of the sky
because we have two buildings on either side
and then we will have this building immediately ahead of us creating a wall essentially,
and we will lose all view of the sky and most of our natural light.
So for me the benefits personally do not outweigh the damage that it will cause to us and to our living situation, to our livelihoods.
Thank you.
Councillor Chaudry.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Avisar, for your presentation.
My question to the officers.
The GLA has raised concern regarding the provision of child play space.
In particular, it has highlighted that reliance on small balconies would be inadequate, insufficient
and lack of natural and outdoor element.
How do you justify this?
So just let me move back to a relevant slide.
Okay so starting point in that answer is, as we mentioned a few times, it's a constrained
site and what's being delivered is quite impressive.
It's 70 new homes on a constrained site and 13 of them are family size, social and affordable.
So delivering that on a constrained site on a small plot 500 square metres is going to
present challenges and it's going to be hard to deliver absolutely every single thing within
that building.
But as shown on the slide, some is being delivered, some child play space is being delivered and
the applicant has agreed to a condition, no it's a legal obligation for a management plan
for this play space area and details of the fit out.
So prior to the building being occupied through conversations with planning officers and the
housing team, we'd make sure that at the very least that internal area is fit out to provide
some degree of child play space and would be targeting zero to five ages
because that's what the GLA say should be prioritised zero to five on sites.
Then as we've mentioned yes admittedly these outdoor balconies are of
questionable value for outdoor play space so that's why throughout the
process of pre -app and application we've had discussions with a developer and
they've agreed to I say that an above and beyond financial contribution of 80 ,000
Roadport gardens over here. We've talked with the parks team and they've but they've identified things that can be done
GLA also provide guidance on the sort of walking distance from a building to a local park and the distance from the sites
to robot gardens is considered an acceptable distance for that so
To summarise delivering on a constrained site with all the public benefits of the uplift in housing affordable housing
It's unfortunate that the child play space can't be delivered on site, but there still is some being delivered
We will try to offset that with a local solution in the nearby park.
Thank you.
If I just may just supplement what Ronan said.
This definitely was a concern, it wasn't just a concern of the GLA, it was also a concern
for officers when we were dealing with this, as it was coming forward as an application.
The GLA of housing design standards, supplementary planning document, the sets are more detailed,
if you like, around the details, design, supporting our community policy.
And they have set design space standards for residential units.
They've also published what they call best practise space standards.
It's very unusual.
I don't think I've ever seen a scheme of this scale, a GLA referable scheme, where with
the exception of the studio and the one bedroom units, all the larger two, three, four bedroom
units, they are all meeting these what we describe as the best practise standards.
So they're above, well, they meet those best practise standards but they far exceed those
minimum standards set by the GLA and indeed nationally.
And certainly that was very much informing our judgement in recognition that the play
space is by no means where we would like it.
It's a challenge just because it is a very small site.
If you are to bring forward sort of a meaningful uplift in development on the site, you've
got to have close to full plot coverage.
That presents issues in terms of onsite play space.
The indoor play space is not optimum.
We're very candid about that in the committee report.
And therefore we were, yeah, we were an integral part of the scheme and something left us a
position where we were comfortable supporting the scheme, what was the space standards,
those best practise space standards are met.
And as Ronan said, also there's that generous contribution above sort of what we would normally
for the off -site play provision.
Thank you.
If this application was to go through, question for the applicant, how would you
minimise the disruption for the neighbours around
the development?
So we've
typically we use the best construction businesses in the country.
tier one contractors.
On the site this size, we probably use a tier two contractor,
so we're the best in London at building
residential buildings of this scale.
And they have a accreditation tied to them,
which is tied to their performance
with neighbourhood engagement, minimising dust,
minimising sounds, working, adhering strictly
to sort of noise control hours, two hours on,
two hours off where appropriate in different burrows.
And typically, we measure them as a performance criteria
for us by their adherence to those standards
and making sure that we get positive reports
from the neighbours.
And the other thing we tend to do
is we share a newsletter, have an open door
policy with neighbours in the immediacy of the site
so that if they have any issues or complaints
that we can deal with them as and when
as we go through the project.
First question, I just wanted to know the objective.
Which floor do you live right now?
On the sixth floor.
Sixth floor.
Our question to the developer,
There is a family size affordable home, four bedroom and three bedroom.
And there will be some disabled people living in this building.
So is there any disabled parking providing for them or all one?
And second question is that is there also a pick and drop off point where the people come with the large shopping,
they take it home, drop it home, then park their car somewhere else.
So I would go. Thank you very much.
question thank you say there is a space that will be provided on Adler Street for disabled
parking there's already residents parking on Adler Street itself but one of those spaces
will be designated as a as a disabled space as an accessible space and and there is then
that's closely located to the building so there is a way straight into the building
ground floor level level entrance and then into the lifts so so in respective access
It's as close as it can possibly be. There's no there's no parking on site
This is a very very small development and very narrow area very congested area
I know that but as long as there is people can come with a big shopping and
Drop it at home and they can go from there. There's a place for them then
I will be satisfied.
Sorry, the service bay.
So, refuse will be taken from Adler Street itself as well.
But there's a service bay on Commercial Road.
So, there's already space for a service bay in front of the building on Commercial Road.
There is no time limit. Anytime they can come and...
Yes.
No time limit.
There's no time limit.
Thank you.
Can you tell me a bit about the community space please?
Sure, there's not a huge amount to tell to be honest, but I'll go to a floor plan at
the ground floor.
I hope you can see that okay.
So there it is on the south east corner.
So it's not a huge amount of the floors, I think it's about 80 square metres, it's not
a huge amount.
It's nicer. It's got that double height frontage that was pointing out earlier onto Adler Street there and onto commercial road
It's a nice location and the applicant has already made some efforts to engage with local users and they found they found some appetite
So as we were developing it, obviously we want to deliver that first because if it is useful if there's take up for it
That'd be a good thing
But then in the instance that if it isn't taken up we don't want it to be sitting there empty
Because Adler Street, it's a bit dead. It's a bit unpleasant. So we want something that's got those nice big windows occupied
So if the community use isn't there I
Think we'd agree a reasonable period six months with the council to make their mind up anything
It's commercial and then you have something that's occupied with people going in and out and that provides that
Makes the area feel a bit safer and livelier, especially on other streets
But it's open -ended at first and the council get that first refusal. Thank you. Thank you very much
Any more questions
No
Okay, would members like to share the thoughts or debate on this application? I'll start off online. Would you like to?
So I'm going to share your thoughts Councillors from online.
I'm alright thanks.
Thank you.
Yes sir I have to say a few words about the lady she came here and I know she lives in sixth floor and the building on the building was fifth floor.
So she was one floor higher.
But we have to see the benefit.
Like the affordable home, which we always see people work in boroughs.
And as a councillor, when we go visit people and see people living in so overcrowded, it breaks our hearts.
So we have to do the benefit.
So I think I'm going to support this one.
Thank you. Thank you.
Before moving on to the votes, having been listening to everyone's debate, I do recognise
the concerns raised practically around the height and impact on the neighbouring properties.
However, the proposal delivers 17 new homes, including 13 social rented homes, all of which
are family sized, three and four bedroom units.
That is a very significant benefit for Tohamda, especially given the needs for the larger
affordable family housing.
The scheme also provides ground floor community space, financial contribution towards local
improvements and public enhancement.
While there are identified harms, officers have carefully assisted the application and
concluded that on that balance the public benefit weighs for me more.
That's why I will be supporting this application with the officers as well tonight.
So before moving on to the vote, I would like to ask Ian and Paul if you would like to share
your final thoughts.
the application for listening to the views of the objector and the applicant. I think
as we said in the assessment, there is some balancing to do here. This is not a scheme
that we could say complies with every single policy in the development plan, but it broadly
complies with the development plan taking as a whole.
I just wanted to just draw your attention to the fact
that there is, and it came out in the presentation
and it's in the report, there is some planning history here
and there was a previous scheme for a 10 -storey building
which obviously had lesser impact in terms of amenity.
But the viability testing of that scheme was such
that it presented zero affordable housing.
So there are obviously some challenges with the site
And that's why that application was refused
and then it was later dismissed on appeal.
So that sets that sort of context.
So that's why the applicant has gone away
to look at alternatives.
And that has meant designing a building
that is taller than its surroundings.
But equally working very hard with officers to,
as we've heard, it did actually start off a lot taller
than what you see in front of you today.
But also balancing that with the affordable housing provision, which is 35 % it is all social social answers no intermediate
components of that
Inevitably that does create daylight impacts
And again, I think we've been quite clear about those and you've heard the objective view but it but taking account
This is in the city fringe opportunity areas. It is an area that where you expect a certain degree of density to occur
in order to deliver those
So there are some harms associated with it, but they are not necessarily that unusual
in the immediate surrounding area.
So for that reason, that's why we fall on the side of recommending approval subject
to those conditions and obligations that you see in the report.
Thank you, chair.
// Thank you, Paul.
Okay.
Thank you.
Now moving on to the votes.
Can I see all those in favour of the application?
All those are...
Paul, can you please confirm the committee to see, sir?
// Thank you, chair.
The committee has voted unanimously for those members that are able to vote this evening.
Four in favour.
None against.
In favour of granting planning permission for the redevelopment of 35A commercial road
set out in item 5 .2 of your agenda.
Thank you.
// Thank you very much, everyone.
That concludes the business for this meeting.
The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 1st of April 2026.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you very much.