Development Committee - Thursday 26 March 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Development Committee
Thursday, 26th 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
  1. Webcast Finished

Thank you.
Good evening.
Welcome to the Development Committee meeting.
My name is Councillor Iqbal Hussain and I will be chairing this meeting.
We might adjourn the meeting for five minutes to sort out the technical difficulties we
are currently experiencing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Thank you.
Thank you.
We want tohelle
I apologise for the brief adjournment due to technical difficulties.
We are back in the meeting and ready to proceed.
The meeting is being webcast live on the council website and the public and press may follow
the meeting remotely.
Some of you may have missed my introduction.
Councillor Ajay Bhanu Singh, the chair of this development committee.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like
to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting
procedure.
Participants must address the meeting through myself, with the chair.
If you are participating online
, you must switch your microphone on
and may also switch on your camera
at that point.
You should keep your microphones and cameras
switched off
at all other times.
Please do not use the meeting chart facilities
and information added
to the chart facilities
will be discarded.
If you experience any difficulty
difficulties, any technical difficulties during the
procedure, you must contact either myself or the
democratic service officers as soon as possible.
I will now ask the committee member present to
introduce themselves.
Please, can you also state any declaration of

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

interest that you may have in the agenda items and
the nature of the interest?
I have no interest to declare.
Thank you.
Can I start from my right, please?
Thank you.
Chair, Councillor Mark Francis for Bowe Eastwood, no declarations.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, everyone.
Councillor Amin Rahman, Bethan Green, West, no declaration.
Good evening, all.
Councillor Shafi Ahmed, Whitechapel, no DPIs.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, everyone.
Councillor Gulland, please.
The popular word, nothing to declare.
Thank you, colleagues, members.
Do you have any apologies, Fatima?
Yes, we have received one apology from Councillor Miss Pita -Bustin for item 5 .2, but she will
be rejoining for item 5 .1.
Thank you for letting us know that.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

Agenda item 2 is the minutes from the previous meeting.
Can you approve the minutes held on 26 February 2025?
Paul, do you have anything to say?
Councillor Francis.
Thank you very much, Chair.
So just in relation to these minutes, like first of all, they're very good, they're
very comprehensive and I'm not criticising and challenging them.
So I think for Clarit's sake though, it talks about your declaration having taken place during item 1.
So I think that you declared your transparency about previous discussions or a visit at that stage.
And then you continued to chair the meeting.
And so I would like to propose that there's a change to this part of the minutes that where it says
after
No informal or formal decisions were made at that time and he was not involved in a more recent decision -making planning process
and then at the next bit to say however
after
the
item
5 .1 I believe I'd begun
to be considered on further reflection, you decided that there might be a perception
and that you then recused yourself in the meeting and handed it over.
I think that's actually what happened.
Thank you, Councillor. It's reflected that amendment will reflect the two events of the declaration.
I would ask Paul Beckenham to say something about that.
Yes, thank you, chair.
Yeah, that does reflect the order of events.
I think the minutes are sort of produced in a sort of a standard template where the chair's
declaration often comes at the top, but in terms of the way that Councillor Francis has
described it, that's exactly what happened.
So I think if members consent, I think we can just make that amendment under delegated
powers, can't we, and then republish the minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you, members.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Item 3, the recommendation procedure for hearing and objection and meeting guidance.
I will ask Paul Wackenam, head of development, management, planning and building control
to present the guidance.
Over to Paul.
Thank you, chair.
Good evening and good evening to committee members and members of the public and officers
who are joining us this evening for this meeting.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including the legal advice that decisions have to be made in accordance with the relevant
development plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.
When we come to the process for considering reports, the running order will go as follows.
So I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and summary of the recommendation.
And then officers will present the report.
And then those who have registered to speak in the objection can address the committee
for up to three minutes each, followed by anybody who has registered to speak in support,
and also, sorry, including any councillors who have registered to speak.
Committee can then ask points of clarification of the speakers.
And then the committee will go on to consider the recommendation in the report, including
any further questions and advice from officers and debate within the committee.
And finally the committee will reach their decision based on the majority vote and I'll
confirm that back to everybody in the meeting.
If the committee proposes 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 director of planning and building control.
And in the event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation, they must
state their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action, the
The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the
task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated back to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If the committee proposed to make a decision that would appear to go against the provisions
of the development plan or if it could have any legal implications, then the item may
be deferred for a further update report back to a future meeting dealing with the course
of action.
There is an update report dealing with some matters that have arisen since publication
of the agenda.
So in the usual way I'll address that when we come to those items.
Thank you.

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

Thank you, Paul, for presenting the guidance.
As in Item 4, deferred items.
We have no deferred items to consider tonight.

5 b) PA/26/00164 - Site south west junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB

Agenda Item 5, the planning application for decision, we have two applications to consider
this evening.
Following consultation with the officers, I have agreed to vary the order of the agenda
and we will take the report under the Item 5 .2 first.
Agenda Item 5 .2 is a planning application for proposed development at Site South -West
junction of Glenwood Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB, page 43 to 60.
I invite Paul Beckenham to introduce the application, please.
Thank you, Chair.
So the Chair said this is an application affecting the site described as the south -west junction
of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road.
It's site occupied by Canary Wharf College.
And just to confirm to members that this is an application
for what's described as a non -material amendment.
So it's an application under section 96A of the Planning Act.
And the application proposes to amend condition 19,
which was attached to an earlier Planning Commission granted
in 2015.
And the amendments to condition 19,
which control the teaching hours of the school are as follows.
So the teaching hours of the school, hereby permitted, shall start no later than 8 .15
a .m. and finish no later than 3 p .m.
The reason for the condition remains the same as per the original planning commission and
the reason is to stagger the teaching hours of the new school with those at St. Luke's
primary school to avoid congestion on the public highway and ensure the amenity of nearby
residents is not compromised.
Chair, if I may just briefly, when dealing with this type of application, the key test
for the decision maker is to ascertain whether the amendments are material or non -material.
Non -material means that they would have the same effect as the condition as originally
drafted.
So whilst the condition is changing, it still meets the reason that the condition was attached.
So that's the focus of our assessment and decision -making process.
There is an update report, Chair, on this one.
And it just deals with some additional representatives.
We've had two additional representations objecting to the application following the
publication of the agenda.
These have been received from individuals who have made representations already but
they're reinforcing their objections, but they don't raise any additional planning issues over and above what's already reported to you.
It just changes the number of objections.
Otherwise, our recommendation stays the same, which is to grant the non -material amendment. Thank you, Jack.
Thank you, Paul. I will now invite Reza Islam, Planning Officer, to present the application.
Thank you.
As Paul introduced the case, this is the location site of the school.
You can see my pointer.
The location of the application site is shown here with the school being situated in the south east of the Isle of Dogs.
Here in this slide we can see the subject site in the red line.
The site consists of Canary Wharf College, Glensworth Primary School, which I will refer
to as Glensworth Primary School from now.
It is a relatively new school which has been granted permission in 2015.
To the north is Gwenworth Avenue, so here, which is fully pedestrianised and links Sordaness
Road, which is here, to Manchester Road here.
So this is just a street view perspective on Southerness Road
with Glenworth Primary School here.
Once again, Gwyneth Avenue here, and St. Luke's Primary School
is just further in the distance.
Once again, here's Glenworth Primary in the left.
This is a clearer image of the pedestrianised route and then this is St Luke's on the right.
So just the history and context of the site.
So it begins with the application for a proposed school submitted in 2015, PA 15 -360.
During that application, Highways officers noted that the proposed school would adjoin
with St Luke's Primary.
St. Luke's school hours are a start time of 9am and finish at 3 .30pm.
Highways officers supported the proposal, however recommended a condition that would stagger the teaching start and end times of Grand West Primary relative to St. Luke's to avoid congestion on the highway, particularly on Sondenas Road and surrounding roads as well as to protect the amenity of nearby residents.
The application was approved with condition 19 which is outlined here.
So the proposal is that the applicant seeks confirmation as to whether changing the teaching
start and end times of condition 19 would compromise a non material amendment to that
original permission.
So they are seeking to alter the start time from 8 .30 to 8 .15 and the ending time from 3 .55 to 3 .00pm.
So this is just a table that shows the comparison between the existing and proposed time.
So on this side we can see everything about Glenworth.
This is the existing and then these are the proposed starting and finishing times.
This is St Luke's times and then here on the right is the difference between them.
So for the starting time as existing there's a 30 minutes difference between them.
For finishing time as existing there's a stagger of 25 minutes.
With the new proposed times the stagger actually increases.
So for start time it would become 45 minutes and then for ending time it would be a difference
of 30 minutes.
So the sole matter for assessment for a non material amendment is whether the proposed
amendment is so small as to have no material effect on the original planning commission.
That is whether the development with the amendment in place would have materially the same or
the amenities of the name bearing occupiers and on all other material considerations compared
to the development that was granted under planning permission of PA 15 360. As the test
year is the materiality of the amendment, the application is not assessed against policies
or against compliance of development plan and any matters pursuant to the original planning
permission are not relevant. Due to the nature of a non -material amendment
being whether the LPA believes the change is material or not, no consultation was undertaken.
However, representations were received by the Council with 74 letters of objection and
41 signatory petitions. The full list of objections can be found in the Committee report and this
side just gives the main issues raised. So in regards to this one, there is a concern
that the proposed 3pm school end time would overlap with the St Luke's and George Green
school and other nearby schools. With regard to the submission, there has been concerns
about the transport statement not being as robust as it should have been and for the
proposal concerns of parents. For example, there's parents that prefer the long days
and long holidays and the proposal would have effect on this.
So our assessment is that the proposal would increase the gap between the start time and
end time of the two scores, increasing the stagger. Highways are content that the existing
teaching start and end time gaps would be met with the proposal which is explicitly
stated is the stated reason for condition 19. Therefore the proposal is found to be non -material.
In addition submission of an updated travel plan is recommended to take account of increased
pupil numbers, changing circumstances around the site and with a more action focused and long -term
strategy to meet and maintain sustainable transport objectives, including measures to
minimise vehicle trips.
So our final recommendation is to approve the non -material amendment with the additional
condition for the travel plan.
We also have Vincent Valerio available with us, who is the head of high -race transportation
and parking, to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for presenting the application.
I will now invite Randall Pranko, Robert Pye and
Thank you.
Ralf Hardik.
Sorry, if you are unfamiliar to me, if I have pronounced your name incorrectly, forgive
me.
To address the committee in objection to the applicant, you have up to three minutes each.
Usually we have two speakers, but given the having request from the objectors, I use my
discussion to have third speaker.
So can I ask first Randall Franke to start here?
Thank you.
which will certainly have material impact on our community and local ecosystem long term.
I know you are all councillors who listen to the majority of your voters who have voted you into
position. The safety of our children, parents and residents should come first. Our only police
station is permanently closed. There is inter -school violence sweeping through London
and tower hamlets, well -documented issues with road safety not limited to but including
two fatal collisions and one hit and run in the last two years on the roads surrounding
our schools, severe congestion overcrowding on our immensely pressurised island transport
links. The report submitted to yourselves has huge flaws as we pointed out there. It
alludes to an open and functioning police station,
which is actually now a HMO housing hundreds of people.
There's obviously objections from George Green,
1300 pupils, 200 metres away,
finishing around 10 minutes from our kids as well.
And active inquiries by Greenwich Council
over safety concerns as we speak.
The catchment area has changed.
There's an increase of SEND pupils since the pandemic.
and certainly more families using transport links
and critically motor vehicles more so than ever before.
And the statement doesn't mention this at all.
Statement doesn't take any consideration for staff
who are very important in the case,
who also use the transport links
in the most congested periods of the day.
I struggle to understand how this change
clashing with our neighbouring schools
in terms of time and term dates
would make any sense and critically why this application has been submitted under clause
96 as opposed to 73 which we understood was a requirement set out by planning team on multiple occasions
We've actually been advised by an executive director, sorry
We've actually been advised by an executive director for the UK's parliamentary advisory council for transport safety
to actually refer this to the police which we have done who are also engaged.
So I can only wonder why this something like this would be authorised. It's
putting our island, our children, our residents, your voters at risk. I'd like
to think that you listen to the people that are in your wards, not often and
that's why I've come to speak up on the issue today. Critically I'd like to think
The council has a duty of care towards...
Time's up.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
May I now ask the second objector, Robert Pie.
I'm gonna go first.
I'll go next.
I'll go third.
Les.
Good evening, councillors.
I've been a resident of, very close to, Glenmouth School for nearly 40 years and over that period
of time the traffic density has got much worse.
And my appeal to you is that no decision should be made until a proper traffic survey has
been conducted because it's absolutely appalling what happens.
There's no parking enforcement.
There's lots of issues with the school that breaches the existing planning.
One of the original submissions for travel said they were only going to have nine vehicle movements in the morning and in the evening.
We're now significantly more than that.
What's ever happened to active travel?
Now, there's supposedly a catchment area, but from what people have suggested,
that many people have rented properties nearby, got themselves into the school and then moved away again.
Where's the school streets assessment? There's no school street.
The Saunders Nest Road is a complete chaos in the mornings and in the evenings.
What's a bit bizarre is we see in this report nice empty roads.
So how on earth can the highways officer make a recommendation?
This is just fabrication. It's absolute rubbish.
I urge you to go and look at the situation that occurs there in the morning and in the evening.
It's just not... It's all kankidori according to this. It isn't at all.
So some of the breaches.
We've supposedly only in one report that was signed by the previous director of the school, Sarah Counter.
This is identified in the submission into planning as a follow -up.
We also have...
There's no yellow lines outside the school where you would normally have school entrance markings.
I took this up to the council previous year and they said the school didn't require it or didn't request it
So we got several issues with regard to to access to the school
Glamor Th Avenue when this original
Consent was carried out more seconds original consent was carried out
Glamor Th Avenue was an active roadway as well as Manchester Road, which gave people the opportunity to park and
and drop off children.
But that road is closed.
Saison Street has only got opportunity for one traffic,
one way traffic, and there's no consideration
for what is coming from the George Green School,
which also uses Glen Affricavieu.
So I urge you to have a proper traffic assessment
going forward before a decision is made.
Thank you.
Thank you.
APPLAUSE
Can I ask the gentleman who spoke is Ralph Hardick.
May I now ask Robert Pine to present your objection please.
Thank you.
Yes, this is not a minor issue, this is a major change.
This is being portrayed as only affecting two schools, St. Luke's and Glenworth.
What they don't show you in the pictures, if you look on Google, is you go 200 metres
down the road and you have 1200 students at George Green.
George Green's secondary and sixth form have a lot of kids.
They're oversubscribed like most of the schools within the borough.
So this affects them. Now George Green's management have already voiced their concern and filed complaints along with this.
They are objecting to this kind of change.
Because when the school was put in, they wanted to stagger the hours because of the transport issues.
The other issue which is being obfuscated is this doesn't affect just Glenworth.
There are three schools within the Canary Wharf system.
There are two primaries and a secondary.
All three of these on the Isle of Dogs will be changing hours at the same time.
Therefore, this affects over a thousand students within the Canary Wharf system at present.
Plus, you've got next door St. Luke's, which is another 400 plus.
You've got 1200 secondary and sixth form at George Green.
You have all the neighbouring schools and this is going to greatly impact the entire area.
My son originally went to St. Luke's before we moved him to another school.
I remember trying to get the bus down past George Green during the release times.
It was a nightmare. You couldn't get anywhere. You had to get off and walk.
That's the congestion in the Isle of Dogs.
Everyone who lives on the Isle of Dogs knows that if there's an emergency,
the only way you're getting out of there is you swim the river.
Because there's no other way out.
Because it's a single road around.
So to make this belief that it's just a minor issue is simply not true.
This will affect three schools directly, it will affect also the schools next to it,
St. Luke's, George Green, and all the other neighbouring schools.
And it will also affect the proposed secondary school which is supposed to go in at Printworks.
So, what we are urging you to do is have a study to actually look at the impact rather
than just rubber stamp this today and we implore you to do so.
Thank you.
Thank you for presenting your speaking and objection.
May I now invite Councillor Mofidou -Bastian to address the committee in objection to the
objection.
We have up to three minutes, Councillor.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair, and good evening, everybody.
So I think this is really simple.
I think all that residents want is for an independent traffic assessment.
The condition is relying on a traffic assessment that was done in 2015.
That is over 10 years ago.
Since then, so many things have changed, right?
We have got more breakfast clubs, more wraparound clubs in our school.
We don't know what the impact of that is on traffic in the mornings.
I can tell you anecdotally, but we'd need a proper independent traffic assessment.
What else has changed?
We've got electric scooters, electric bikes, right?
We didn't have those 11 years ago.
That needs to be taken into consideration.
There's more bus, there are bike lanes because of that.
The bus routes have changed.
In the last 11 years, 135 has changed, the 277 has changed.
All of that needs to be considered.
We've got a new school, a new primary school,
just like up past the Blue Bridge.
Parents travel along that route, along West Ferry Road,
past George Greens, past St Luke's, past Canary Wharf College,
during that time in the morning, that needs to be considered as well.
In 2015, George Greens was under -subscribed.
Today, it is over -subscribed across all year groups.
That means more pupils are travelling to that school.
We've got a new development, Island Point, with 200 new households,
just right in the middle of Ireland Gardens Ward.
The impact of that needs to be assessed.
I submitted a member's inquiry prior to this planning committee meeting
to find out just exactly what the highways team have done.
And all they have done from the response they've given to me
is consider the staggering.
The condition said the opening and closing time should be staggered
and they've said, right, well, the condition is that it's going to be staggered.
What they haven't done is consider fully the impact that that will have on traffic on our streets.
And that's all that residents want.
All they want is to have an independent traffic assessment.
So councillors, I would call on you to defer this application whilst that independent...
and request an independent traffic assessment.
And then that can be done, you know, we've obviously got the Easter holidays,
but like soon after the Easter holidays and that can be decided you know the
next planning committee that's all that we need. The other issue that the
residents spoke about safety in 2015 we didn't have a second secondary school
thank you a second secondary school on the island we've now got two. Having them
both finish at a similar finishing time does have an impact on safety and it'd
good to get the community safety officers teams view on that because we know you'll be familiar with you know the
Green and black clashes that are going on probably in your ward as well councillor
Thank you
Thank you, I'll invite Shireen Shaq
But this is just two minutes, I'll be having some amount of time, nine minutes.
Chair, yes, so in terms of the interest of natural justice, because there's been nine minutes and a half of objectives,
then yes, they can share, and it's sort of up to yourselves how you want to do that, but my colleague will keep time, so...
Total time of nine minutes, thank you.
Are you proposing to chair that equally?
No, I'm slightly longer.
Right, both of you, it's up to nine minutes to make it fair.
Thank you.
Good evening. Thank you chair and members of the committee
and thank you officers for your presentation in support of our
application to amend the existing planning condition.
My name is Gillian Kemp, interim CEO of Canary Wharf College Trust
and the permanent CEO of the University Schools Trust.
I have 25 years experience of leading schools in Tower Hamlets and across London,
and currently have oversight and care of just under 4 ,000 pupils and 600 staff,
the majority in Tower Hamlets, including the most oversubscribed school, St Paul's Way.
I am deeply committed to all the young people within our care, their families and the remarkable
colleagues who work tirelessly in this community.
As stated, the planning condition was placed on the original permission to control transport
impacts and ensure a stagger in the start and finish time with the neighbouring school,
St Luke's.
The proposed amendment to the hours maintains the staggered time and is considered acceptable
in relation to transport impact.
It is the professional opinion of our experienced transport consultants
and the Council's own planning and highways officers
that this amendment does not lead to any material increase in traffic
or worsening of the impact to nearby residents.
Should you have any transport questions,
the relevant experts in the room are here to answer these today.
This is the main planning consideration before you today and I urge you to consider the expert
opinion of your officers in this matter.
It was not the intention or indeed the remit of planning to control the school's teaching
hours in terms of how the school is managed and run.
However, I want to provide some context and set out why the amendment is essential for
the wellbeing of our pupils and staff.
There are three key objectives.
To improve the educational offer for the children of Glenworth Primary, to improve the working
conditions of our support staff, many of whom are Tower Hamlets residents, and to secure
the long -term financial sustainability of the school.
Canary Wharf College Trust has relied on support staff working over 40 hours per week above
of those worked by their peers across Tower Hamlets and nationally.
This permitted the longer school days and additional school holidays.
As a result, pupils have fewer days of access to teaching staff than any other school in
Tower Hamlets.
The greatest burden of these arrangements has fallen on our lowest paid staff, predominantly
women, who have been required to work the longest days and sacrifice the most personal
time. This arrangement is no longer defensible, educationally, ethically or operationally.
While the situation with staff has become untenable, our pupils will also continue to
miss out on key enrichment, support and time with peers, crucial for wellbeing and social
development. Parents also face significant financial strain from having to arrange childcare
for 17 weeks of school holidays, far more than any other school locally. The current
school day is simply too long for our young children, but also for school leaders and
especially for support staff whose roles are physically and emotionally demanding. The
inclusive education suffers as a result.
As I hope you can see, continuing as we are is not an
option, change is a requirement.
The amendment is the right decision because adjusting
the planning condition to allow revised opening and
closing time will enable us to provide more consistency
and more equitable access to services for pupils,
increase the number of pupil contact days, reduce
excessive working hours for support staff, bring our
operation model in line with the vast majority of local schools and create a sustainable
modern operating model for Glenworth and all schools.
We note concerns relating to traffic at opening and closing times of the school day and we
are already taking steps to change behaviours so that our pupils get to and from school
by other means.
Since January 2025, I have personally spoken to hundreds of parents, carers, staff and residents across numerous in -person events.
What I have witnessed is that the broader community now understands the need for change.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the committee to approve the amendment.
We have registered speakers.
We are happy to have you here, but no interruption please.
The members to consider.
Excuse me, I appreciate your cooperation.
Thank you.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the committee to approve the amendment.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
That is not going to help.
Just over three minutes.
You have
three minutes and 30 seconds.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is
Shereen Sinim and I am the principal of
Glenworth Primary School.
In that capacity
I want to state that I wholeheartedly
support the proposed changes.
Since January
2020, I have been working with the
I've been working with Jill Kemp as the interim CEO and the team to oversee how the school operates and was delighted with the
offset outcomes recorded in May 2025
We are seeking to amend the original planning condition not remove it on the following grounds
We recognise that the longer school days are not supportive of younger pupils who would benefit from more time in school to access
The quality of teaching and learning and support services for the school offers
We will have a far greater ability to provide more comprehensive support to our most vulnerable
pupils and their families.
Our desire to see all staff raised to the same terms and conditions as their local and
national peers is based on the profound sense of equity and fairness.
Teaching staff contracts were amended in January 2024 with the commitment that support staff
too would have their conditions of employment uplifted.
and the proposed amendments to the original planning application
not only respects that intended outcome of that condition,
but preserves the outcomes for this,
resulting in no additional traffic or congestions in this area.
Whilst the proposals to change the hours will not result
in an increased impact of traffic congestion,
I also support the request to update for travel plan,
something that the school is currently doing.
to encourage more sustainable transport methods and reduce car journeys.
I am committed to working with all stakeholders, including the Council's officers, TFL and parents, towards this goal.
We know that schools can only work in partnership with parents and carers about the various modes of transport taken to and from school.
It is not within our gift to dictate terms, rather to recognise the impact choices are having in terms of our local community
and work diligently to support behaviour change wherever we can.
Under my leadership, the school have engaged with the TFL for Life programme and we are
committed to ensuring that we can evidence annually the steps that we have taken to try
and reduce car journeys to and from school.
As a parent myself, I know first hand how the changes to the school day and the holidays
in the academic year will affect parents.
But the decision to make these changes is not optional.
The current model set up under a different funding and policy environment
is not sustainable currently.
In my role as the principal, I must adapt and adjust to the constant pressures
and demands schools are required to respond to,
and this here is no different.
Being fiercely passionate about the wellbeing of my pupils
and the staff of my school, this is a change that I am clear we have to make
in order to secure the school's future going forward.
Trying to ensure all pupils are safe during extended holiday periods
is not something we are resourced to do.
And the more time that we have with our pupils and educators and leaders
is clearly a better model than artificially overextending the school day.
In addition, recruiting and retention staff may,
when neighbouring schools offer better terms and conditions
and shorter working hours, place the school at a clear disadvantage.
I therefore ask that the committee support the proposed amendments in the planning condition
and set out in our application to support the school in making the changes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for speaking in support of the application.
Thank you, Councillor.
May I now go to the members.
Do members have any questions to the officers or the registered speakers?
please indicate. Councillor Roman. Thank you chair. Quick question for the object.
Someone said they've called the police. What did the police say to you?
faster number ofasi deserving La
He's referred us to forward it to the police and that's what we've done.
They're looking into it.
We've not had a response yet but it's definitely with them and they're looking into it.
Same as Greenwich Council as well for safety concerns.
Thank you, Chair.
My question to the officers.
The timing of implementation is a primary concern across the three key groups.
School staff, students and parents.
The focus should be understanding how staff, students and parents
perceive and respond to this change.
Whether the majority feel supportive and satisfied with the proposed
Okay, Bruce, is my question.
Yeah, I mean, it's totally a valid point that obviously there should be a process that is going on between the school and the parents.
In terms of our recommendation, this is purely within the confines of Section 96A and what we're looking at is the changed material or a material change to the original permission.
So all those other matters that you're talking about, it's our view that obviously they're incredibly important,
but in terms of the context of what was granted permission in
2015, they weren't or they aren't being changed if you like, or they aren't the actual consideration that we're being asked to look at here.
We're being asked to look at
essentially condition 19 as was set forward in the presentation and the reason for that condition.
And the reason for that condition was to have a stagger time, or to have a stagger between
the adjacents at Luke's School and Canary Wharf College, and the proposal here, the
amendment that's coming forward, is maintaining that.
So we're saying, we're simply saying, that by doing this change, that the reason is still
met.
So whilst those points you make are incredibly important and they should be obviously discussed
to the fullest extent, they're not part of the assessment that we're making.
I'm going to ask the question to the
Thank you, chair.
My question is to the applicant.
On those three things, basically, are key
components in making sure
.
I would like to question the applicant
.
What kind of engagement was made
with the
students
, parents, carers
this decision or this amendment.
I understand it's an amendment, but it's a non -material amendment,
which is in transport terms or transport link term is fine,
but it's beyond that.
We need to ensure that those key stakeholders are being consulted
or what the results of those surveys were.
That's what we'd like to know, really.
Thank you, Councillor Shaffi.
So firstly, the consultation with just under 70 members of support staff within Canary
Wolf College who are paid not on the national green book terms and conditions, so their
Their salaries are lower, their conditions are worse, and they have been consulted to
see if they wish to change their contracts to what's the nationally agreed Green Book
terms and conditions that the vast majority, if not all, members of teaching support staff
in Tower Hamlets are here to.
So the staff in our school are paid less favourably and their conditions such as maternity, sickness,
and substance are also less favourable.
So the majority of those staff, the vast majority of those staff,
are in agreement to change the Green Book terms and conditions.
The students have undertaken a survey, a travel survey,
and as Ms Sinem has pointed out, those children and families
will be encouraged, as requested by your planning team,
to continue to improve the travel and we ask parents to ensure that they do not drive to
school, that they actually use public transport or walk.
Please.
Can I just finish with parents?
Yes, yes.
And then the third thing that we talked about in our speakers was parents.
So I have consulted with the parent group regarding the changes to the school day.
So the schools currently run exceptionally long hours and the parents receive 17 weeks
holiday.
So most of you who have children in town Hamlets would know that that's highly unusual and
and it's usually 12 weeks.
So for those parents who may not be able to express
those selves, who have hardship, and they're the council.
Can I ask you to answer the question
in terms of consultation?
Of course.
So in terms of the consultation.
Yes, the child's been said that's against the hardship
of all.
Thank you, sir.
The parents have been consulted on the changes.
Thank you.
We heard your objection.
You're not allowed to speak.
.
.
Can I just say that the lady is just merely answering members'
questions.
She's not doing the presentation.
It's not a debate.
So if you could respect the process
without any further interruption
We have a structure.
I have a follow -up question, if I may.
So my direct question here is how many yeses and how many noes did you get from your students and did you get from your parents?
Can I just interrupt here as well? There is no statutory duty for the council to consult on this application.
It's not a rehash of the application, the advantages and disadvantages.
The focus should be primarily on Condition 19 and whether or not the proposed changing
hours is considered to be a material consideration or not.
Thanks, Dan.
Before we go to Councillor Lecce, I just want to understand if anyone can answer my question.
What's the opening and finishing time for George Green Secondary School?
So for George Green, I think registration starts in the morning at 8 .40.
I think the first lesson starts at 9 o 'clock.
And then students come out of school at the end of the day at 3 .10.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Rahman.
Thank you.
This is a question for the officers.
Do you have any proof that the changes would reduce the traffic?
Thank you, Councillor.
It wasn't said in our responses that it would reduce the traffic.
As colleagues in legal have said, as a department, we recognise the impassioned pleas that objectives
have made.
However, we have kept a very focused view on this, that it was a non -material amendment.
Therefore, we haven't considered what the impact would be in terms of the increase because
of the stagger is still in place.
So we haven't said that the traffic would reduce.
government control administration get
a Grammar Advisory Board on the
development anderman
the best traffic and road safety conditions for all of our residents and all of our students
across the borough.
That's cited by our developing road safety plan and as the applicants have said, our
engagement with schools.
We wouldn't be against undertaking a full traffic survey, but I should make the point
that because this is a non -material amendment, we haven't been requested to undertake a
full survey.
Thank you.
Yes, Paul.
Yeah, come in.
If I just may add to that.
So in terms of the way the application was submitted to the Council, there was an up -to -date
transport statement submitted which covers quite a lot of areas that have been talked
about already this evening.
So the applicant has done their technical assessment.
And that was reviewed by a technical officer in Mr. Valerio's service when they responded
back to planning.
And they raised no objections with what they saw.
So I suppose by inference that there was no strong compulsion to carry out a further survey
at that stage because they were content with what they had seen, which brings the situation
up to date.
So it's not relying on the previous transport assessment.
It's actually an up -to -date transport assessment.
Thanks Paul.
Just to
cheque on myself.
I have no oversight on the Council of France. Did you indicate?
I'll come back to you.
Thank you chair. Question for the applicant.
How long have
the current timing, like for example,
The school was open in 2015.
Was these times set from then?
What evidence shows that these timings are no longer suitable for the school?
And also I would like to know, have you thought of the parents who have actually thought,
they've looked at the timing of the school and they've enrolled the kids to that school
and what it will do if you change the timings for them as well.
Thank you, Councillor. So firstly, I represent close to 1 ,200 parents
from the Canary Wharf group of schools with the number of children we've got.
You asked was the set hours in place from 2015.
Yes, we have complied with the planning permission as required by your authorities and your planning
officers.
It's no longer suitable because the long hours mean that the support staff have to
work 40 hours from 8 o 'clock in the morning till the evening on the current hours. By
reducing the time of the school day, those members of staff will move to the Green Book,
nationally agreed terms and conditions, which enables them to work 35 hours. That is one
of the reasons that we are looking to change. So it's for the benefit of our staff. You've
Last, have we considered the start time and finish time on our parents?
Yes, we have.
So there is very little time to the start of our school day.
And the after school club provision that was not in place because of the teaching hours
will be provided by the school.
So most schools, I think, Councillor, recognise the wraparound care that we know is vital
for working parents will be in place.
Does that answer your question, Councillor? Thank you.
Councillor Francis. Thank you, Chair.
Just in the interest of transparency, I should say that I was actually the Chair of the Development
Committee in 2015 when we gave approval, not unanimously, for Canary Wharf College's school
on this site. And there was a lot of discussion and there was about it and the merits of it
and the complications that might arise with St Luke's and lots of other things as well.
But we were persuaded of the merits of it as the minutes of that meeting showed on the
basis of the conditions that were put in place at the time. So I wanted to put that on record.
Secondly, just again in the interest of transparency, I have spoken to residents in the past, not
in recent months, residents living around in Saunders Nest Road who raised concerns
about it.
They said in fact, particularly in relation to the road closure, they felt that things
had worsened as a result of the road closure, but there's a small number of people.
So my question is first of all to the objectors.
So just so as I understand, is your objection to the school finishing, to Canary Wolf College finishing early
based on the fact that you think that principally there's a possibility of clashes between primary school children
and secondary school children from George Green or is it in relation to the primary school children at St Luke's?
Thank you for your question.
Like we said earlier, it doesn't affect just Glenworth
in a primary school.
It affects the secondary school, Cross Harbour.
It affects the other primary, East Ferry, which is just up the road.
So all three schools, a thousand kids,
will now be getting let out at the same time.
And there is serious concerns not just about the transport issues,
As you probably know, they are going to be trying to cancel D7 again, which runs the
entire circuit of the Isle of Dogs, and that would cause more transport issues, and people
would have to drive because there wouldn't be a transport.
It would create more stress and strain on TFL and the DLR that runs through there.
But there's also the safety concern, which is very genuine, which the police have been
looking at, which we talked about, the chair spoke about, which is the greed on black issues
of schools wanting to fight and cause trouble with each other.
Kids will be kids. We all know that. We were all kids at one point.
That said, today things are a lot more difficult.
I remember when we looked at sending our son out to Bexley
and Bexley has a lot of grammar schools, a lot of primary schools.
And they all congregate in Central Square where all the busses run.
And they deliberately stagger all the hours for the different schools in that area
simply to avoid conflict. Because there's lots of police presence there
but the police can't be everywhere.
So keeping the kids segregated is a good idea.
But more importantly, as our Councillor said,
having a proper study about this,
not having them come in here and say,
we have an expert that works for us,
we've paid to give a study,
but to actually have a proper study investigated
that looks at the seasonal activity
of what this change will be,
not just on St. Luke's,
Glenworth, George Green,
but the other schools on the island, which is very congested.
Thank you.
Can I add?
Just on specifically, sorry, I was asking specifically around the safety issue in the
first instance.
I want to come back about transport impacts afterwards.
Can I come in on safety?
Thank you, Councillor.
So we have regular ward panels in our ward.
We often meet with the police and have discussions with them about the rise in ASB in the area.
A lot of it is to do with young people hanging around.
But one of the things that the police have been really clear with as part of those discussions
is that having different closing times for George Greens and Canary Wharf College has
actually helped with reducing the amount of clashes and fighting between the different
schools. I met with the chair of governors of George Greens last week and they're really
concerned, the school is really concerned about the impact and what they might need
to do in order to keep their pupils and the pupils of Canary Wharf College safe as well.
So just so as I understand, so is that in relation to the primary school, Glenworth,
or is that in relation to the secondary school at Crossharbour?
So it's in relation to the secondary school at Crossharbour primarily, but obviously those
you know, year sixes and year sevens do know each other as well.
Yeah, absolutely.
So I do really acknowledge that as an issue and we see that in the ward that I represent.
We only have we only have primary schools, but obviously in e2 and e3 we have a whole load of
secondary finishes
Just in relation to the trap that the travel so which I think is really material and it's
something that we
really had an
mind on even then and so it's concerning to hear that there's so many more car
journeys actually happening in reality than what we would have thought.
Do you have any question about that?
Yeah I'm going to ask the question in a second.
So just again to objectors, I just wanted to understand why you think that I guess a potential
overlap slightly earlier at 3 .30 is worse than a potential overlap at nearer 4 o 'clock.
As I made comment earlier, we've lost the use of Manchester Road and Glenworth Avenue,
so all the traffic that is now condensed onto Saunders Ness Road.
And there's really no parking there, and so all the activity there in theory is illegal,
but there's no enforcement for it.
So one of the other thing that adds to this is that since COVID, George Green schools use Saunders Nest Road a lot more and their access to it is via Glen Affric Avenue, which is the other road which gives access to the other two schools.
So there's just a complete mess now of so much traffic on Saunders -Ness Road all the time.
And the images that were shown in the documentation just make, you know...
And if there is something, there's a massive difference between when the school's active, like during the day at drop -off,
and when there's no school taking place.
But it's really quiet. It's a nice residential road until the schools are open.
Can I come in on that as well?
Also, we mustn't forget the term dates.
The term dates clash in with that of those neighbouring schools.
Remember the island's two square kilometres.
It's small. Manchester Road cuts through the middle.
Clashing with all those schools in terms of times and term dates will bring us into chaos.
There's been two fatal collisions in the last two years and one hit and run.
That could be anyone. That could be anyone.
This decision could have that impact and I've got to put it out there.
With reference to busses and the DLR as well, it's packed now, releasing 1 ,200 Canary Wharf kids,
clashing with that of neighbouring ones. I don't know how that helps.
I've got no idea. Absolutely no idea.
And the police station's closed.
Sorry, Ted. Just before...
Sorry.
Excuse me.
Please do ask...
You haven't been asked to speak.
Thank you.
I'm afraid if you continue, we will ask for you to be removed.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry to hear you speak, you should have registered.
That's the way it's worked. Sorry about that.
Thank you, Chit. I just wanted to get a bit more clarity from legal if that's okay.
And maybe from planners as well.
We are not allowed to take into consideration factors relating to the other schools within the Canary Wharf College,
cluster and their finishing time in relation to this finish time, is that right?
The other schools in the cluster don't have any planning controls over their opening hours,
but in terms of your consideration you can take into account changes in the environment.
So for example, you could take into account the cumulative effect so far as you feel that
that's relevant spatially.
When the application was originally considered in 2015, there is actually a sentence in the
report which actually specifically excludes George Green, for example, from the consideration
because at the time it wasn't deemed necessary to consider it.
That doesn't mean that we can't consider it now.
But that's, yes, it's the usual planning judgement you can take into account, anything that's material that you feel is appropriate.
Okay, thank you. Sorry, I had to ask the question.
Thank you, thank you. So I think in answer to your question, like, why we think there would be, we're concerned about the change in the staggering and what we think the impact on traffic will be,
The truth is we don't know.
I can tell you my opinion.
I can tell you anecdotally what I think.
But we don't know.
And that's why we want to have an independent traffic assessment.
We don't, unfortunately, you can see the tension in the room.
You can see that there is a lot of distrust between parents
and the school about the way that this consultation has been handled.
Therefore, there is a lot of distrust on what the applicant has submitted as part of their application.
So that is why we are calling for an independent traffic assessment.
That's all we are looking for, is for a deferral for that.
Thank you, Members, for taking time asking questions to the applicants.
the
members have any would like to share your final thoughts on this?
Thank you, chair.
This proposed change raises concern around children's safety and the potential impact
on traffic density.
The increase in traffic density could create
a more hazardous environment, particularly during
peak times when students are arriving at a living school.
Though this is not a non -material amendment,
but in my view, the safety and wellbeing of children
must remain the highest priority.
At present, I am not confident that this proposal sufficiently addresses these risks and therefore
I am unable to support this amendment.
APPLAUSE
Thank you, Councillor Chidri.
Any other members would like to share your final thoughts on this?
Councillor Rahman.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
I feel like it's not a minor change, chair, for me it's quite of a major change.
I've carefully considered this application and while I understand the intention behind
changing the school hours to address congestion and all the other stuff, I really don't think
this proposal is appropriate at this current form.
I think I am considered that changing the time could have a negative impact on nearby
residents and parents.
So for that reason I will not support this application tonight.
I also, Chair, wouldn't want to defer it because I truly believe like this change doesn't need
to happen.
So I won't be recommending the officer's recommendation tonight.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Councillor Rahman.
Councillor Ahmed.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
I also echo the concerns of my fellow colleagues with the addition that being on governing
bodies, myself, and also part of a school, it's paramount that those key components
who are the backbone of running a school, the students, the parents and the residents,
are very, they're paramount to making our decisions.
So I think as a school and as a governing body, as my experience on a governing body,
I believe these are the key components that we need to ensure that are participated in.
I really am encouraged, although we don't have many pedestrianised areas within Tower Hamlets,
and this actual Glenworth is actually pedestrianised,
and I think there needs to be some sort of encouragement from the school
on ensuring that there is a walkway, there is a pedestrian,
and I'm sure that will happen.
But I'd like to really echo my fellow colleagues,
and I will not be supporting this application going forward.
APPLAUSE
Thank you, Councillor Ahmed.
Councillor, quickly.
Quickly, sorry, Chair.
I feel like the audience speaks for itself as well, Chair.
The gallery speaks for itself.
So I think I have different reasons or at least the pecking order of reasons for me
is different but ultimately I do come to the same conclusion as my colleagues have already
stated about this. But for me, when we gave this Canary Wolf College permission originally,
it was really quite hotly contested and there are stringent planning conditions that were
attached to it and they were attached to it for a reason because of the potential impact
on the cumulative impact on the residential area, the surrounding residential area, but
also in relation to St. Luke's as well and some other things.
And I appreciate that UST has inherited those
and is now looking to modify arrangements.
But they were put in place for a reason.
And I don't think that just trying
to change the planning conditions themselves
is the right way to approach this.
I think it has to be done differently.
To be honest, I'm really surprised
to see an application of this nature
come into a planning committee.
For me this needs to be something that's negotiated outside and then just essentially
ratified if there needed to be a change of planning conditions.
So I can't support the recommendation to approve this change of condition tonight.
But I really would encourage all parties to go away and have further conversations, including
doing the traffic management study that has been recommended by Councillor Baster.
Thank you, members, for sharing your final thoughts on the application.
I understand the applicant, your argument.
I respect that.
I appreciate that.
given on the balance, we as a chair, I think it is clear this change is in the best, isn't
being considered in the best interest of the family's resident.
Also appreciate the officers for your hard work.
We trust you.
We trust you, but on this occasion, members couldn't consider this to support your recommendation.
Before I go to, that's what I have to say.
Now I would like to invite Paul Beckenham and Diane Phillips, Senior Planning Lawyer,
to share their final advice before you move to your vote.
Thank you, Chair, thank you, Members, and everyone else who has participated this evening
for your points of view and also your detailed consideration.
I don't really have a lot to add, Chair, other than just to go back a little bit to the process.
Under 96A, your consideration is whether the change would be material in planning terms.
there's no statutory definition of material,
so it's down to yourselves as decision makers
to come to that conclusion.
You can see obviously the officer recommendation
is that it wouldn't be material,
but obviously we've heard that people,
members on the committee feel differently.
So in terms of process,
Chair, I would ask you to formally consider
the officer recommendation and vote on that.
If that recommendation is not upheld, then obviously I can advise you on the next stage.
So thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
Diane?
Just a few pointers.
First, members have not been asked to redetermine the original planning permission.
Also there's no legal requirement to undertake a consultation process for 96A, so whether
that be with the residents, the police or other persons suggested.
members are required to consider the proposed amendment to condition 19 only and whether
or not the proposed amendment would be material or will have a material or non -material effect
and matters of consideration would be highways, residential amenity and related cumulative
of effects. What are not material planning considerations are stock and arrangements,
childcare costs and other matters, which are basically not planning matters and essentially
if members do consider that the impacts of the proposal are material, then the application
not to be approved under 96A.
Thanks Diane for your advice on the basis of a legal point.
Now can I see all those in favour of this recommendation on this application?
All those against?
Any opportunity?
May I ask Paul anything from the committee decision, please?
Thank you.
Thank you.
So the committee has voted unanimously not to accept the recommendation in the report
in Item 5 .2.
Chair, in terms of next steps, you should propose an alternative decision, which in
this case I would advise that your decision would have to be that the changes are material
in planning terms, so they would have material impacts and also because we have to produce
obviously a formal decision notice, if you could agree the reasons that they're material.
So what are the, I suppose it's akin to reasons for refusal, I suppose, in conventional planning
applications.
So the same sort of process.
So you should ask the committee to confirm that the changes would be material and therefore
should be refused.
So can I formally propose that I consider this to be a material change to the planning
condition that was originally agreed in December 2015?
and therefore my view is that this material change of condition would have an adverse effect
particularly in relation to the negative impact on residential amenity.
That's the key thing for me, the change of time would have an adverse effect.
I'm not persuaded by the information that is put before us that it wouldn't have that
negative impact.
I don't think there has been any evidence put in front of us.
Thank you, Councillor Francis.
Councillor Chaudry.
I would like to second the proposal.
Do you want us to add other reasons now?
Do you have any other reason?
Do you want to add any other?
To decline.
Children's safety and well -being remains highest priority for this year.
Councillor Ahmed?
The impact it will have with other schools within the area.
And I can't say that.
So impact, so an assessment of the other schools and the impact it has with other schools opening
and closing times.
Thank you.
Could now Paul confirm the committee decision.
Chair, so just in terms of process, so Councillor Francis has proposed an alternative decision
and that's been seconded I think by Councillor Chafé and also Councillor Choudry actually.
So now procedurally I think I'm correct in saying Diane, the committee should vote on
that one.
So are you in favour of the alternative decision that the non -material amendment should be
refused for the reasons given.
Just before you do that, I just wanted to clarify one thing.
When I think Councillor Ahmed and Councillor Rahman
mentioned the accumulative impact with other schools,
did you mean in terms of highway safety,
given that was one of the reasons
that the condition was attached?
Is that what you had in mind?
The congestion and the highway safety.
It just helps in terms of the impact.
That's very clear. Thank you.
Now we are voting on alternative proposal
proposed by Councillor Francis.
Those in favour?
If you please come from the committee decision.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So the committee has voted unanimously on alternative recommendation put forward by
Councillor Francis and seconded by other Councillors that the application should be refused because
the changes would be material in the context of the permission that was granted and the
original intention of the planning condition and the reasons given are due to the effect
on residential amenity and the cumulative effect of the changes on traffic congestion
and highway safety combined with, sorry, the cumulative effect combined with other schools
in the vicinity.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks Paul for the confirmation of the decision.
Thank you.

5 a) PA/25/01630 - Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, London, E14 9RZ

Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
After the long session for the first item, I'm pleased to grant you five minutes comfort
break.
Thank you.

5 a) PA/25/01630 - Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, London, E14 9RZ

The next item is the planning application for proposed development at Discovery Dock,
apartment east, 3 South Quay square, London E14 9RZ.
Page from 207042.
I now invite Paul Bakenham to introduce the application.
Over to Paul.
Thank you, Chair.
So the Chair said this item concerns the planning application Discovery Dock East, 3 South Quay
square.
And the planning application is a full planning application for the erection of a demountable
terrace structure with a retractable canopy and seating to the ground floor.
And the recommendation to your committee this evening, chair, is to grant planning permission
subject to certain planning conditions listed in the report.
Just to draw members' attention to the update report, so since the publication of the committee,
We've just identified a few corrections.
So the description of the developments
and also some of the paragraphs refer
to an extractable canopy.
That's a typo, it should say retractable canopy.
What's that term?
Yeah, so it says extractable, which I suppose means
that it can be completely taken away.
Whereas I think the correct term is retractable.
The canopy would stay there, but it can be rolled back.
So it's just a minor thing.
The plans are all correct and the plans all show that quite clearly.
So that's our error and I apologise for that.
And also just to confirm, so paragraph 2 .3 says that the proposal would contain horizontal
sliding glazed panels.
And it says that they're to the sides of the structure and they are actually to the front
of the structure rather than the sides of the structure.
And then finally we have had some updates to some of the objections that have been received
So since the publication report, and these just raising some additional issues concerning
fire safety risks, the ongoing fire safety review at the building, and the disadvantages
to vulnerable residents during evacuations due to access arrangements and ground level
congestion.
And so just to confirm, this whole number of representation received during the application
process is 25, 4 in support, and 21 in objection.
However, our recommendation still remains the same.
As I said earlier, Chair, the Planning Commission should be granted but subject to conditions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul.
As Councillor Buston is back for this item, could you please introduce yourself and make
a declaration, if you have any.
Thank you.
I'm Matthewa Buston.
I'm a councillor for Island Gardens Ward and I have no declarations.
Thank you, councillor.
I will now invite Elisa Thiobalt, planning of case officer, to present the application,
please.
Thank you for the introduction.
The application site relates to a ground floor commercial unit that contains a Class E restaurant
at Discovery Dock East, which is a 23 -storey building in Canary Wharf.
The restaurant fronts South Quay Walk on the north elevation of the building and the upper
floors are comprised of residential units.
The site is within the South Quay neighbourhood centre and to the opposite side of South Dock
is the Canary Wharf major centre.
The site was formerly occupied by Goodman's restaurant.
The current application is seeking to regularise a seating arrangement that was previously located to the north elevation
Shown on the screen is the pre -existing arrangement which extended below the undercroft and was comprised of temporary wind screens and red parasols
Following the granting of planning consent in
2022 an infill extension has been constructed to the north end of the restaurant to increase the amount of internal floor area
As shown in the photo on the right, the undercroft has been infilled and the elevation at ground
level now sits flush with the floors above and the patio has been removed.
To provide further clarity on this point, the preexisting and existing floor plans are
shown on the screen.
The walls of the building are highlighted in yellow.
The plan to the left shows the past layout in which the terrace was partially set below
the undercroft and the floor plan to the right shows the infill extension which is now being
built out in line with the pillars.
The extent of the site boundary alongside the South Quay Walk shown in red has remained
the same.
The current application proposes the installation of a terrace structure to formalise an external
seating arrangement.
The proposed terrace would occupy 155 .2 square metres and would span the full width of the
building at a depth of 3 .32 metres.
The roof would be sloped and would have a retractable awning
that is set below the first floor residential windows.
The structure would be a polyester powder coated
steel frame with horizontal glazed panels
that could be opened along the front elevation.
The glazed panels to the sides would be fixed shut.
192 letters were sent to neighbouring properties.
These were the flats above the site within the Discovery Dock apartments
25 representations have been received from neighbouring occupiers comprising four letters of support and 21 letters in objection
Comments and objection relate to the design impact neighbouring amenity
highways fire and flood risk and safety risks
Several concerns were also raised in relation to building maintenance residential leaseholder requirements and property values
however it should be noted that these matters are not considered material for the purposes of this application.
Comments and support highlight that the terrace is well designed, would reduce noise and improve safety for building residents, and would have a positive economic impact.
In terms of our assessment, the proposal would regularise the pre -existing terrace arrangement and replace the windscreens and parasols with a higher quality structure.
The structure would sit within the footprint of the original terrace and would not obstruct
the first floor residential windows.
It would be clearly subservient to the host building and would not encroach upon the walkway
or create a sense of enclosure upon the dockfront.
Several properties in the vicinity have ground floor level terraces and seating arrangements
near the dockfront and it's considered that the proposed terrace would be suitable in
neighbouring context and would be proportionate to the building and its surroundings.
In terms of residential amenity, it is acknowledged that a terrace in this location would contribute
some noise to the area.
However, this would be mitigated on days when the terrace awning is closed.
A management plan was also submitted which sets up measures to manage noise from patrons
and the applicant has agreed to a condition that would restrict the number of patrons
At any given time to 40 to limit the operating hours to 10 p .m
Prevent music and external areas and restrict the hours for deliveries and waste collections
The environmental health team were consulted and are supportive of the proposal subject to the aforementioned conditions
A four -metre public walkway would be retained along South Quay walk between the terrace and South dock
The council's highways officers are satisfied that passers -by including wheelchair users and those with a pram would have sufficient space to pass
Along the dockfront there would also be no additional pressure to traffic or parking as a result of the development
With regards to fire safety
There would be no change to the location of the existing doorways and the proposed seating would not block any entrances or exits to the building
including fire escapes.
All entrances and exits to the residential units above,
as well as the dockside walk, would remain unimpeded.
It's noted that the property is a relevant building
under planning gateway one.
The application submission clarifies
that evacuation assembly points, evacuation strategy,
and fire safety measures, including fire hydrant locations,
would remain unchanged from the existing scenario.
The materiality of external screening and glazed facades
is non -combustible and will be designed to comply with national building regulations
on fire and furthermore the design does not include any issues which might affect the
fire safety of the ground floor unit or residential apartments on the upper levels.
The building safety regulator was consulted on 19 February and have not objected to the
proposal.
The consultation response states that following a review of the information provided in the
planning application, the BSR is content with the fire safety design as set out in the project
description to the extent it affects land use planning considerations.
The proposals are considered to be aligned with the relevant policies as set out in the
committee report and it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to
conditions.
Thank you.
Thank you for presenting the application.
We have registered speakers for an objection in support of the application.
I want to invite Michael and Alex to address the committee in objection.
To this application you have up to three minutes.
Please introduce yourself as you speak.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, first of all, I would like to say that I feel that what I can see in this presentation
is missing several inputs.
There is a letter from the building's fire safety regulator or HSC
that has issued a building assessment certificate refusal
and enforcement action to the principal accountable person
highlighting the outstanding issues and actions with fire safety in the building.
So this is definitely not included in this assessment
because that specific letter from the Building Safety Regulator on the 4th of February
raises the issues around the fire risk assessment of external walls
and the building is now having a waking watch as part of the fire safety issues since February.
So I don't think this has been considered at all.
And I disagree with the fact that the external facade is not combustible
because how is BSR saying that the building is of high risk of cladding?
And here we are saying that the external facade is non -compassable.
So that's not accurate.
Secondly, I am aware that the applicant has responded to a question on if the fire hydrant
exactly outside the restaurant is functional and they have responded, don't know.
So I'm not sure if this is a satisfactory response.
If in stake there are 192 flats involved in a residential building.
So 30 more seconds, yes.
In addition, the retractable setup, we are not sure
if in a fire incident the fire brigade would be able
to quickly dismantle that unit and have a vehicle there
to fight a fire in one of the flats staying above.
And lastly, we honestly need to consider that this is a building of residents,
mainly 192 flats, and not of commercial activity.
There are people like the gentleman over there who are living exactly above the restaurant
and they have suffered throughout the years with noise and social behaviour,
smoke, several other issues.
So we think that we don't want another Greenfield Tower incident happening within Tower Hamlets, obviously.
And we think it needs to be reassessed according to the latest updates from the building safety regulator with regards to the external wall risk.
Thank you.
And I ask Alex.
I'm Michael.
Nice to meet you.
It's the first time I do this.
I've never done this before.
Please introduce yourself.
When you're ready.
But this time I bought this apartment one year ago based on a B1, how do you call those
certificates after Grenfell, which meant it didn't need any kind of, how do you call it?
Remediation.
and I managed to get a mortgage, bought a flat, it's a year ago.
I received two of those, both of them were B1s, which means things are okay -ish,
you don't need any remediation.
And on the 4th of February, I think it was, we received this notice from Building Safety
that changed, first of all it changed the policy from stay put to you have to run as fast as you can,
I don't remember how it's called in English, but evacuation, a simultaneous evacuation plan right now.
So when I first objected last September, honestly, it was only about the noise, smoking, people getting drunk and doing all kinds of things at your doorstep.
That's one thing.
But now, having seen this report, whatever the landlord allowed us to see, and looking at this being definitely a B2 moving forward,
which will make my life much more hard, especially even in the front of a mortgage, if you like,
This is when I decided to really object to this because now it's getting scary.
So for me this is not just a case of
objecting to the canopy or you know whatever a restaurant plans to do.
For me the council should consider revoking all licences
for restaurants in this building until the building is fixed.
Again this is based on what I know now, not what I knew back in September,
God forbid not what I knew a year ago when I bought it because maybe my decision
will be very different.
But right now, whatever this apartment is in danger, it's in danger as we are now.
Never imagine how more dangerous it will be with another restaurant over there and with
a canopy that will extend this little area.
That's why I would really urge you to consider rejecting this proposal and also please have
a look at the building to make sure we won't have a fire there and possibly revoke all
We have already one or two restaurants there.
They have to be removed.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Now we have speakers
in support of this application.
I believe they are online.
One is here.
Who is here?
Chris Brown.
Please, when you are ready.
You have three minutes.
Thank you.
After two minutes.
Thank you, chair and members of the planning committee.
I am the agent Chris Brown from Rolf Judd planning and I'm speaking on behalf of the
applicant.
The existing site comprises a vacant ground floor restaurant unit formerly occupied by
Goodman's restaurant next to south key.
Notably, there is an established history of external seating in the application site with
evidence of seating being placed there since at least 2011.
Most recently there have been screens surrounding an outdoor seating area but the applicant
now seeks to improve on this arrangement via this planning application.
A 2020 planning application improved the infill of the existing undercroft area of the unit,
resulting in the creation of additional class E floor space.
Is the applicant's intention to implement the works?
They have implemented it, I should say.
The terrace structure will feature a retractable canopy and openable sliding glazing panels
and will protect diners from hostile weather conditions and allow the structure to be used
throughout the year.
The proposed structure would sit within the footprint of the original terrace and would
not extend beyond the side elevations of the building.
The edge of the terrace will also be set four metres back from the edge of the Quay, which
will allow adequate room for people using the public realm.
The external terrace would result in 155 square metres of external additional classy restaurant
floor space on site, and it also allowed a diversified dining offer which would be advantageous
to the vitality and viability of the new occupier.
The terrace is seen as a marked improvement on the existing outdoor or the previous outdoor
cross -ceating area in terms of its usability and design whilst remaining subservient in
scale to the host building.
The terrace will therefore enhance the vitality and vibrancy of this location.
The site sits within a 23 -storey residential tower and we reviewed a number of objections
that have been made to the scheme by residents.
As we've heard, there's significant fire concerns related to the upper parts of the building.
I'd like to remind members that we are concentrating on an external addition to the ground floor
only there's no new external materials being added or taken away from the building.
And there's also concerns that have been raised in other written representations about
amenity issues.
In response to this, the applicant has produced an operational management plan which contains
details of site capacity, hours of operation, site management, safety, amenity impacts and
mitigation including measures for smokers outdoors, music on site and diners leaving
the premises quietly and also waste management.
The operational management panel also addresses fire safety.
You have 30 more seconds.
Okay, alongside our fire statement.
The fire statement has been fully signed off by the building safety regulator
and they are happy with the proposals.
Officers have agreed that the management plan satisfies the concerns of residents
and have recommended enforceable conditions to make sure these measures are upheld.
Overall the proposed terrace will not exceed the depth or width
of the most recent seating arrangement and will greatly improve the aesthetic of the area.
and the retractable cannabas will reduce the potential immunity impacts on neighbours on the upper floors.
Thank you. May I now ask a Mandein Stafford, I believe, who is joining online to speak in support of this application.
when you're ready.
Hi, hi, yes.
Okay, hi, yes, so I am a resident in the building
above the premises and I would like to express
my full support for this planning application in question.
I mean, from what I've seen and what's been submitted,
it is clear to me that this is a significant upgrade
from the Fulber Goodman's terrace.
Firstly, not only the design,
it is much more aesthetically pleasing
and it feels well suited to a waterfront setting.
And for me personally, as someone that works from home,
this is particularly important to me
because I am often looking for places locally
where I can work during the day,
the more comfortable environment.
And sometimes I used to go to the Havis,
but however, it's not ideal for an outdoor setting,
you know, if you want to go there during the winter time
or when it's much more closed.
So having an enclosed terrace space,
just like the one I proposed directly on my doorstep would be perfect for someone like me
and perhaps any other working professionals in the building also. I do believe that the fact that
it is an enclosed terrace is a big improvement, especially when it comes to reducing noise
compared to the old structure that Goodman's had had and that was much more exposed in terms of the
was open right the way to the end so I do believe that this is a well thought out structure and it
has the potential to create a high quality outdoor space and enhances the overall look. I'm not
entirely sure what the cuisine is planning to be but I do hope it is something that will positively
add to the local offering and the sort of culture of the area. So to be honest, the residents have
seen this space underused at times, so it is refreshing to see that this is a well -thought -out,
enclosed structure that can function throughout the year, not just during the summer times,
but during the winter as well.
So yeah, overall, I am in support of this application going forward.
Thank you for speaking in support of this application.
Do members have any questions to the officers or the applicant?
Councillor Rahman.
Thank you, Chair.
My question is for a couple of questions for the applicant.
What measures will you be taking to manage the customer's behaviour, especially noise,
when people are leaving the terrace at night?
and also the smoking and vaping for the residents above you, what would you be doing?
So in terms of noise, I think we're not allowing any music outside, only kind of no live music inside.
In regards to me and the team people leaving, there's soft measures we can employ which will be things like signs saying we have neighbours on the doors,
that's just one of the soft measures not the whole kaboodle. We've got security on the door as well and
an operational management team as well that are all employed and have an active interest in keeping
people quiet when they're leaving the venue. In terms of vaping and smoking we haven't restricted
that in in terms of being people vaping and smoking outside. Under the previous arrangement
there was no controls over that but we are going to be having a designated smoking area where people
can be pointed towards.
And yeah, so I think that probably
answers most of your questions.
May I add something?
I just sent you the refusal of the Building Safety Act.
How does it go?
Refusal and enforcement to the building.
I just sent it to Fatima so that you
can make an informed decision.
You had your chance to speak.
The members heard.
If they have any questions, they can ask you.
Councillor Bastien.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for your presentation.
Really helpful.
I was really concerned by what the objectors were saying about the cladding.
And I just wanted to get some clarity on the timing.
So when did the building safety regulators sign off on the fire plan?
and was it before residents were made aware of the issue with the cladding?
Thank you. So the consultation was received on the 19th of February and the response was sent on the 2nd of March.
OK, and residents were made aware on the 4th of February, I think you said?
Can I answer?
Please, yeah.
We were first informed about that letter on 10th of March,
but the letter itself to the landlord is dated 4th of February.
So just to follow up then, so I don't know the Building Safety Regulators process,
do they consider, do they have to consider contemporaneous information
at the point of making their assessment? How would they, what assurance can we get
that they have taken into account the concerns of the cladding that residents have been informed of.
So HSE were consulted with the building safety regulator, were consulted with regards to this application only.
If there's any other issues with the building with regards to its cladding that's a separate matter.
Their remit was solely to comment on the merits of this application.
Could I ask Paul to come in here?
Thank you.
Yes, so I'm just reading through
sort of what the building safety regulator
sent back to the council.
So that was on the 2nd of March.
And they have looked at what's being proposed
in terms of the external canopy in the terrace
and whether that would have any fire safety issues in itself,
but with regard to the fact that it's,
ordinarily we wouldn't consult the building safety regulator
on this kind of application.
They're only consulted because the building
that it's attached to is what's called a relevant building
in building safety terms because it's,
I think it's over 18 metres tall.
In their response, they talk about it, so it's clear,
It's clear that they understand that there are obviously residential properties above.
The response doesn't explicitly talk about any other remediation proposals that may or may not be in train for the building.
I think we can, and they have assessed it against the relevant British standards of BS 9999, which is the current British standard for fire safety.
So, I mean, they are the official regulators,
so we can only assume that they've taken all matters
into account that are relevant.
I think the process that's going on with regard
to the external cladding is a separate process, really,
to this planning commission.
So I just feel uncomfortable making that assumption,
to be honest, because I think it's really serious.
You know, I wouldn't want to,
I don't know how we can get some certainty around that before making that assessment.
Sorry if I may. Whilst fire safety is a material consideration, it's only as far as the land use.
any sort of detailed regulations regarding cladding materials etc is strictly for a matter
for the building's fire safety regulator and it's not really a planning process so it's
a special statutory department.
No, I understand that.
I think I'm not certain that the BSR has taken into account
the very recent issues that have been raised with residents
regarding the cladding.
And if they, how can we be certain that the regulator was
aware of that issue when they were making their assessment and gave their view on this
application? Does that make sense?
Yes, thank you. Yes, just in response to that. So in the BSR's response to the council, they
So they cross reference obviously the fire statement
that was submitted by the applicant.
So and they've said section eight of the fire statement
states that the design does not include any issues
which might affect fire safety on the ground floor unit
or residential apartments on the upper levels.
They then go on to say following a review
of the information provided in the application
the BSR is content that the fire safety design
set out as a project description
to the extent it affects land use planning considerations.
I do accept though, Councillor Busson's point, that that doesn't explicitly reference the
ongoing cladding issues.
But they are sort of, I suppose they're acknowledging that there are residential apartments above,
they're acknowledging that interrelationship, but they are focusing their assessment on,
that's my reading of that, I've literally read out exactly what he said, but they're
their assessment on what's in front of them in terms of the ground floor unit.
Thank you.
Councillor Osman.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for the application as well.
How would the Council monitor the enforcement of the 40 people and the 10pm closure?
So we wouldn't proactively monitor that, if you like.
That would be something that we would do in response to if permission were granted, if
we were to receive complaints from members of the public or members of the building that
they believe that it was in excess of 40 or that it was going beyond 10 o 'clock, then
an enforcement investigation could be opened and our planning enforcement team would investigate
and carry out an investigation and that might include monitoring on an ongoing basis of
the number of people and then also the time it's closing and then if they do find after
monitoring that it is in excess of that, they would be able to take enforcement action.
I mean obviously you have to know it is a bit difficult, like obviously counting people
in and out of the building but investigations like this have been undertaken by the planning
enforcement team in the past and I think it's safe to say that action would have been taken
as well against things like this.
Do you have any assessment done about the noise?
No, there's no noise at all.
assessment supporting the application but the council's environmental health noise
team have reviewed the proposals and didn't raise any objections with regards to noise,
they just recommended the condition with regards to the terrace opening hours.
To be clear as well, so obviously there's the pre -existing terrace that was there, so
we also asked the environmental health team whether there was any historic complaints
about noise from the previously existing terrace and there is no record of that.
If I just try to understand.
Yes.
So previously it's already an existing terrace I'm guessing, yeah?
And it's carried on with the new changes and there's not been, there hasn't been any complaints or anything?
Not, I guess not quite.
So there was a terrace there, historically if you like, that's not there at the moment.
So but when it was in operation there were no complaints
But they've also been consulted on the proposals and they're not raising any objection
Council at
At the beginning
mentioned about the the 2 .3 and the 2 .1
typo error
or the wording
Would that affect in any way the public consultation that we've done legally?
Would that be something that may come back to bite us?
Or is that something that we are overlooking as...
Because when it went out for public consultation, it had those kind of wordings on it.
So whether it will affect us?
I think that's a really good question, Councillor.
My opinion is probably not because I think the objections that we have received are quite
sort of well informed objections.
So I think I get the impression that everybody that was looking at the application and looking
at the plans knew what they were and they were able to either support or object based
on their interpretation.
So I think it is quite minor, but I think it's a good question that you've asked.
Thank you, Chair.
We have a lot of plans and policies, for example, National Planning Policy Framework 2025,
and I love dogs neighbourhood plan 2022 and we have our local plan policies as
well does this proposal development fully complies with these policies or
conflict these policies
Yes, in summary we're happy that it does comply with the provisions of the development plan
and other material considerations.
And that's why we're, well sorry, subject to the conditions that we recommended.
I think just returning to that issue around the historic use of that land, there was a
terrace there but it was a much more sort of open terrace.
This is a more enclosed proposal,
so obviously it has different effects,
but arguably in terms of noise spill, et cetera,
it's more contained and then subject to the hours
which are to finish at 10 in the evening
and that restriction to the occupancy,
then in this kind of location,
bearing in mind there are a number of terraces
sort of further along the dock,
it's probably quite characteristic
of the sort of area to have residential buildings
then with ground floor restaurants.
So, in answer to your question, we would say yes, it does comply with those policies.
Thank you.
I have a question for the offices.
Does the
Your operation management plan clearly demonstrates a four metre public walkway will be maintained
throughout the operation hours at all times?
Sorry, could you repeat that?
The four metre public walkway will be maintained at all times.
How do you ensure that does he demonstrate how do you maintain it again?
Because of the most solid structure it creates that dependability
Whereas the previous structure it was almost these patio
Shields that would put up on the side and they could well
You know ostensibly move quite easily with just one person moving them with a fixed structure you maintain that four metre distance as a
You know completely throughout
So it gives you more certainty
To the officers, if this is not maintained throughout the operational hours, the four -metre
public walkway, how the council will act and take action against the breach of this not
maintaining this four -metre walkway?
Yeah, just I guess to add to the applicant's response, so it's kind of, it is a structure
that is on a straight line if you like and the plans that we would be approving tonight
show where that line is and so we have a clear sort of reference point if you like of where
that formula should be and so it'd be quite an easy thing I would imagine if it, for some
reason it's in the wrong place, it'd be quite an easy thing for us to as a planning team
or the planning enforcement team to go out, take measurements and if it's in the wrong
place then take enforcement action and request that it's back in the right place.
Any more questions for members?
Councillor Pronces.
So, like colleagues I hadn't really understood the fire safety issues.
So just reading the report that I think was submitted by the applicant, is that right
Dada?
It says a fire on the external terrace could produce large flames that reach the glazing
above potentially causing the glazing to fail and allowing fire to spread to level one where
there are residential units and residents may be asleep.
To mitigate this any furniture on the terrace will be non -combustible.
Can you just tell us what other mitigations are proposed that would reduce any potential
risk apart from that use of non -combustible materials?
Sure thing.
So it's quite a long report and I appreciate I'm not the fire consultant but I think the
main takeaway is one that you've picked up on with having non -combustible materials out
there to stop the spread.
Also the fact that the canopy is there as well just reduced the timing as well.
The materials that the canopy and the structure is all made from are all non -combustible as
well.
All fire exits, of which there are four, are all maintained as per.
There's also, in terms of response to fire, there's also two locations for fire engines to park up.
And so I think also we've given the designated kind of area where people can bake and smoke as well,
to make sure that it's located in one location.
And there's fire detection measures, so there's passive and active fire safety measures, there's fire detection,
so there's obviously manual detection for the people working there, but then there's also smoke ventilation,
sorry, fire compartmentalisation as well. But yeah, there's a whole range of things here,
and the BSR have completely signed off on all of them, so yeah.
The last question from me is more likely you're going
to have more objector raise the point that from a tourist,
you have more, the noise will travel farther.
and the ASB issues, so how do you mitigate these issues?
Do you have any complaint process in place if residents want to complain?
How are you going to deal with this, mitigate this noise and ASB issues?
Of course, so I think we outlined earlier some of the measures that were in place to try and reduce noise
including the soft measures and staff on site to make sure that people are quietening down.
But in terms of a complaints procedure, within the operational management plan we have almost
a manager themselves who are managing the event.
So they are contactable by all the residents, will ensure that their number is sent out
to all residents as well.
You know, it's also, it's on their doorstep and they'll have to maintain a relationship
with the incoming occupier as well.
Obviously our occupier has an interest in keeping them happy as well to reduce the number of complaints.
So I'd say that's the primary roles, the primary ways we've achieved that.
Thank you. Do members like to share their final thoughts or debate on this application? Please indicate.
Thank you, chair. I think I would just reiterate my point about the fire safety. From what
the applicant is saying, it all sounds really sensible. I'm not an expert though. I can't
take what he's saying and go, oh, that's okay then. And I would just like us to be able
to get certainty that the safety regulator is aware of the issues with the cladding and
that they had taken that into consideration when they'd made their assessment on the land
use. Because I think that's critical. I think none of us want to see what happened at Grenfell
happen again anywhere, least of all in Tower Hamlets. And we just don't know, I don't
think we know the answer to that question. So I think we should defer to get an answer
to that question and then come back to make a decision.
I think my advice on this, again I sort of read the BSR comments a couple of times while
we've been sat here and I read them out and I think it's, whilst it's the same organisation
Dealing with both the planning and looking at this application. I think councillor Busson has drawn attention to the fact that it isn't
explicit in the BSR's
Comments whether that whether they've kind of cross referenced the two
I think that is a fair that is a fair point to make and I think that is a material planning consideration
it is an option for your committee if you
Felt that way that you could
would consider deferring the application
and we would go back to the BSR
and ask them to update their comments
to make sure that they had properly taken into account
the relationship with the ongoing
remediation and cladding issues.
I know this particular building is also one
that is a focus for our own fire safety team
who are doing an awful lot of work in tower hamlets
around cladding and remediation,
So we could also obtain some comments from them as well
Council person is right, but none of us here are experts on on fire safety and that's why we rely on the BSR
But but I think it isn't explicit in their comments that way consider that into relationships or if members would feel
More comforted in having some updated comments then then an option is to defer the application and we could see further comments from and report
them back to me
In terms of process, I think you have to hear from all members because members may have
completely different opinions but that's just an option.
Cued.
Members, please, want to share your own view on the proposal or the idea suggested by Councillor
Bastien.
Before I share my views, if this application was to be deferred, when is the next DC committee?
I think it's 23rd of March.
Oh, sorry.
23rd of April.
April.
April.
April.
April.
April.
The pre -election period doesn't affect the licencing committees because these are regulatory
committees.
So that committee can still take place.
Councillor LANDMAN.
I'm listening to the concerns and obviously safety is paramount to any development that
we do or we give planning permission.
and this committee is responsible for that.
I've been listening to the residents,
I think, and the advice from Mr. Buckingham,
I think it's important that we can consider,
considering that we can sit prior to the election,
which I was unclear about, which has now been made clear.
So I'm happy to propose that.
Thank you, Councillor Ahmed.
Thank you.
There are no material considerations which complete this development.
However, fire safety is paramount here.
And I am happy to defer this item for the reason of fire safety.
Thank you, members, for your views.
I'm now asking to vote on this deferral.
Sorry, I just said.
Sorry.
So, look, I understand people's concerns and their reservations about doing this without
maybe seeming to have all of the information that's necessary, and if colleagues want to
do that I'm not I'm not going to get in the way of that I think I can understand
why that would be useful I do though want to say now because I don't know
when necessarily whether this will come back next month or not if we choose to
defer that actually I think that there's lots of merit in this in a more of a
controlled situation than particularly in relation to their anti so the like
potential noise and nuisance and that sort of thing from having this sort of seated arrangement
Then the much more informal
Arrangement which has been the case in the previous
version of this premises I
Think that there's been another temporary
Efforts or changes been made as I as I understand and
I
I know that that obviously needs to be regularised, but it seems to me that this is potentially
a better option.
So I'm happy to wait and see what comes back on the fire safety thing.
But I do think that there's merits in this scheme that we shouldn't do sign -off as well.
Could I ask, I would like to see members if you are in favour of deferring the item.
Paul, can you confirm the decision, please?
Thank you, Chair.
So on a majority vote, with one abstention,
the committee has voted to defer the application
and just to clarify that the deferral is purely
on the basis of obtaining updated comments
from the Building Safety Regulator to ensure,
well for them to explain how they've taken into account
the interrelationship of this proposed development
with the ongoing fire safety issues affecting
the wider block.
Thank you Paul.
That's it.
Well that's fine.
You might be able to obtain that information in time for an April committee
which may or may not be held.
But I think I would appreciate having a note back in between times.
Once you have that information, once you're confident about what it is that you've got
rather than actually just being presented as a committee report.
I think once you obtain that information, if you could share it.
Absolutely, that's noted. Thank you.
Could I hear from...
No, you're fine.
That's fine, okay.
So, that's all done.
Thank you for your time and contribution, members and officers.
Thank you.
Is it possible to add something to the agenda?