Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 1 April 2026, 6:30pm

Strategic Development Committee
Wednesday, 1st April 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

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.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the strategic development committee

meeting. My name is Councillor Amin Rahman and I will be chairing

this meeting. This meeting is being webcast on live on the Council's

website and the public and press may also follow this meeting

remotely. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly. But

Before I do this, I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting,

including the virtual meeting procedure.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair.

If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch your microphone on and

may also switch your camera at the point.

You should keep your microphones and camera switched off at all other times.

Please do not use the meeting chat facility.

Any other information added to the chat facility will be disregarded.

If you are experiencing any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic

Service Officer as soon as possible.

I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves.

Please, can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in agenda items

and the nature of interest?

Just to confirm, I have had numerous of emails and a few calls coming through for some of

the agendas for today, but not responded to anything or any of the calls as well.

Apart from picking up a phone call which was by a resident in Canary Wharf, I believe.

However, I have not discussed any matters.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Good evening, committee.

This is Councillor Saeed Ahmed.

I have nothing to declare apart from, same as you, chair, we had received a lot of emails,

inundated in fact, on a lot of the agendas today, but nothing that I've responded to

anything of pecuniary.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair, and good evening, everyone.

I'm Councillor Gulam Kibriya Choudry, Popular Award.

and same like you, I received some email and then I used some phone call but I did not respond.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening.

Councillor Liguwanasane from Lensbury Ward.

Likewise, the colleagues have received several emails on different items, but I didn't have time to respond to them.

And other than this, I have no interest to declare. Thank you.

I have received emails, I have not responded to any and I have also spoken to Ian, Mr Austin

and Mr Beckenham today because I was a trustee of a charity which was based there and which

are no longer there.

I was also a co -founder of an organisation which was based in one of their gender items

which I haven't been involved in for over four years,

and I don't think that organisation is still there.

And also, I was part of a leadership programme

called Uprising, which was also based in that area,

which is no longer also there.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Councillor Lilu Ahmed from Welland Ward.

Nothing to declare.

I received few email but I didn't discuss

Good chair if I may councillor Hussein's properly declare for transparency and openness reasons that the fact he was a member. He was a trustee of the

Organisation shot which was occupying one of the

buildings for one of the applications tonight he had no

So it's in order for him to stand.

Thank you Ian for putting that out to us.

So I was part of a trustee of an organisation called Social

Organisation for Unity and Leisure. I resigned from that charity in 22

2022 and the Utilise project which I was co -founder of I resigned in end of 2021.

Applicants forgive me I've been for not addressing you by name

But I've been asked by the chair to for you to confirm whether you've had any involvement with the charity named by councillor Hussein

If you want the name again, I think council who's saying it we ought to give you the name of the charity

or that that he's talking about

Cass could you say the utilised project?

the organisation, but it's not a DPI and it's not a trustee or a board member.

Thank you.

Now, thank you very much.

Now to apologies.

Penny, have we received any apologies for absence?

Thank you, Chair.

I can confirm that we haven't received any apologies.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Agenda Item 2 is minutes from previous meeting.

The minutes from 3 March 2026 to be approved.

Is everyone happy with the minutes?

The agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objection and meeting

guidance.

I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development management planning and building control to

present the guidance.

Thank you, chair.

Good evening.

Good evening members, 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 must be made in accordance with the relevant

development plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.

When we go on to consider the individual report, so the process will go as follows.

So I'll introduce the item and then with the full description of the application and the

summary of the recommendation.

Officers will then present the report.

Then we will hear from anyone who's registered to speak in objection, who can address the

committee for up to three minutes each, followed by anyone who is registered to speak in support

equally for three minutes each, including any councillors who have registered.

The committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers and then go on to consider

the report and the recommendation, including any questions, debates and further advice

from officers.

The committee will reach their decision based on the majority vote and I'll confirm that

back to everybody in the meeting.

In the event that the committee propose any changes to aspects of the officer recommendation,

for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or planning obligations, then the

task of formalising those changes is delegated back to the Director of Planning and Building

Control.

In the event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation, they must give

their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.

Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice.

The task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director

of Planning and Building Control.

And if the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions

of the development plan or could have any other legal implications, then the item may

be deferred for an update report to come to a future meeting of the committee dealing

with the proposed course of action.

Chair, there is an update report this evening for both items that we'll be considering,

So I'll come to that when we get to those items. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Beckin and it

Yeah, okay, I've been told to ask counsellor sitting as an objector do you have any DP eyes

No chair

Chair if I may sorry to sorry to interrupt counsellor

The rules of procedure for this committee require that if you're speaking at a meeting and not a member of the committee,

it's details of contact with the applicant, agent, advisor or any interested party or whether you're making the speech on behalf of the supporters or the applicants.

So I'm speaking, I'm objecting to both application as a local councillor and as a resident.

I think you can expand, obviously, during the objection.

Agenda item 5 are the planning application for decisions.

We have two applications to consider this evening.

Agenda item 5 .177, marshall, has been withdrawn from this meeting to allow time for officers

to consider planning and legal matters raised by third party.

This application will be produced to further meeting of the committee.

Agenda item 5 .2 is planning application for development at 49 to 59 Mill Harbour, 224

Marfield Crescent and 23 to 39 Pepper Street London, E14, pages 33 to 162 of the agenda.

I now invite Paul Beckenham to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

So as the Chair has said, this is a planning application affecting a site known as 49 to

59 Mill Harbour, 2 to 4 Muirfield Crescent and 23 to 29 Pepper Street in Isle of Dogs,

London.

And the application proposes the redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of the

existing buildings, associated site clearance and then the erection of buildings and the

to the existing basement to provide student accommodation

and residential uses along with flexible community

and commercial uses, public realm landscaping,

car and cycle parking, highways works and associated works.

The application is accompanied

by an environmental impact assessment

and the outcome of that process has been taken into account

in formulating the officer recommendation to the committee.

The recommendation as I said is to grant planning commission subject to conditions and planning

obligations.

Chair, if I may, I'll just go quickly through the update report.

So the update report deals with some clarifications around the building height of Block B. The

report says 53 .45 metres.

It should say 55 .43 metres.

There is also clarification on the number of cycle parking spaces provided across the

scheme in terms of long stay and short stay spaces.

Also clarification around the pre -application advice meetings that took place between November

2023 and March 2025 and presentation to the Council's Quality Review Panel in March 25.

Also clarification, sorry, there was a superfluous sentence in paragraph 7 .85 around daylight and sunlight,

so we've just struck through the sentence that shouldn't be there, apologies for that.

There's been a minor change to the applicant's energy strategy, so the carbon offset contribution is just recalculated slightly,

So it actually comes down a bit because the energy efficiency has improved.

And finally, some additional representations have been received.

A letter of support from the Island Dog Sea Cadet Unit and an online petition has been

shared with the council that currently has 51 signatures in support.

Couple of other issues, Chair.

So the environmental impact assessment on the topic dealing with microclimate and the

wind assessment, our consultants did raise some issues with the methodology.

The applicant has gone back, they've rerun the wind testing and further modelling.

It doesn't appear to generate any further concerns beyond what we've already seen.

However, we have asked our consultants to just do a final cheque in the event that your

committee resolves to grant planning permission.

If there is anything arising back from our consultants, then we would report that back

to you.

Finally, on daylight and sunlight, it was drawn to our attention that there was some

residential accommodation above the public house at 21 Pepper Street, which initially

wasn't included in the assessment.

That's now been added in.

However, there's no significant concerns around daylight and sunlight there.

The figures are all in the update report for you.

All in all, sorry, that went on a little bit longer than I thought, but all in all, that

doesn't change the recommendations of the Ground Planning Commission.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

I will now invite Oliver Cassidy Butler, planning case officer, to present the application.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening and thank you to all those in attendance, whether that be in person or online.

The application I'll present to you now pertains to the site at 49 -59 Mill Harbour.

The site is located on the Isle of Dogs between Mill Harbour and Millwall in a dock and is

split by Pepper Street which runs from west to east and across the dock at Glengall Bridge.

To the north of the site is 47 Mill Harbour which is a commercial building with a data

centre use.

To the east of the site lies Glengall Bridge and Millwall in a dock and to the immediate

south east lies 21 Pepper Street, otherwise known as the Pepper Street Tavern which serves

as a public house.

To the west of the site lies Mill Harbour Road and Teller Road, an area which is primarily

residential in nature.

To the immediate south is the Greenwich View Industrial Estate, which is again occupied

by another data centre.

The site is located within the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area and the

Mill Harbour South site allocation within the current local plan.

The site is bisected by Pepper Street which was part of National Cycle Route 1 which was

recognised as being an important piece of green and active travel infrastructure within

East London which helps connect the east and west sides of the Isle of Dogs.

So on the left hand side of the screen is an aerial image of the site as it exists.

The image on the right shows how the current western boundary of the site is hindered by

awarding associated with the demolition which took place under the site's extended permission

for redevelopment.

So the current proposal seek permission for the demolition of all buildings on site to

develop three tall buildings.

Blocks A and C would both measure 28 storeys with a maximum height of 91 metres and 3 centimetres.

The two buildings would provide a total of 918 student bed spaces of which 35 % would

be affordable. Block B would measure 14 storeys with a maximum height of 54 .43 metres. It

would provide 59 social rented homes representing a 100 % affordable housing contribution for

the C3 traditional home element of the scheme. In addition to this, 252 square metres of

community incubator space will be provided across the ground floors of blocks A and B.

This will be provided at a peppercorn rent for 999 years and secured by way of Section

106 agreement.

So in consideration of the proposals, it is important to note that the site benefits from

an extant permission with images of that permission on screen now.

The extant permission allows for the delivery of two tall buildings which would provide

319 traditional homes and approximately 1 ,700 square metres of non -residential floor space.

The extent commission was allowed at appeal and included an affordable housing contribution

of just 16%.

The extent scheme has, however, been viability tested and has proven to no longer be financially

viable.

This means that the scheme will not come forward.

Nonetheless, the extent scheme is important in establishing acceptable building heights

and the land uses for the site.

So the application was validated on 27 June 2025.

1334 letters were issued and site notices were published on 25 July 2025.

Total of 25 letters were received with 8 being in support and 17 an objection.

As Paul mentioned earlier there is also an online petition which has 51 signatures in

support of the scheme. So reasons for support can be summarised as the proposals would provide

new homes and be a benefit to the local area. In terms of the objections, people had concerns

that the scheme does not align with the strategic aspirations for the opportunity area or indeed

the development plan. Others raised that the proposals would result in an oversupply of

student housing and not provide enough traditional C3 housing.

Comments were given that the overall heights and scale of the development is not appropriate

and does not align with the tall building policies and additional concerns were raised

with respect to highways, residential amenities and the scheme having the potential to prejudice

future development.

So on the screen now is an image of what the development would look like if it was consented.

This view is from the south west of the site.

The two images on the screen provide further details how this scheme would look with the

image on the right hand side being viewed from the eastern banks of Millwall, East Bank.

On the screen is the CGI, the proposal is viewed from Tiller Road which is to the west

of the site.

And again there's another studio which shows the view from the east bank of Billwall outer

dock.

The red arrow is just pointing to one of the taller blocks of the three.

So this is an elevation of block A, block B and block C.

So now looking at the screen you will see a ground floor plan showing the wider developments

proposed layout.

Block A to the top left and C to the bottom right is student housing.

Block B bottom left would be C3 affordable housing.

Play spaces separated across the site with the National Site Network running between

the two.

Two blue badge parking spaces would be provided to the west of Block B in the bottom left

corner and the area shaded blue on this screen now.

So purpose built student accommodation.

The proposals would provide 918 student bed spaces of which 321, so that's 35%, would

be delivered as affordable student bed spaces.

46 rooms would be delivered as wheelchair accessible units and this represents 5 % of

the total number of bed spaces.

In addition to this, 51 % of the beds would be subject to a nominations agreement with

the London School of Economics.

The proposals would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupants of a

range of well -designed community spaces to be split across both blocks and made available

to all students living on site.

The proposals would provide a policy compliant provision of wheelchair accessible units with

a high quantum of other units which could be adapted subject to increased demand.

The scheme is compliant with policy requirements for purpose built student accommodation in

that it would be subject to a nominations agreement with a higher education provider

and that a student management plan would be secured by way of section 106 agreement.

In addition to this, the affordable housing contribution of 35 % means that the scheme

does qualify for the fast track route under the London plan.

It should be noted at this stage that the GLA are supportive of the scheme and the proposed

delivery of student housing on this site.

So the proposers also seek to deliver 59 social rented homes.

This represents a 100 % provision of affordable housing for this aspect of the scheme.

Of the 59 homes, six would be wheelchair accessible and this is meeting policy requirements in

terms of delivering wheelchair accessible homes.

The scheme would also consist of a 49 % provision of larger family homes which would help meet

local needs.

On the screen now is a comparative table showing how the current scheme compares against the

extent permission. It serves to demonstrate that the current proposal

serve as a more efficient use of the site which would provide a greater

number of affordable traditional homes and also provide a higher quantum of

homes on site which would better help the borough meet its

strategic housing targets. Just to reiterate that the current

proposals would provide 59 social rented homes as opposed to 24 affordable rented

homes and 13 shared ownerships as approved under the extent of permission.

The current scheme is able to support a high number of social rented homes as a result

of the inclusion of student housing.

So the overall standard of accommodation is regarded as being good quality with all units

meeting minimum space standards and there being a high proportion of dual aspect units

throughout the building of Block B. On the screen now is the floor plan for Block B.

The section of the floor plan in blue on the right -hand side shows the communal amenity

area for that building.

It has been designed to open out onto the adjacent child play space and provide good

levels of passive surveillance.

The proposals would have an unanticipated child yield of 91 children.

The proposals would provide two children's play areas, either side of Pepper Street.

In total the scheme would provide 776 square metres of usable play space positioned at

ground level and made publicly available, which would be supported by good level landscaping

arrangements.

The play space is generally regarded as being good standard despite some daylighting issues.

Given the constrained nature of the site, it has not been possible to provide the full provision of the children's play space.

It is proposed therefore to secure a financial contribution of £20 ,100 to go towards upgrading and maintaining local play spaces that exist in the neighbouring area.

So now we turn to design.

The site is located within the Millwall in a dark tall building zone.

And it is noted that they extend permission granted permission for two tall buildings which were slightly taller than the current proposals.

The current proposals would deliver three tall slender buildings which are of good design quality.

The scheme follows the principle set out for the tall building zone and step down and hide from Canary Wharf tall building zone to the north.

The proposals are considered acceptable in terms of their impacts to the wider

townscape and no issues of designer raised in terms of the overall design quality.

So now focusing on heritage. The application is supported by a built

heritage and townscape visual imagery appraisal. Throughout the lifetime of the

application steps have been taken to lessen the scheme's impact on protected

views and after following the advice of historic England the proposals have adopted a more

muted colour palette and choice of materials to the point that it is now difficult to pick

out the proposals amongst the existing pattern of development.

Fortunately I've put that big red arrow so hopefully that direction is in the right place.

The proposals would result in low levels of impact and would not in duly affect designated

views identified within the Mayor of London's London View Management Framework.

The application is inclusive of environmental impact assessment, a daylight sunlight assessment

has been provided too.

The results show that the proposals would result in some changes to daylight for neighbouring

residents, however the impacts have been balanced against the benefits of the scheme.

On the screen now is an image which shows the residential properties which were considered

as part of the daylight sunlight assessment.

The properties presented on the screen now have been identified as being likely to observe

noticeable changes to daylighting as a result of the proposals.

In terms of transportation and highways, the proposals would provide a sufficient quantum

of cycle parking for all uses.

The applicant is also committed to making a financial contribution towards improvements

to Cross Harbour DLR station.

The proposals therefore do serve to support and move away from private vehicle travel

in accordance with the strategic aims of the development plan.

The scheme would have a result in a conflict with policy in terms of the provision of wheelchair

accessible parking as the scheme can only provide space for two on street spaces.

The borough's highways officers raised concern with this, how they have agreed with the applicant

securing financial contribution which would go towards privatising these spaces so that

They could be allocated to specific tenants living within Block B subject to the scheme

being granted.

At present the scheme does not however demonstrate how it could provide additional parking spaces

subject to demand.

So this is where there's a slight conflict with the London plan.

The proposals would if permitted result in improvements to Pepper Street which forms

part of National Cycle Route 1.

These improvements include landscaping improvements highlighted in the screen by the yellow arrow,

improvements to safety with the inclusion of improved signage and anti -car bar lyards

are highlighted by the green and blue arrows respectively.

Additionally, improvements to the hard landscaping and introduction of the novices pedestrian

crossing with rumble strips would further serve to improve usability of this portion

of the cycle route whilst maintaining safety also.

This particular aspect is highlighted by the arrow in red at the centre of the screen.

So the planning benefits of the proposals are summarised on the screen now.

59 social rented homes, 918 student beds, 35 % of which would be affordable, 254 square

of community incubator floor space, the improvements to Pappas Street that I just discussed, the

delivery of children's play space and £133 ,000 towards improvements of Cross Harbour DLR.

Financial considerations on the screen now for your referral in terms of community infrastructure

levy payments and mayoral sill payments.

And then on the board now are some non -financial obligations which would be secured by way

of Section 106 agreement and they're outlined in the committee report.

And then finally there is a summary of the financial Section 106 obligations.

Again, they're all in the committee report, however there's a slight amendment to the

carbon offsetting contribution as Paul raised earlier this evening.

So to conclude, it's my recommendation that the application be approved by members tonight.

I will now be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Butler, for your presentation.

Very nice, clear presentation.

I will now invite Councillor Mayim Talugula to address the committee in objection to the

application.

You have up to three minutes

Thank you, thank you chair good evening everyone

My name is Wayne told up in the local councillor. I

Want to make it clear that I'm not

Against development, but I can't have local councillor or resident. I do not support this

As councillors, we see reality every day when we visit our surgery, door knocking and so on.

The amount of shortages we have in terms of family size homes, the overcrowding and the homelessness

session we have and I strongly believe this is not tackling the family housing and social housing element.

thousands of people are on the waiting list and this is nowhere near meets that.

And I know one development can't just meet thousands of housing needs,

but step by step we have to take in terms of development by development.

So this application proposes a 918 students bed space,

and only including 321 affordable student rooms,

which is just 59 social rented homes.

I mean, we're told this equips to 35 % affordable housing,

but this relies on including the student accommodation.

So student accommodation does not meet the housing needs

of our residents,

and this is not something that we take into account

It also, as I said, doesn't meet the housing needs for our families, it doesn't reduce

the overcrowding or addresses the homelessness issues we have within the borough. So in reality,

on a major site, we're delivering only 59 homes for local people and over 900 units

900 units for student accommodation.

And in terms of, you can see on the,

in terms of the, I think 4 .9 on the objections,

you can see many reasons local residents have pulled forward

and in terms of consultation,

I believe there was a meaningful consultation

with me as local councillor or the residents.

I'm not sure about the neighbourhood,

Andrew Wood will address later on,

but I'm not sure what sort of consultation

they took with his committee.

And also, I think there are lots of ASP concerns

around the area, which will kind of increase

due to the student accommodation,

and also we don't know who will be coming and going.

A lot of them will be short term and so on.

The policy is very clear in terms of the London

plan policies and Tohamless local plans.

So we need to maximise genuine affordable housing on sites like this.

So we should focus on social rent and family size homes.

So not minimise it, not to substitute it, so maximise it.

So, I mean, we're not delivering social housing, simple as that.

We're just facilitating student accommodation.

This is a serious concern.

So thank you very much.

I hope the committee will consider this and reject the application.

Thank you.

I now invite Andrew Woods to address the committee in objection to the application.

You also have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Andrew Woods.

I'm a local resident.

I live close to this site.

I'm a former Councillor for the ward and also former Secretary of the Ulladogs Neighbourhood

Planning Forum whose neighbourhood plan was adopted in 2021.

It's disappointing to kind of see that the same things repeated year after year.

Say for example on page 34 in terms of child play space financial contribution to offset the shortfall in 12 plus play space

I need no play space for teenagers on the site

You know, where are teenagers supposed to play in the densest place United Kingdom page 40 again huge amount of space

reserved for cycles underground

852 spaces I've been in these cycle spaces. They're all empty. It's just a waste of space

But the main reason I'm speaking tonight is about my concerns about the meanwhile use of this site.

And the fact that the report doesn't really mention the words meanwhile use,

it also doesn't mention neighbourhood plan policy ES1 use of empty sites.

Because basically what's happened with this site over the last sort of 10 years,

is if you go visit it, there's a bunch of small businesses based there.

The utilised project which was mentioned earlier, which is charity,

It's basically been using the space and kind of letting it out to small businesses and small charities as a gym there

There are small restaurants. There's all kinds of

activity in that space

Because the space is being used today and what I'm concerned about and the reason why the neighbourhood plan has this policy in it

Is what normally happens is?

Developers come along and they knock the site down and the site is dead for years and you will see that Westbury print works

West Ferry Printworks, exactly that's what happened.

They knocked it down in 2017 and the site has been dead

for the community ever since.

And what I want this planning application to deal with is what happens

for the time period between assuming it gets permission at some point

and its actual demolition.

Because what I don't want to have happen is what happened about six years ago

is actually they demolished part of this site

to prove that work had started.

And the bits that they demolished were actually places where I used to hold public meetings.

So it's complete, and if you look at it now,

if you look at the satellite pictures, it's just dead space.

So I very much encourage the committee to deal with what happens

with the site between planning permission being granted

and actual demolition and trying to delay demolition

for as long as possible, because what has happened in the Isle of Dogs

is things just get demolished and then they're dead for years.

And that's what the neighbourhood plan policy was trying to encourage.

It actually gave things for the developers,

to give them an incentive to actually encourage mean while use space.

So I do think that's a missed opportunity.

This application doesn't deal with that.

The last thing I would say about student housing,

I personally have no objection because I've also door knocked

and there are lots and lots of family homes

on the Isle of Dogs occupied by students.

And the reality is that if we don't build specific dedicated housing for students,

what students will do instead is they will rent family sized homes,

displacing families, because you know,

five or six students in the full bed, basically pay more.

Your time's up.

Thank you very much.

And I invite Tom Silsby and James Greenwood

to address the committee in support of the application.

You have up to six minutes.

Chair, members of the committee.

Firstly, I'd like to thank officers and their colleagues

for their continued engagement and hard work

in progressing this application to the committee.

This is a highly accessible brownfield site

within the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area, located in the designated tall building

zone and suitable for intensification. It presents a significant opportunity to deliver

new homes, support growth and enhance the local environment.

As members will be aware, the Extant Consent Grant in 2018 has not come forward due to

viability. This was verified by the Council's Viability Team. While it has been implemented

by the previous developer, it has remained undelivered leaving this prominent dockside

site underused for several years. That consent also delivered very limited affordable housing,

just 11 % on unit numbers, with no social rented homes. This application brings forward a deliverable

policy compliance scheme aligned with the borough's priorities. In developing the proposals,

we have undertaken extensive consultation,

issuing over 5 ,600 invitations to the public exhibition

and engaged widely with local residents and stakeholders.

We continue that engagement as the scheme has evolved

with our project website receiving over 1 ,900 visits,

ensuring transparency and ongoing dialogue.

What is before you today is a fundamentally improved

and more balanced proposition.

We have taken the opportunity to rethink the site entirely,

using a policy compliant approach centred around purpose built student accommodation

to unlock delivery and critically to facilitate the delivery of meaningful social housing into our hamlets.

The scheme provides 59 homes, all 100 % social rent, 49 % family housing including 10 % full bedroom homes,

35 % affordable PBSA beds in line with the London Plan,

and a long term nominations agreement securing the majority of the beds.

This represents a clear change in affordable housing delivery on this site.

The scheme is underpinned by a long -term partnership with the London School of Economics and Political Science,

with a 15 -year nominations agreement securing 51 % of the beds.

Turning to the site, it is currently underutilised, inward -looking and attracts significant anti -social behaviour.

The proposal seeks to transform it, delivering over 4 ,200 square metres of public realm,

over 700 square metres of play space and a new community facility for local businesses

and residents on a 999 year lease at a peppercorn rent. This creates a genuine long term community

asset. The design improves safety and usability through natural surveillance, better lighting

and active frontages creating a safe, vibrant and well integrated environment. The scheme

The scheme also improves on the extant consent by reducing building heights with a smaller footprint and a stronger emphasis on open space and place making.

We are ready to deliver. Our contractor is in place and we are in active discussions with registered providers and the council to ensure the social rented homes are delivered and allocated through the council's housing waiting list.

In summary, the extant scheme is not delivered, it provided limited affordable housing and

it has not unlocked the site's potential for the community.

This proposal does the opposite.

It delivers professionally managed student accommodation alongside a lasting community

asset, much needed social rented family homes and high quality public realm for residents

and the wider community to enjoy.

For those reasons, we respectfully ask that permission is granted.

Chair, members of the committee, my name is James Greenwood, I'm the Head of Residential Life at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

I'm speaking in support of this application at 49 Mull Harbour.

Over the past year, LSE has worked closely with the applicants, CC Pepper Ltd and Tom Slingsby,

to help shape a high quality purpose built student accommodation scheme that responds

to a clear and well evidenced need for student housing in London.

LSE has over 12 ,500 full time students and demand for accommodation significantly exceeds

supply.

While our ambition is to guarantee accommodation for all first year students, we are currently

around 1 ,500 beds short of that goal.

As a result, over 150 of our students currently live in privately rented accommodation within

Tamar Hamlets, often in shared HMOs competing directly with local residents.

Purpose -built student accommodation enables those students to move out of conventional

housing, releasing existing homes, including family -sized properties, back into the wider

housing market.

This scheme responds to the existing demand rather than creating new pressure.

The development will provide 918 student bed spaces with a 15 year nominations agreement

securing 51 % of those beds.

That's 468 rooms precisely for LSE students.

This will allow students to move from dispersed private housing into a professionally managed

student accommodation environment helping to ease pressure on the local housing stock.

This site is well located reflecting where many LSE students already choose to live.

Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs are popular due to proximity to employment opportunities

including internships and graduate roles.

I'll finish off by saying more broadly LSE students contribute to the wider London economy

and so this policy is compliant, it supports all of our needs and LSE strongly supports

and respectfully ask that planning

permission be granted today.

Thank you.

Do you want to switch your mic off?

Thank you very much.

Do members have any questions for officers?

Councillor Cialbri?

My questions are off the end.

OK.

You can do that.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, officer, for your presentation.

My question to the objector, especially for...

We didn't disturb you, Councillor.

I just want to clarify, officers, objectors and applicant, questions for free.

Thank you.

My question to the objector, especially for Councillor Mayyam Thalouda and Enroad.

As a local Councillor, did they consult with you?

One question.

And second one, did they consult with the resident?

extended indictment

and if there is one where

Brazil

curious

don't

think there has been

meaningful

consultation

with residents. Thank you.

Was it for both objectives or just the Councillor?

So I had no engagement with this application, but I would point out, for example, on the

77 Marsh Walled site, which was meant to come tonight, I did meet the developers and talk

to them about the local issues. It's not an application I saw very much about, so I think

Maybe a few people attended but it wasn't widely advertised and I do run a local Facebook group

And I don't remember really seeing much about this application and that so I do think the consultation on this was pretty minimal

Thank You councillor say you don't it. Thank you. I've got a bunch of questions. I think we'll take him one at a time

That's okay

My first question goes to the applicant. Just wanted to understand

So I couldn't figure out from the report when did the applicant actually get on to the site and actively start pursuing

your development ideas?

Good question.

I will refer back to my team.

I think we were...

Hannah, do you know the exact date?

It's probably...

November 23.

Is that alright?

Where are we now?

November 23.

I've got one follow -up, Chief.

So November 23, and since then,

what work have we done with local charities

and organisation based around that area and who are they that you worked with?

I think it was actually November 24, Hannah, on that date.

We tried to engage with many people and obviously I appreciate the comments very

Zellie Ron, but we sent out over 5000 letters to local residents to engage with them

and we met with several groups as well and one of them here as well is Natalie in the stands

who runs a local charity as well, so it's just as many people as responded

and we've obviously got the, we hosted an exhibition over a two day period

and lots of people popped in and we engaged various people who popped in and obviously

corresponded and then sent them follow -up emails via our comms consultant Kim and several

of these emails were sent out to everyone who represented and then obviously we've updated

the website and emailed everyone who attended the website and released their details.

One for the officers if that's okay and then I'll come back after which is just okay. So

I think in terms of the development, I think the objectors have made a very good point

where

Councillor Taler spoke about the number of developments. So I think here we're looking at

somewhat

6 % for my calculation when it comes to social rented affordable homes. I understand that you've put in the

321 affordable students part of that bracket when it comes to the affordable homes

But we understand the issue is with overcrowding right within our boroughs

I want to talk about the social rented affordable homes comes to 6%.

How and where in our local policy does it support replacing conventional housing with

predominantly student accommodation when it comes to the actual social affordable rented

homes when it's only 6 % in the whole development of nearly a thousand dwellings?

Thank you, Councillor.

Sorry, I'm just getting up the, sorry, there we are, on the wrong screen, just getting

the comparison of the ex -stant permission against the current proposals.

So I think it's really important to, I'll have to find it eventually, just specify that

The scheme is in providing 6 % affordable housing in terms of the

And this is the approach that's been supported by the GLA and their assessment of the scheme

The student housing and the c3 element should be viewed as two separate

Entities, however, the applicant or the proposals are meeting the fast track approach on either. So in terms of the

The student element is 35 % and that's viewed as 35 % affordable housing for the student

element.

In terms of the standard C3 housing, that is 59 social rented homes, that represents

100%.

So those two things, even though it's on the same site, they're being viewed as separately

and that's the support that's being taken by the GLA.

I think if we look at the extent scheme, which has been proven to no longer be financially

viable so those homes aren't going to come forward anyway. When you start to

break it down and you look at the provision of affordable housing

associated with a scheme it is significantly better and I think that's

always going to be the challenge isn't it? It's weighing up affordable homes and trying

to perhaps a land use that some people aren't always desperately comfortable

with but that allows for the delivery of affordable homes. At present there's an

even if it did, it would result in less homes of which a quite large majority of them are

shared ownership.

So again, they're not necessarily targeting the need for affordable rented homes that

you've identified in your questions.

So yeah, I think they're just points that you probably just want to consider in relation

to that.

I hope I've answered your question.

I have a question for the officers as well.

This site previously had concerned over 300 homes.

Can you explain why delivering 59 homes is acceptable?

Thank you.

Yeah, just to be clear, there is the permission for 319 homes.

It's no longer financially viable.

So the applicant provided a viability assessment of the scheme that's been reviewed by our

in -house viability team and we all agreed that that scheme is not any longer financially

viable and those homes aren't going to come forward.

So our job is to assess the proposals that come before us and I think when you're looking

at that uplift in social rented homes, so they're homes which would have been at a lower

rental cost than the 21 affordable rent anyway. I think that represents actually quite a good

benefit, it's an improvement in just sheer numbers, but also with the view of those homes

actually being delivered. So that's sort of why we justify it's 100 % compliant, there's

a 35 % provision and then when you break down the numbers there are more affordable homes

with a high provision of larger sized family units, again meeting specified need which

everyone will be aware is acutely needed in the borough.

Just think it's important to add as well that student housing, we have considered that to

be an acceptable land use on this site.

Appreciate, obviously we appreciate there are wider concerns within the council about

housing need and from a planning policy point of view, student accommodation is acceptable

on this site.

Oliver's just given a very detailed explanation of why we have the proposals in front of us.

But it's also important to be cognisant, I guess, of the wider picture with respect to affordable housing.

And I think what we're confident of here is that by delivering student accommodation on this site,

they are achieving more affordable housing than they would if they were to bring forward a purely C3 residential scheme.

I think we have confidence in that because we subjected the extent consent to viability

considerations and that based or to a viability assessment rather that was interrogated by

our viability team which demonstrated that at 16 % which again is 24 affordable rent homes

and 13 shared ownership homes, we don't view that as likely as coming forward.

So the applicant here is proposing student accommodation which again from a planning

policy point of view is acceptable and the benefit of it is it's delivering more social

rented homes than we think would be achieved if you were to bring forward a purely C3 residential

scheme.

Thank you.

I think Councillor Sibosian.

I've got a few questions.

Forgive my ignorance, but where is this C3 homes, 319, but then it goes down to 21 affordable

and 13 shared ownership. How many of the previous one had, what were the numbers of the social

housing on the previous one? So they are the numbers of the affordable, so I basically

discounted the market housing, so it's just a comparison because this scheme doesn't have

any market housing. If that answers your question. So the previous one had 33. Sorry, it had,

The previous scheme had 13 units at the Talhanets Living Rent and eight units at London Affordable

Rent. So that was 20, sorry, that's 34 in total.

To be clear, social rent, which is proposed here, is a more affordable product than those

that were secured previously. So there's more and there are more affordable rental

And the affordable breakdown in the extent scheme included 13 intermediate units this game includes no intermediate

It's all social rent. So the tenure has changed

I've got another question in terms of the social homes

Have we does it come to the council or is it good does it go to a housing Association? How does it work?

Understand that the

The applicant is liaised with registered providers and I think there are communications with

Tower Hamlets but it's still very much early stage.

In any instance it will be secured by whether Section 106 agreement with appropriate marketing

to ensure that it goes to a registered provider and just follow that standard process.

I will now turn it over to the

Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

Given the high density nature of the

development, I just wanted to know if

this is granted, permission is granted,

what measure are in place to support

students' mental health and well -being?

So at LSE we have one of the leading residential life programmes across the UK actually.

So we have a 24 hour wellbeing programme that will be in place to support their wellbeing.

There will be somebody on site 24 hours to support student wellbeing that's also trained

up to our levels and we will also work with local services so if we need to get support

outside of that we can do.

The school also has an extensive wellbeing programme in place to support our students.

So we've won multiple awards for our wellbeing programme so I'm quite confident we would

keep those students very safe.

Councillor Jai Chowdhury.

Thank you.

My question is to the applicant.

There was a very concern raised by the local councillor, Councillor Mayim Tareq there, the

development of this nature.

I just want to ask you your response that he said local councillor wasn't invited or

contacted, so can you just answer that one why the local councillor wasn't consulted or

invited?

And another concern raised by the objective of my Councillor Andrew Wood, saying if the

planning permission granted and demolition of the castle, are you going to leave this

site unattended or how long it's going to take for development?

Okay, I'll take them both in turn.

So yeah, we I believe I know there's a bit of a misunderstanding

But we my opinion we did send out emails to all the councillors local

Councillors and obviously we did our wider letter drop and I think that's a nice statement of community involvement that we submitted to the council

as well

Kim Humphreys from cardboard ventures our room political comms consultant

Issued all that a correspondence to to tablets

So we did send out emails on that regard and it we want to consult with

with locals and counsellors and everyone involved.

That's part of what we do.

And I fully appreciate we're developers.

We haven't been here for a long, long time.

We want to come here and improve the area.

And it's all about consulting with all the local residents

who obviously live and breathe this area all the time.

So that was always a fundamental part of our strategy.

In terms of timing, just on the second point.

So yes, we've got a contract lined up

and timing is key.

We want to get on the site.

We want to deliver this scheme.

I appreciate everyone's frustrations about the site being sat there vacant.

It is frustrating for developers when you see sites like that and I know the site has

been attracting a lot of antisocial behaviour over the recent months and years.

The beauty of actually getting on the site and designing what we can do now, which is

a viable use, we've got the student use, we've got the LSE partner on board and we've got

the 100 % social rented block separately as well.

We've been liaising with the RPs, we've been speaking to Tower Hamlets most recently by

Jeff Pierce, I think he's in house at your side as well about potentially taking that

block and it's the beauty of student, it's very contingent on academic years to give

everyone a little comfort. So we need to get on site, we've got LSE signed up, LSE aren't

going to hang around forever and we need to get the beds built and it's very stringent

on building the scheme and getting the beds operational for their own academic intake.

So at the moment our programme, it fluctuates between a 29 intake or a 30 intake but it's

that sort of year without the programme.

Thank you for your answers.

Another important point is there's quite large number

of students will be accommodated in this building.

It's in around 980 students, best patient,

315 of them are social brand.

Have you done any studies or have you got enough amenities

for ASB because there is a lot of single men

and women will be there.

and obviously the residents will be concerned about the late night parties plus during the weekend especially.

So have you included any amenities inside the building for the students to spend their time in?

Or have you done any other studies to minimise the effect on the local residents?

Yes, we've done quite a lot of consultation actually.

Obviously we have LSE on board as well, we've been doing lots of demand reports and some student demand

and actually the scheme has got quite a bit of immunity within the development itself.

So we've got immunity on the ground floor of block C,

we've got immunity on the ground floor of block A,

so there's two student blocks, block A and block C.

So we've got immunity on both the ground floors of both buildings.

We then have an immunity internal and external.

We've got an external terrace on the fourth or fifth floor I believe it is,

the architects here, the first floor, there we go.

So we've got an external terrace on the first floor which also has internal immunity

and then we have a 27th floor full immunity.

And in all these amenities there's a combination of gym, yoga, libraries, breakout, educational use, learning,

and obviously our external terrace as well.

And it's important to say that that immunity is accessible by all.

So just because we've got LSE in the block and we've got a separate block,

all students within the whole development will have access to all parts of the immunity across all aspects.

Can I just come in as well? I know there's a bit of a concern in terms of student impact

on the local area. I just want to be really clear that the LSE, the School of Economics,

is incredibly hard to get into as a school. So our students are head down studies and

will rarely be partying or seen in the area. So I just want to be really clear that that's

the type of student that we will be placing in those buildings. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kabir Hossain.

Thank you, Chair.

I've got a few questions.

First of all, I want to know, is it 28 storeys building or what is the height of the building?

Yeah, I believe we've got a 28 storey, 27 storey and a 15 storey.

The second one, I believe you have the section 106 money.

and in regards to £133 ,000 contribution towards Cross -Hiber DLR,

do you think it's sufficient to mitigate the transport impact in this area?

I believe so. The numbers that we've obviously provided to contribute

have been calculated working with the council and TFL and then the GLA as well.

and I think they are and I think it's important to say obviously working with LSE as well

that actually a lot of the students will be walking and using bikes and especially having

the cycle highway route 1 going through the site is a key factor for us all students take

bikes and a lot of the students will be walking up to Canary Wharf where a lot of them will

be based.

Last one.

Has the council independently verified the viability on financial assessment?

Sorry.

Do you mean has the viability been verified for the X -TAN scheme?

Yes.

So our in -house viability team did assess that and they agreed with the conclusions

of the applicant's viability appraisal in that the extent scheme is now non -viable.

To be clear though on the current proposals that are in front of us, there's no requirement

to look at the financial viability because the student element of the proposals is providing

35 % affordable student housing, therefore that meets the fast track in relation to student

and as Oliver set out earlier, the C3 element, that's 100 % affordable. Again, there would

no requirement to look at the viability there.

So we looked at the viability of the previous scheme just to assess whether a residential

scheme was likely to come forward, but what's in front of us in terms of the actual application,

we haven't looked at the viability because we're not required to.

Thank you.

I just want to talk a bit about the daylight and sunlight.

How can, how many neighbouring properties will be experiencing significant daylight

and sunlight losses and how many are filled BIE guidance?

Also, I want to know, no, let me ask these questions first.

Thank you.

I'm just going to get the slide up which should make that a bit clear.

I think it's about five, six sites that have been identified as either having moderate

or major impacts.

So they're listed on the screen at the moment.

In terms of the major sizes 161 Melly Street and 819 Pepper Street.

So they, I'm just going to get the slides up.

Yeah so 161 Melly Street is a block of flats just to the west of the application site.

30 out of the 37 windows would be impacted so that's about 81%.

and the severity of those impacts is outlined on the screen at the moment.

In terms of sunlight, 10 out of the 15 windows would fall below guidance.

So in terms of 161 Merritt Street, there would be noticeable changes to day lighting

and the impacts are also in relation to the garden area of 161 Merritt Street,

but that is a big contributing factor to that is the orientation of 161 and

Mellie Street and the gardens have been set within quite dense urban grain and

where it's already experiencing quite levels of quite high levels of

overshadowing or lack of light as it is and then the impacts to 8 to 19 Pepper

Street again we've assessed it as being a major impact in terms of day lighting

So again that would be noticeable changes.

In terms of 8 to 19 Pabst Street, whilst the majority of windows wouldn't necessarily see

a change of those which are impacted, they would be noticeable and for that reason we

assessed there being a major impact just on those specific units, although the vast majority

wouldn't be affected.

So why, you know the severity ones, why are they considered acceptable?

So I just wanted to make a more broader point about the assessment there.

So with a scheme of this size, like members will have seen regularly, we come to the strategic

development committee with applications that have significant amount of daylight failures.

This one has two properties that we are saying are major adverse and then if you count the

So the question is, what are the

total number of windows that have major

adverse implications, it's something of the order of about

50.

So there's 27 properties that have been assessed as part of

the daylight sunlight assessment.

That equates to 2 ,581 windows to overall.

But only 50 from all of those properties

that have been assessed and all the number of windows.

Councillor Said.

Thank you, Chair.

So my first question is to the applicants.

It's rather to understand the balanced sustainable community that you want to bring about.

So I've heard issues raised by the objectors around antisocial behaviour.

So how do you plan to tackle that in terms of having an influx of students being in that area?

When you face antisocial behaviour, I know students who have Thursday nights, Friday nights, what's your plans?

I'll go first on this point. Obviously I know the site has got lots of antisocial behaviour at the moment, purely because it's a bit of a stagnant site.

It's very dark, it's not very well lit at night.

So the scheme has been very cleverly designed,

working with the case officers and the design team,

and obviously the design review panel to ensure that

we've got active frontages in all the buildings,

A, B, and C have all got active frontages.

The schemes can be very well lit.

The public realm will be of really, really good quality.

But to sit alongside this,

and I'll pass to James on the LSE point,

there will be a student management plan in place

and the scheme and there will be an ongoing management site 24 -7, so there will be an

on -site team monitoring the site all the time, so that will help manage anti -social behaviour,

noise, nuisance, complaints, anything that arises there will be an on -site team managing

anything that arises.

Yeah, I mean it goes on to my point before for the LSE, our students are very academic

and definitely have their heads down quite often. Alongside that we run a quite advanced

social programme we call it, so we have a whole programme of activities and events that

are around community building for our students, but it also includes bits of volunteering

with the local community, so we will be launching that programme in the building and hopefully

being able to find some partnerships with local charities and organisations to develop

some work there. We also will work with local authority too, if we feel it's needed, so

and local PCSOs, et cetera, if that's kind of required,

but very rare in my experience.

I manage over 4 ,500 flats at the moment across the city

that we get to that point.

We have quite solid and robust programmes in place

to support the students, but also find connexions

with the local community where we can through volunteering.

Thank you.

Councillor O 'Hosain.

Just wanted to point out,

Academia is also like to party, but most importantly, thank you for clarifying what you just said,

but I've spoke about this in other planning committees.

I understand you put car things to block cars from going onto Pepper Street,

but there's pedestrianised bridges across the island and it's not just cars which are an issue,

is also mopeds.

Are there any measures in place to deal with that?

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure we all appreciate mopeds.

I've come in with increasingly a bit of a nuisance

across the whole of the UK really at the moment.

But yeah, so the scheme's been quite cleverly designed

with our transport consultant to ensure

there is actually servicing loading bays

accessible throughout the scheme,

which do not enter into the pedestrian zone.

So I don't know if you get a site planner, Ollie, at all,

but obviously we've got the main pedestrian road

where we have our bollards going up Pepper Street

and then actually we've got the servicing delivery plan

which goes round the back of the buildings

and we've got the loading bays round near the pub.

So there's a bit of a loop where we expect mopeds

and delivery of delivery,

and deliveries and packages and things.

So it has been carefully well designed and considered

to accommodate this quantum of student development

to ensure actually delivering the servicing

is not gonna have a direct conflict with the play space

and the student's external immunity.

I'll say last, my Vagan.

Thank you, Chair. I think it's not just my pettis scooters as well that needs to be addressed.

I think my question might go to the officers around antisocial behaviour.

I know we spoke a bit about antisocial behaviour, but at present you might be more aware of what kind of antisocial behaviour is within that stretch.

I believe that there is like a sushi place where I've taken my child there once, below

the development at the moment.

But is there any reports of crime and antisocial behaviour now given that it is quite a kind

of derelict place where you don't tend to really go and visit unless you've got an absolute

need to go there?

We've anecdotally heard that there's crime or there's antisocial behaviour.

I think as part of the application what we've been keyed to do is just put in mechanisms

to ensure that the end users, so students and residents, don't contribute to antisocial

behaviour in the local setting.

But also we consult the Met Police secure bird design officers and they've also proposed

applying conditions for secure bird design.

So that will ensure that the scheme is both safe for those living there but also pass

them through so conditions for a lighting strategy, the signage I think just general

activation I think that's probably a key problem at the moment with the site having large bits

derelict and not necessarily a great amount of footfall. So yeah our view has very much

been assessing the scheme as is presented and looking to optimise how it integrates

within the local community and ensures that it's safe and has safety for people who are

is the

just passing through travelling, commuting, people who are

potentially living there or working there or in what guys.

The focus has been about ensuring that any delivered

development, like I say, is safe to all those who sort of use it,

whether it's, like I say, living, passing by, or whatever

guys that is.

Why have you chosen to deliver on the 59 homes on a site that previously had a consent for

300 homes?

Sorry, I missed the start.

Why deliver 59 homes?

So the scheme, the extent scheme is not viable.

So I think as the case was presented, the scheme kind of brought forward isn't viable

as it stands and actually it doesn't deliver anywhere near as much affordable homes as

what we're trying to deliver on the site.

I think there's 16 % on a habits or room basis,

but I think that quakes down to 11 % on a unit basis.

And of those 35 units, there's not one social rented home.

Zero.

There's an affordable rented home,

there's a town that's living rent,

and then the shared ownership.

Shared ownership is not viable in this location.

We all know that.

It's an expensive location.

The key bit for us was to try and lock the site,

bring it forward, and we can do so by delivering

our purpose -built policy compliance student accommodation which enables us to build a standalone block of C3 housing

Which is 100 % social rented and it's really kind of worked really hard with Tower Hamlets to ensure that that scheme

Block B is well designed to meet the needs of registered providers and ideally Tower Hamlets Council if they were willing to take it

to provide 59

Units 49 % obviously family rented units and obviously 10 % on the four beds to ensure that actually it's meeting the low needs of the local

people, whereas previously the extended consent wasn't really ticking the boxes

at all. So it's really the student is facilitating the delivery and as the

neighbour list to provide all the public realm, the play spaces and everything that

goes with it. Thank you Councillor Said Ahmad. Thank you, thank you Jay. Yeah I

believe for your previous point that students do keep their head down but I

think when you go punting in Cambridge you'll hear some interesting storeys

what students can get up to.

My question is to the officers here, really.

Surround the strain on their infrastructure, local infrastructure, when it comes to NHS,

when it comes to the waste services, when it comes to our CEOs and community safety

on that element.

So I just want to understand how we have planned to resource it, because looking at the financial

obligations, it does not seem great to me, and I'm sure within 8 .2, that's not all of

it.

What kind of Section 106 are we looking at and what's the plan around infrastructure?

So the application is supported by a transport assessment.

It's also an environmental impact assessment which does take into consideration infrastructure

and has been independently reviewed by Ramble on behalf of the Council.

In terms of the financial contributions towards Cross -Harvard DLR, that's a request that was

made by TFL as part of the GLA Stage 1 report, they've assessed the likely impact the scheme

would have on local public transport.

So that's where that figure comes from.

And that figure has been amended in line with what the transport assessment is sort of indicating

to TFL.

So whilst it may not necessarily seem the greatest amount of money to yourself, that

come from TfL, that's not a request from us, that's from a statutory consultee. In terms

of infrastructure impacts onto the wider community, there's a few ways of looking at it. One,

students typically don't use GP surgeries as much as regular residents. And then there's

Street which is improving green and active travel and connexions between

different parts of the borough. We view affordable housing as a key piece of

infrastructure, the play space as well and all those things have been taken

into consideration. And then of course there is the community infrastructure

levy payments and so there's the Mayoral and the Yatata Hamlet and that is on

on screen at the moment, the combined figures. So it's a decent chunk of money in terms of

supporting infrastructure as well and in terms of the assessment of the scheme, I do think

that it is acceptable and that it's not having undue impacts on infrastructure and that there

are appropriate mechanisms in terms of SIL and the section 106 obligation to offset any

identified potential challenges that would be presented. Thanks.

Councillor Hussain, Shiba Hussain. Sorry last question I wanted to ask I read

something about some or you mentioned earlier about internships and training

who's providing that is it money going to the council or was a service provider

you guys just to confirmation. Yeah that their internships through our academic

programme so that's through the various firms that operate within Canary Wharf

so a lot of the banks we have kind of contracts and agreements with them so

they're the providers. And how will you be advertised to the local people sorry?

And so those internships are just for our students they're not open to other

They could be open, I don't know, but we have direct relationships with those banks.

Those internships are part of their actual academic course.

Usually over the summer, those students would stay on in the local area and work essentially

in the Canary Wharf district.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to know, do you have any nomination in place from universities?

Sorry, would you mind if I pick

any?

We received a nomination

from the university

for student accommodation.

Did you say any nominations?

Nominations

for the university?

Yes, obviously,

51 % of the beds

is under nominations

agreement.

35 % of that

is the GLA

rents

on the four -world

rents, as stated in the

and then there's additional 16 % on top of the 35 % to get to a majority in line with

London Plan to get to 51 % under a nominations agreement.

Have you received any nominations?

I beg your pardon, sorry, have you received any? No, not yet, no. So obviously we're partnering

with LSE for the nominations agreement so LSE will, you've got a waiting list of X thousand

students on your waiting list so obviously the nominations agreement will come via LSE.

So our nomination agreement with this property would be 51 % of the student bed stock within

the property.

And yeah, as you've said, we have quite a large waiting list, so we will fill and take

those beds quite quickly.

Any more questions?

One more.

So back to the offices around child play space and I think Andrew has also spoken about it in terms of the shortfall and the contribution and I guess officers I would ask you whether you think that the shortfall contribution is suffice for the level of child space that we'll be missing out on?

Yeah so I think that's a really good question. The scheme is providing good

quality play space and it is catering for children of all ages. There is however

a shortfall so it's not a case that any one group wouldn't have any space but

it's just it's not hitting the quantum and that's quite common for a

scheme or a site like this just with the constrained nature. In terms of

calculating those contributions and to sort of offset that harm we have to go

to our infrastructure team and ask them for the calculated figures and that's

what they've come across. So I've got the trust in our infrastructure team but

that's the appropriate amount and the applicants very much willing to make

that provision just to sort of top it up.

So in answer to your question, fundamentally, yes, I do think it's sufficient.

Just to be clear, when you will have seen contributions before, they're based on that

same formula.

So the reason this one might seem relatively low is because the shortfall is relatively

low compared to other schemes.

That's why it's 20 ,000.

Any more questions?

One last one.

Yep.

Thank you.

In fact, two last ones.

One of my last questions around the community space.

So we've got in I think 999 years community space on Pepa Corn.

My first question would be to the officers.

What kind of consultation do we have with local groups?

What's the plan with that community space?

And my final question is to the applicants perhaps,

is around the privacy of the actual development.

I think it was on page 65, you've seen how close those proximity of the buildings are.

And one of the points mentioned is, it says that it doesn't really breach privacy,

but given where we are at this day and age with social media,

Having students so closely opposite each other and such crammed spaces each one of those blocks. There's hardly any space

You've got a bathroom shower. You've got a bed and then you've got kitchenette and in a sitting area

How do you sort of plan privacy and that sort of settings in such close proximity?

Thank you for those two questions

I'm gonna start with the privacy and then we'll

go back to the community engagement for those community uses just because it

might be helpful just to refer to the applicant. So in terms of the privacy

element it is a constrained site and it does present challenges. The

relationship between Block A and Block B where they've got their closest

direct views. The design of block B, so that's the student housing, includes obscure glazing

and then the windows that don't have obscure glazing would have some obscure views. So

essentially the design of the buildings has been done to sort of prevent any opportunities

for overlooking to occur whilst trying to optimise the number of windows that allow

for meaningful outlook. All of the properties that do have sort of obscure glazing featured

within one of their units will also benefit from transparent glazing so they will also

be provided with appropriate outlook but the actual design of the proposals serves to mitigate

any issues of privacy and overlooking. So I hope that provides a little bit of comfortability

there. In terms of the incubator spaces, I'm aware that the applicant has been engaging

with local charities and that there is an interest in those spaces. It's envisaged at

the moment that those spaces would be secured by way of a section 106 agreement and there

would be a sort of cascading system of who gets first right and sort of the preferred

uses. So I know for Block B which is the affordable housing block there is an intent to deliver

that as a community youth orientated hub and provide space for young people partially in

recognition of that shortfall in child place space that we've already discussed. But it's

about keeping the Section 106 somewhat flexible in case no provider comes forward. But I think

at this stage it's probably helpful just to defer to the applicant just in terms of their

community engagement about how those spaces would serve to operate.

Yeah, to be fair you summarise it very well actually Oliver. So yeah obviously it's part

of our consultation process while we've been going through the design we've engaged with

various people and we want to bring forward community spaces there and it's

important that we're delivering them on a peppercorn rent as well because I

think it can be perceived to come forward on an affordable rental model but

that's still it's the late pound square foot or whatever it is and actually it

all adds up on bits and pieces so it's important for us to hand them over as a

peppercorn rent and yes we've been engaged with various charities as Oliver

quite rightly said but I think if we're fortunate to get the approval today

we'll obviously take that to the next level and actually as we go through our

design while we do our building safety act, we will obviously bring forward more engagement

with the local groups and charities and actually identify.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

Nope.

Would members like to share their thoughts or debate the application?

Councillor?

Thank you, Chair.

I think I would like to share my thoughts first and coming in here as

Hearing everything that we have so far. It's a good application and I think we are

We like development. I mean you can see Canadian Wolf has loads of development and a lot of

Community space as well as you know

Social rented homes as well as private homes, but I think in this

Particular application when it comes to student accommodation. I'm a bit concerned

I'm concerned given the fact that there would be a rise in antisocial behaviour in that area.

That's my primary concern.

Secondly, I'm concerned around the return of the community in that area.

I don't think the community will benefit from having such development than having a different sort of development when it comes to more affordable homes.

That is my biggest priority. We need more affordable homes.

I understand where you spoke about C3 and the categorisation of that.

I respect that, that's part of the policy, I respect it.

But the fact that we have only 59 social affordable homes is not great.

And that doesn't help me at all.

That's my biggest concern.

Secondly, having a balanced sustainable community, I don't see that there.

That is where we grant permission, we need to make sure there is a sustainable community,

there is a balanced community, this is majority student accommodation.

It's going to change the demographic of the area.

We need to respect that demographic, the culture, we need to make sure that continues, we need

to embed that in whichever development we go with.

Finally, I think the strain on the infrastructure, where we spoke about yes, there's going to

be funding to DLR, but I think that's not enough.

There needs to be more when it comes to the infrastructure.

I know you said that students don't really use the NHS much, but they are also human

beings.

They would also need medical attention.

and there must be provision for students when it comes to health and their well -being, of course,

because they will go for a lot of strain when it comes to education. The LSE is good, of course,

we support all universities that we want them to strive, we want them to do good, but at the same

time here on that site I am concerned and I think it's just the well -being of the students should be

given more priority and that sort of infrastructure needs to be more thought of.

That's just to summarise, yes.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

There are a lot of concerns regarding the potential impact on neighbouring amenity,

increased level of noise, comings and goings and general activities associated with high

lack of student occupation could raise the disturbance that

would be detrimental to the living condition of nearby

residents.

Furthermore, this proposal may place additional pressure on

local

infrastructure and services, like my

colleague said, without sufficient evidence that this

impact can be effectively mitigated.

In light of this consideration and

having regard to the relevant planning

I am not persuaded that it represents an appropriate or

sustainable form of development.

I am unable to support the application in this current

form. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Thank you for your hard work.

I appreciate that.

Given the scale of development, height of the development, with

heavy

student accommodation, I think

The adverse impact, my colleagues echo, impact on local amenities.

It will have an adverse impact on local amenities.

And also in my view insufficient provision for the affordable housing

which is not quite compliant with the local policies for accommodation.

So this is my view on this application.

and regretfully can't support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

The officers, they are recommended to grant the

application.

I believe this is a very good application.

We have to look after everybody in certain

communities.

Students, they are part of the community.

The 59 social homes, which is unique, we heard

about affordable, affordable in this area,

It's not affordable for anybody, which is eye -witness.

One of my friends, he lives in Canary Wharf, he is paying high rent, which is affordable,

but social is good.

I think it's a very good application and we should respect the officer recommendation.

Thank you, Chair.

I understand that there's a huge need to build a lot more housing for our local residents.

The waiting list has been increasing and this is just one form of building more houses.

But in my personal view I think it is the council that ultimately needs to look at other ways of building properties and houses to house our people on the waiting list.

In this committee particularly it's very rare to see social housing as social rent.

and I think that is really, really important.

Affordable housing is not as affordable as people may think it is.

It's 80 % of market rate value.

A lot of our young families are unable to afford to pay the rent of these properties.

So, you know, seeing social housing, social rent, it's fantastic to see that,

to see LSE, which is a phenomenal university,

and the students to come here into Tower Hamlets.

again, it's great, it would raise aspirations for our young people as well to achieve those

kind of goals as well. And like my colleague and others have said here, it's about building

a community for everybody. There is an aspect of our social housing, but young people, students,

a thriving business economy, we need every bit of that as well. So I usually do not sit

especially given the lack of play space,

here mine did to be in support of this application,

but I do think that looking at the social housing aspect of it

has made me inclined to support this application.

Thank you, Chair.

I like this application, I believe,

but my main concern was the large amount of students coming,

and I think the applicant answered my concern that they are providing a 24 -hour service

to minimise the effect. Plus, I believe releasing the, I have, you know, I have experience currently

don't know King, plus going to places that a lot of students are hiring three bedroom,

four bedroom houses and living there, demeeting local people access to the social housing.

So I believe if you promise that release of such a property from Tahoe -Lafra residents,

and I'm inclined to support this application on that basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Che.

One of my main concerns initially was about what Andrew Wood said,

where developments get planning permission and they just sit on it.

And this is one of the examples, and now that they are providing more social homes,

I think is a decent application.

Thank you so much for the application.

I have been concerned about more student flat.

There is the town home that is the more family resident awaiting large number of wedding

list, but after all, we need to double up for our students also.

And what's the circumstance and everything described and my colleague say.

So I support this application.

Thank you very much for everyone's thought.

I'll just share my thought.

Having considered the proposal, I cannot support the application tonight.

This site previously had concern for substantial numbers of homes, yet the scheme delivers

only 59 residential units in a borough facing several housing crises.

While the scheme is presented as delivering 100 % affordable housing within the C3 element,

the reality is that this equates to just 59 homes within much larger development.

The overwhelming majority of this scheme is student accommodation, which does not meet

presenting needs of permanent housing for local residents and families.

I'm also considered about the impact on neighbouring residents, practically in terms of daylight

and sunlight loss, as well as overall scale of density of the development.

Furthermore, the scheme raises concerns about community balance, a development of this scale

dominated by student accommodation, I think is a big risk creating.

Ultimately, I'm not convinced that the public benefits of the proposal overweights the clear

harms including significant reduction in housing delivery impacts on neighbouring amenity,

a lack of balance for housing offering.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting this application tonight.

Before we move on to the vote, I would like to ask Paul and Ian, principal lawyers, planning,

legal service, governance, to share the final advice before the vote.

Thank you, Chair, for that opportunity.

And again, I'm grateful to members and everybody who has participated this evening in giving

this application careful scrutiny that's required.

Just to comment on a few things that have come up during the course of the discussion,

we've heard some concerns around potential impacts around high density student accommodation

and potential ASB and just in addition to what's been said by the applicant, the report

does list a planning condition around submission of a student management plan and also a planning

condition around an estate management plan which has come up at previous committees where

you've got more than one block on the estate and how those have managed to be used.

In terms of the affordable housing, I absolutely hear what a number of members have said about

why would you replace an extant consent for housing

with student housing?

And I think the answer is that scheme,

since it was allowed on appeal,

because it's actually refused by Tower Hamlets,

it's sat there since 2018 and hasn't come forward,

so it hasn't been delivered.

The student accommodation scheme is being used,

if you like, to pump, prime,

and deliver the affordable housing.

And within the affordable housing block,

We do have 59 social rented homes compared to 34 homes in the extent scheme.

And as of 34, I think only 21 are affordable.

So you can see that's how we've looked at that particular balance.

But yes, it is a high density scheme.

But what it's doing is using that as a way of trying to bring something forward.

There is a nominations agreement for majority, i .e. 51 % of the student bed spaces, which is really important.

It's a London Plan policy requirement and it's there to stop student housing being built

speculatively so it demonstrates that there's actually a need for it.

Just in terms of some of the other issues that have been raised, in terms of infrastructure

we will have the £8 .5 million contribution, not contribution sorry, liability in terms

of community infrastructure level which can be used towards a range of infrastructure

including things like medical services, primary care, etc.

And finally, just turning to the point that was raised by one of the objectors in the Isle of Dogs local plan,

myself and my colleague were just having a look at this, and if the committee were minded to grant planning permission,

I appreciate that there's some quite differences of opinions across members,

but if you were minded to grant planning permission this evening, we could look at an additional condition,

And it's a bit like the kind of conditions we use in conservation areas to prevent demolition

prior to, you know, and having empty sites.

So we could look at a condition that requires no demolition to take place until a contract

has been let for the regeneration of the, sorry, for bringing forward the main development.

So that's a tried and tested way.

It's normally used in conservation areas, but the link back to the other dogs' neighbourhood

plan provides a policy hook for doing that.

So that's all I have to say, Chair.

I'll be honest, I think Paul has covered most of what I wish to say.

You're obviously aware of material considerations, local planning, these guidance factors in

this.

»» Thank you.

Now moving to the vote.

Can I see all those in favour of the application?

Thank you.

All those against?

Thank you.

Paul, can you please confirm the committee vote?

Thank you, Chair.

So the committee has voted, majority vote 5 in favour and 4 against in terms of granting

Planning Commission for the redevelopment of the site at Mill Harbour, Muleville Crescent

and Pepper Street to set out in Item 5 .2 on your agenda.

Sorry, just procedurally, I did mention the potential for that planning condition.

So, chair, with your permission, I would request the committee to vote on including an additional

planning condition that no demolition should take place until a contract has been let for

the development of the site.

Can I see all those in favour with that?

All those against?

Abstain.

Okay.

Thank you.

Agenda item 5 .2 is planning application for development on former Westbury Print Works

235 Westbury Road, London, pages 163 to 214 of the agenda.

Thank you.

You have five minutes.

up in five minutes.

One more minute.

Get up quickly.

We are having a five minute break.

Thank you.

Are we ready?

Agenda item 5 .2 is planning application for development on former Westbury Printwork,

235 Westbury Road, London, pages 163 to 214 of the agenda.

I now invite Paul to introduce the application.

»» Thank you, Chair.

So this is an application affecting the former West Ferry Print Works site, 235 West Ferry

Road.

Now this is a planning application under Section 73.

It seeks to vary Condition 2 of the previous Planning Commission in order to reconfigure

the internal layouts and alter some of the external elevations.

But alongside of that, the applicant has submitted a new planning obligation around the affordable

housing which reduces the affordable housing previously secured from would have the effect

of doing that from 35 % to 10 % based on viability issues.

The recommendation to your committee this evening is that planning permission should

be refused.

There is a brief update report, Chair, if I may.

So just in terms of the update report, you'll see that a lot of the information here is

concerning viability issues.

And at the time that we've reduced the report, there was still a little bit more work to

be done with our viability team.

So they've now submitted their final report.

It does change things ever so slightly, but the overall conclusion that there is a significant difference between Tower Hamlet's position and the applicant's position,

and indeed the GLA's position, because they've also reviewed the viability, still remains the case.

So on that basis, the conclusions remain, and the applicant's proposal of 10 % on -site affordable housing is not the maximum viable amount that can be provided,

in our opinion and therefore the recommendation to refuse remains the same.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Paul, for that.

I will now invite Katie Cook, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.

Good evening, Chair and members.

Before you this evening, as Paul mentioned, is a Section 73 application for the Westbury

Printworks site.

So, a slight technical hit.

It's not in that. It needs to go in that mode on your screen as well.

This slide shows the site and its red line plan.

We've got Westbury Road here to the west Tiller Road to the north and Greenwich View

Park Place to the east and Millwall Dock to the south.

This slide shows a layout of the site for which planning commission was granted on the

7th of February 2025 for 1 ,358 residential units, a new secondary school, commercial

floor space and significant new public realm.

The next two slides show some visuals of the extant consent. Here we can see the proposed

site looking north with towers T1 to T4. So here we have T1, T2, T3, T4 at the forefront

with the courtyard buildings in between, which are located here, one, two and three.

And this is a view from the General Wharf statue in Greenwich Park looking north towards

and towers one to four can clearly be seen to the west over here. So we've got towers

one, two, three and four.

Now moving on to this proposal by way of information, Section 73 applications are used to amend

planning obligations and conditions of an extinct consent.

They do not permit changes that would result in a major departure from the extinct consent.

Through this Section 73 application, the applicant is seeking to amend the proposals to ensure

compliance with up -to -date regulatory standards concerning fire safety.

The proposed physical changes to the scheme are minor in nature.

The amended proposals also seek to reduce the level of affordable housing secured by

the Section 106 agreement from 35 % habitable room to 10 % habitable room.

This would see a reduction in the number of affordable homes from 379 to 100.

The public was consulted about the planning application by way of putting up three planning

notices around the site, issuing a press notice in the local newspaper and sending out 6 ,891

labour letters. In total, 21 representations have been received with two in favour of the

proposals and 19 objections. Details of the public consultation are set out in the Committee

However, to help members, the key points for support are that priorities should be given

to ensuring this site gets developed so that homes are delivered.

Also that as a disused fenced off vacant eyesore, it is a magnet for graffiti and antisocial

behaviour.

Whilst various objections were received, the main point which was mirrored in the majority

of responses relates to the unacceptable reduction in affordable homes.

In terms of the key design changes, in light of the fire safety regulations, modifications are proposed to the building's cores and escape routes, resulting in minor amendments to the layout.

These alterations have also led to minor adjustments in the elevations at ground floor and roof level layout.

However, all necessary adjustments to unit areas or layouts have adhered to the relevant housing design standards.

The revised tenure mix alters the required quantum of child play space and communal amenity

space, however these still continue to significantly exceed policy requirements.

Three accessible units are proposed in addition to the previously consented ones.

So three of the two -bed units originally designed for four -person occupancy in block N1 shall

be converted into two bed units that are wheelchair accessible and designated for three person

occupancy.

This would result in 139 wheelchair accessible units within the scheme as opposed to 136.

In conclusion, whilst there are a number of minor design changes proposed, the proposal

is considered to accord with the relevant development plan policies.

services.

Moving on to the affordable housing element of the proposals.

Planning permission for the consented master plan was granted by the fast track route set

out in the London plan and secured 35 % affordable housing equating to 379 units located across

buildings N1, N2, N3, E1 and C1.

The 10 -year split was 70 to 30 between social rent and intermediate housing.

However, the applicant has submitted this Section 73 application on the basis that the

approved scheme can no longer viably deliver 35 % affordable housing due to construction

costs continuing to rise, sales values not meeting forecast levels and financing conditions

remaining challenging.

The revised scheme that is proposed in this Section 73 application will deliver the same

number of units as the extent consent being 1 ,358. However, the quantum of affordable

housing is reduced by 279 units and would be delivered exclusively within buildings

N2 and N1, providing a total of 100 affordable housing units. This slide shows the location

of the affordable housing blocks across the site as part of the extent consent. So here

In red and yellow and orange we can see the affordable,

and the white are the private homes.

And then moving to the section 73 application,

we can see that the affordable rent and intermediate housing

are located in blocks N1 and N2 as shown in the orange,

and the blue would be the market housing.

The minimal physical changes proposed to the development have not altered the assessment

with respect to and the effect on heritage assets.

From the assessment made as part of the extent consent, the proposal would result in harm

to the significance of two grade one listed assets and two grade two listed assets and

a conservation area.

where harm arises from the proposed development, we as the decision makers are required to

consider the level of harm and the extent to which this is outweighed by the public

benefits of the proposal.

So in terms of the overall planning balance of the proposed scheme, the design amendments

sought as part of this application are considered to be minor and do not materially alter the

design conclusions reached in relation to the 2025 extent of consent.

The provision of three additional wheelchair accessible units in Block N is supported,

as is the revised child play space, communal amenity space, which continue to be in excess

of policy requirements.

However, the proposal seek to reduce a quantum of affordable housing from 35 % to 10%, and

the proposal to reduce the affordable housing based on viability evidence, which neither

the TAO Hamlets or the GLA viability teams are satisfied is robust, cannot be considered

to deliver a public benefit sufficient to outweigh the identified heritage impacts of

the scheme. As mentioned, these heritage impacts are not new. They were considered as part

of the consented master plan in addition to other impacts. However, a number of benefits

were considered by officers to outweigh this harm and the strongest planning benefit, which

was the provision of 35 % affordable homes.

Whilst the harm to heritage assets

is considered to be less than substantial,

this harm does include identifiable harm

to the outstanding universal value of a world heritage

site and harm to two separate grade one

listed heritage assets.

Officers consider that the proposal

would result in an unfavourable planning balance in which

the harm to heritage significance

is not outweighed by the benefits of development

and where the significant shortfall in affordable housing provision fails to meet both local

and national planning objectives.

In summary, therefore, the proposal would breach several policies of the development

plan.

The MPPF as a material consideration provides a clear basis for refusing permission given

that the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the less than substantial harm

identified.

The proposal cannot, therefore, be supported in its current form.

It is therefore officer recommendation that the application is refused.

The reason for refusal relate to affordable housing, heritage impacts on the Maritime

World Heritage site as well as other heritage assets.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

I now invite Councillor Mayim Talibda to address the committee in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

I would like to thank officers that worked so hard on this application and it has been

a long saga, this application.

I am really concerned and disappointed.

I mean from 35 % to reducing to 10 % affordable housing and I think officers have already

said on the report and I totally agree with them and I'm grateful to all our officers.

I think this is not acceptable.

I mean a scale, a development like this needs to be more affordable housing.

So I just don't want to waste any more time, Chair.

So I strongly urge members to accept officer's recommendation and reject this application.

Thank you.

I now invite Andrew Wood to address the committee in objection of the application.

You have up to three minutes.

I will be quick as well because we know this will be decided by planning appeal.

I would point out that last year the Ballymore scheme on Cuba Street, which is not far away

from this site, did get planning permission to appeal with 16 % affordable housing.

And two weeks ago Homes England agreed to invest £180 million into that scheme.

So we know that 16 % is definitely viable in the area, so 10 % is just too low, so just

a bit of evidence for you.

But I'm very curious about the fact that in the documents and also in the update report

It talks about the school site receipts of 16 .3 million pounds

and I'm really curious what that is for because I thought the whole principle of the

local plan is that we basically got that school land for free and then we the government or the council will then pay to

Basically build that school. So I'm very curious why we're now talking about 16 .3 million pounds. Who's it for? What will it pay for?

And again, I'm really disappointed because I'm asking

I'm really disappointed because I'm going to ask the same questions I asked in this

room on 28 August 2024, which is you've written this really long report, can we have an update

on what's happening with the school? Because the parents have been told the school is going

to get built, the government will pay for it. None of that information is in this report.

I think that would be very useful information for local residents to understand what's happening

with the school and the sports facilities.

Thank you.

I now invite Mr. Valentine to address the committee in objection.

Thank you.

have any other thoughts on any issues that have been made up

Let me stop there.

I know there's more process

really, really I would like to respect the way to be good

numbers are higher than what's been offered.

So we did have, in terms of consultation, we did have pre -application discussions with

them prior to them submitting, it was limited I would say, we had one pre -application meeting

with the applicant team prior to them submitting it, but it wasn't in any great detail, it

was just they were setting out, this is what we're proposing to do, and then the application

arrived.

In terms of the second question about the evidence of the 16%, we obviously, an updated

financial viability assessment was submitted with these applications, which was the applicant's

attempt to demonstrate the viability of the proposals and their proposed reduction to

10%.

We have our viability colleagues here today who can talk about reviewing that proposal.

And essentially the results of reviewing that proposal are we are of the view that it's

not the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, hence the reason for refusal.

If you have any specific questions about that, they will be here to answer that for you.

Councillor Said.

Thank you, Chair.

My first question is to the officers, I don't understand that.

I'm sure we have given those reasons for refusal.

We have published them beforehand and I'm sure the applicant was aware of the refusals.

What measures have they taken to address those?

That's my first question.

And my second question is, that site is prime location.

We know what we need as local councillors, as residents of the area.

We know it's very important and we need to make sure that

it is developed to the level that we need to support our community.

It would support our housing demand

and it would support the schools that we need.

We need on the island, there is a need for school.

We've only got a canary of college in Georgeville

when it comes to secondary schools

and the population's great.

So that element is very important,

but what actions have been taken by the applicant

to address our refusals?

So the first time these reasons for refusal

would have been made public is when we published the report,

which would have been a week prior to today.

However, in advance of that they will have seen that we didn't agree with their viability

findings.

As was set out in the update report, sorry, by Mr. Buckingham with reference to the update

report, they did provide further updated viability information which responded to our initial

review.

We again reviewed that and that the conclusion remained the same, the ultimate conclusion,

i .e. that it's not the maximum reasonable amount.

So they did in a sense try to address the viability reason for refusal within the confines

of the application.

So just a further bit of context, this is quite unusual for us in the sense that we're

bringing this application to yourselves quite promptly from when the application was submitted.

Generally speaking for an application of this nature, we wouldn't be bringing it to you

within the statutory timeframe for an application of this size.

This is one of the quickest times we've ever done this.

So there hasn't been lengthy, protracted discussions.

There's just been that one opportunity for them

to address the viability position, but we're aware,

well, essentially we wanted to deal with this quickly

and deal with it within the statutory timeframe,

hence we're here with these reasons for refusal.

And there hasn't been protracted discussion on them.

Why is the proposed reduction in affordable housing from 35 per cent to 10 per cent considered?

The why?

Again, colleagues from Viability would be able to maybe get down into the specifics

of why the applicant feels that it's justified to drop the position from 35 % to 10%.

There will be a number of factors and a number of reasons.

I don't know if you want to set out principally what their argument is.

I can set out the reasons from the applicant.

So they stated numerous market constraints.

For example, an increase in construction cost inflation, increased risk from the Building

Safety Act and the forthcoming Building Safety Levy.

Funding complexity, so stemming from the uncertain bank rates, as well as a general decrease

in the average flat value.

One more chair.

So how do you propose a conflict with the London plan policies?

So the policy ultimately says

so we would have a fast track target of 35 %

for an application such as this.

So when the application was first considered,

the parent planning application which currently has consent,

they were at 35%, so they met that requirement.

There is the possibility of having a review

of the financial viability position of the proposals.

That is within policy, so they've taken that approach,

i .e. they've submitted a financial viability assessment

and we've reviewed it, but what you have to demonstrate

via that process is that you are delivering

the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

That's the policy position, and we're saying

It is not doing that.

That's our view.

Obviously the applicant has a different view.

They think it is.

We, on reviewing it, we don't think it is.

So we are saying with respect to that

element of the London plan policy, our view is

it doesn't accord with that.

Apart from reduced affordable housing, do you have any other issues or concerns that

we want to highlight to refuse this application?

So my main concern is that school children on the Isle of Dogs are going to a substandard

school building.

The school is good.

Canary Wharf College, because the government basically bought an old office block to use

as a school.

And the plan, you know, eight years ago, actually no, 2021, the pupil should have moved into

this brand new purpose built 1200 pupil school at Westbury Printworks with lots of sports

facilities that we could use out of hours.

And it hasn't happened because the applicant just basically hasn't helped.

And that's a real disappointment that basically those pupils are in a school, you know, basically

in the converted office building, and not in a purpose built school.

So that's really my my main concern tonight that again, there's a lack of clarity about what's happening with that school

Any more questions

Would members like to share the thoughts or debate the application

councillor

Thank You chair

Given that we are well

there is a recommendation already in place for refusal and I think I strongly support all three grounds given by the officers recommendation and the fact that we know what the island needs.

We know what Canary Wolf needs and it needs more social homes, it needs a school site, it needs amenities, it needs doctor surgeries.

Everything that we need to tackle the infrastructure, the level of population that we have on the

island, for all of that reasons, this application doesn't support that and recommendation is

also saying that the applicant isn't successful in meeting those obligations.

For that reason, I am not supporting this one, Chair.

do an address.

Thank you for DL

IfOBE

The reduction on affordable housing to 10 per cent, it doesn't represent the maximum

value of the development, so therefore I am not supporting this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I think the officers, they are recommending the application, they demonstrated the reasons.

I believe the scheme does not maximise the affordable housing.

That's the key reason.

I'm happy to agree with the officer's recommendations.

Thank you, I'm also happy to agree with the officer's recommendation.

The reason for the refusal of my officers that I violated, I find it very strong.

I agree with the officer's recommendation.

So I'm going to vote no.

Again, supporting the officer's recommendation and what everyone else said.

Thank you, everyone.

I will be supporting the officer's recommendation as well on this application.

Thank you very much.

Before we move to the vote, I would like to ask Paul and Ian Austin, principal lawyers,

Planning legal service governance to share final advice before we move to the vote.

Thank you, Chair. With Section 73 applications, the law requires us to just focus in on what it is that's being sought to vary from the original permission.

So that's why we've kept strictly to those issues.

I did want to just mention one thing though,

and it's not direct relevance to this application,

but it has come up.

And one of the objectives has mentioned,

and other members have mentioned about the school elements

of the site.

So the planning commission that was most recently granted

included a requirement in the section 106 agreement

for a development agreement with the Department for Education to bring forward a school.

What I can say is that the DFE are speaking to the planning service about how they can divorce

the school element from the main application and how that could be brought forward given the uncertainties

around the rest of the housing development. I'm not at liberty really to say much more than that now,

but certainly if anybody wishes to sort of make an inquiry,

we can see what information we can release.

But that's as much as I can say at this stage.

Just in terms of this application,

in terms of the affordable housing elements,

as colleagues have said normally,

and I think members of questions,

to what extent would we seek to negotiate

to try and get a bit closer in terms

of the applicant's position and Tower Hamptons' position

in order to allow developments to come forward.

But you'll see from the figures in the main report

and indeed the update report that the difference

between Tower Hamlet's viability position

and the applicant's viability position

is some 170 million pounds.

And we saw no prospect of closing that gap.

So hence we have brought the application.

Sorry, in the GLA we're slightly less,

but a similar order of difference.

So that's why we've brought the application

to you recommending refusal.

And just touching on the heritage issues,

just to be clear, those heritage harms were there

with the previous permission,

it's just that the public benefits weighed in favour

and now the public benefits have changed

because the affordable housing has changed,

hence those reasons for refusal.

I think, do I have anything else to say, Chair?

I'm happy to take any questions if necessary,

But hopefully that that's helpful. Thank you

Counsellors, I'll say if you're looking at refuse or pick your strongest reasons. These have been tested

With council and they're the reasons that office as I happy to recommend to you as the reasons for refusal

Thank you moving to the vote, can I see all those in the favour of the application

All those against?

Would you like to address the vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Just for clarity, the committee is voting unanimously.

So all eight members in favour of the officer recommendation to refuse the Section 73 variation

in accordance with the reasons for refusal set out in Item 5 .3 of the agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

That concludes the business for this meeting.

The next meeting will be taking place on Wednesday 29th of April 2026.

Thank you very much.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday 1 April 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Strategic Development CommitteeWednesday, 1st April 2026 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

Strategic Development Committee
Wednesday, 1st April 2026 at 6:30pm