Development Committee - Thursday 23 April 2026, 6:30pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Development Committee
Thursday, 23rd April 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you. 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

Thank you.
you
you
Thank you very much.
Good evening and welcome to the Development Committee meeting.
My name is Councillor Iqbal Hussain and I will be chairing this meeting.
This meeting is being webcast live on Council's website
and the public and press may follow this meeting remotely.
I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do so,
I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing this meeting,
including the virtual meeting procedure.
The participant must address the meeting through myself as the chair.
If you are participating online and interesting me, you must switch your microphone on and
may also switch on your camera at that point.
You should keep your microphone and camera switched off at all other times.
Please do not use the meeting chart facility.
any information added to the meeting chart facility
will be discarded.
If you experience any technical difficulties,
you must contact either myself or the democratic
service officer as soon as possible.
I will now ask the committee members to present
to introduce themselves.
Please, can you state if you have any decline in
any form of interest in the meeting.
with any agendas.
Thank you chair, good evening everyone.
I'm Councillor Gulam Kibriya Chidri,
popular ward, nothing to declare.
Good evening, I'm Mafida Bustin,
Councillor for Island Gardens ward
and nothing to declare either.
Now, I think my apologies.
Have we received any apologies for these absences?
Thank you Paul for your reminder.
I have no interest to declare.
Thank you.
Hi Councillor, we have received apologies
from Councillor Mark Francis, Councillor Amin Rahman
and Councillor Shafi Ahmed.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

is the minutes from the previous meeting.
Can we approve the minutes held on 26 March 2026?
Thank you, Councillor Chaudry.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Now, agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing and objection meeting
guidance.
I will ask Paul Bekkanam, Head of Development Management and Planning and Building Control
to present the guidance.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good evening and good evening, committee members, members of the public and officers who are
joining us this evening.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant development
plan policies and relevant material considerations.
When we go on to consider reports, if there were reports on the main parts of the agenda,
we would have the opportunity for public speaking.
On this particular agenda, we only have one item, which is a deferred item.
So there's no public speaking on that, Chair.
So I won't go through all of that now.
So when the committee come to consider that report,
including any further question or advice from officers,
they will then reach a decision based on a majority vote.
And I'll confirm that back to everybody in the meeting.
If the committee proposed changes to certain aspects
of the officer recommendation, for example, to add, delete,
or amend planning conditions or planning obligations,
and the task of formalising those changes is delegated to the Director of Planning and
Building Control.
In the event the Committee do not accept the officer recommendation, then give their planning
reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action, the Committee may be adjourned
briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task of formalising the Committee's
alternative decision is also delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
If the Committee 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 further update report from officers dealing with the Committee's proposed
course of action.
Chair, there is an update report that's been published this evening dealing with some additional
representations that were received after the main agenda was published.
I can come to that when we get to that item.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for presenting the guidance and procedure.
Item 4, deferred item.

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

We have one different item to consider tonight.

4 a) Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, London, E14 9RZ

Item 4 .1 is planning application for proposed development and discovery of the department
east through South Quay square, London E14 9RZ, page 20 -24.
I now ask Paul Beckenham to introduce the application.
Paul, over to you.
Thank you, Chair.
So as the Chair said, this is a planning application affecting Discovery Dock Apartments East at
South Key Square.
It is a planning application for the erection of a demountable terrace structure with a
retractable canopy and seating to the ground floor unit.
The recommendation to the committee was to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
As the chair mentioned, the application was deferred at the last committee meeting and
the reasons behind that were to seek further advice from the building safety regulator
in relation to the proposed development knowing that the existing building is classified as
a high risk building and there's some existing issues that the BSR is already involved with.
So we've now received that additional advice and that's contained within the report.
Just in terms of the update report, we did receive some further representations and those
objections are summarised as follows.
So further concerns regarding fire safety, risk to Discovery Dock East, in relation to
cladding and cavities, the presence of the Waking Watch and changes to the evacuation
policy, that the Waking Watch is not applicable to the ground floor restaurants, and enforcement
notice has been issued by the London Fire Brigade, inadequate separation between the
ground level restaurants and the residential units, observations made by residents that
there is allegedly no fire hydrant between the building and south dock, which was referenced
I think in the applicant's report, inadequate progress made by the landlord and the building
manager to address fire risks and a review of the basement level, commercial parking
is requested.
So the total number of representations received during the application process is 25, which
is four letters in support and 21 letters in objection.
We have had regard to those additional representations, but we've also had regard, Chair, to the additional
advice from the Building Safety Regulator, and our recommendation remains to grant planning
permission subject to conditions.
There is a very short presentation that the Case Officer has for you as well, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you all, I appreciate it.
I will now invite Alyssa Thirabalt, Planning Case Officer, to present the application.
Alyssa, over to you.
Thank you for the introduction Paul.
So the application site relates to a ground floor commercial unit that contains a Class E restaurant at Discovery Dock East.
Sorry.
And it is a 23 -storey building and Canary Wharf.
The restaurant fronts the South Quay Walk on the north elevation of the building and
the upper floors are comprised of residential units.
The site is within the South Key neighbourhood centre and to the opposite side of South Dock
is the Canary Wharf major centre.
As shown in the photo to the left, the site was formally occupied by a restaurant which
which had a seating arrangement
that extended below an undercroft.
This arrangement was comprised of temporary windscreens
and red parasols.
Following the granting of planning consent in 2022,
an infill extension has been constructed
at the north end of the restaurant
to increase the internal floor area.
Shown in the photos to the centre and to the right,
the undercroft is now been infilled
and the elevation at ground level
sits flush with the floors above.
The terrace is also being removed.
The current application proposes the installation of a terrace structure to regularise the pre -existing
seating arrangement.
The proposed terrace would occupy 155 .2 square metres and would span the full width of the
building at a depth of 3 .32 metres.
The roof would be sloped and would have a retractable awning that is set below the first
floor residential windows.
The structure would be a polyester coated steel frame with horizontal glazed panels
that can be opened along the front elevation.
There would also be glazed panels to the sides that are fixed shut.
Impacts to fire safety were considered as part of the assessment for this application.
Materials submitted by the applicant state that the proposal would result in a change
to the location of the existing doorways and that any entrances or exits to the building,
including fire escapes, would remain unimpeded.
The materiality of external screening and glazed facades is non -combustible and will
be designed to comply with national building regulations on fire.
Furthermore, the design does not include any issues which might affect the fire safety
of the ground floor unit or residential apartments on the upper levels.
The Building Safety Regulator was consulted on 19 February and did not object to the proposal.
Their consultation response states that, following a review of the information provided in the
application the BSR is content with the fire safety design as set out in the project description to the extent that it affects
land -use planning considerations
Concerns were raised at the committee meeting on the 26th of March regarding potential impacts of the proposal to fire safety within the wider
discovery dock East building
Objectors to the proposal shared that the building has been deemed as high risk in terms of fire risk and that there are facade issues
Including gaps in the cavity breakers. They also shared that as of the 20th of April the entire building is under waking watch
The committee requested further comments be sought from the building safety regulator
Clarifying how the regulator has considered the relationship between the proposed terrace structure and the ongoing fire safety and cladding issues affecting the wider building
During the interim period following the committee meeting, four updated comments were provided
by residents of Discovery Dock East.
The comments expanded upon their concerns about fire safety risks and some residents
suggested that consent should not be given until the issues to the wider building are
resolved.
While these concerns are wholly understood, it's important to reiterate that the appropriate
consultations relating to the planning process have been undertaken to address and mitigate
any fire safety risk.
A follow -up consultation was undertaken with the BSR on the 27th of March.
A response was received from the BSR on the 1st of April.
The BSR stated that they were not aware that Discovery Dock East was under a waking watch
and that the latest fire risk assessment of the external wall report had not been reviewed
at the time of providing the response on the 2nd of March.
However, the regulator has also made clear
that the fire risk assessment of the external wall report is
out of scope for the purposes of their planning consultation.
They noted that had the report been made available at the time
of the initial consultation,
their substantive response would not have changed.
The BSR has also highlighted
that the proposals will constitute building work that will require building control approval.
It would be an offence to start building works without building control approval from the
BSR Gateway 2.
Accordingly, works cannot commence until plans demonstrating compliance with all relevant
building regulations, including those relating to fire safety, have been submitted and approved
by the BSR Gateway 2.
As such, the proposed works will be further scrutinised as part of any related building
control application.
Additionally, fire safety matters beyond the scope of this application will be subject
to regulatory scrutiny as part of the Building Safety Act, Safety Case Regime and the Fire
Safety Order 2005, which was enforced by the local Fire and Rescue Service.
In light of this further clarification, the proposals are considered to be aligned with
the relevant policies as set out in the committee report and it is recommended that planning
and that permission is granted subject to conditions.
Thank you, Alyssa, for presenting the application.
Do members have any questions?
Councillor Bastien.
Thank you, and thank you to officers for getting that additional advice.
I think I need to explain to me in layman's terms to be honest with you. So this response
The applicant has addressed fire safety matters as they relate to land use planning considerations
What does that what does that mean?
Yes, sir, thank you thank you counsel, yes, so in a way what the BSR is saying if they're recognising that there's
different stages of developing a project and the different levels of approval that you have to go through
and the Building Safety Act introduced what we call the different gateways.
So gateway one is planning and it's in recognition that the matters that you consider under the planning system
that then interface with fire safety are not necessarily as detailed as the matters that are considered
gateway 2 which is building control which also have the fire safety element.
So in a way what they're saying as far as the planning is concerned, perhaps it's satisfied,
but they are drawing attention to the fact that it still has to go through gateway 2.
So even if planning permission were to be granted, it doesn't mean that the development
can just go ahead.
There's still a second stage of scrutiny and because even though this development in its
and right is not considered high risk.
It is connected to a building that's considered high risk.
And the Building Safety Act introduced
a new sort of two -tier approach.
So for high risk, sorry, for works to high risk buildings,
they have to go straight to the BSR
rather than some local authority building control.
So there's still that, what they're highlighting
is that extra level of scrutiny.
So is it basically like a step -by -step kind of process then?
So the first step is to get planning permission.
If they get planning permission, then the BSR will review it again before it is actually built.
So we're being asked to look at this purely on the grounds of the application before us.
We can't, I mean, can and should we take into consideration
the issues going on in the building?
Because, you know, we heard really passionately
from objectors last, at the last meeting
about the impact this is having on them.
And, you know, I think we all acknowledge the stress
that comes with being in a building
that's under a waking watch.
So I just want to be clear on what we as a committee
should be considering as part of that?
Yes, so the way that you described it as a step -by -step approach is exactly right.
And there are different levels of scrutiny and different considerations that come in.
So the idea is that fire safety flows all the way through the construction process right at the start.
For those of you who are experienced committee members, you may recall that going back before
the Building Safety Act came in and the horrendous events at Grenfell, fire safety was not necessarily
dealt with in quite the same way at planning, it was all reserved.
So now there is scrutiny at planning, but then there's additional scrutiny at Gateway
2, which is the building control stage.
And what the BSR are saying is yes, you can take fire safety into account, but they are
satisfied that enough has been done with this application in order to grant planning permission
at this stage.
The level of scrutiny that then comes forward at Gateway 2 will look more closely at the
interface with the existing building given the issues that are going on.
And as you say, Council, the residents are experiencing, which I think we all empathise
but it doesn't necessarily stop a planning permission from being granted.
Whether that structure can be built depends on the outcome of the Gateway 2 process.
I just thought I'd add as well, just to reiterate the point,
that the Building Safety Regulator said to us it is an offence for them to start works
without going through the relevant process.
Thank you. So what would,
so just so I understand then, if they did start works without going through that process,
what powers does a local authority have, what powers do, what would residents be able to do in that instance?
If they started work without, without, sorry, if they start, if there was a planning permission in place,
then it wouldn't really be a local authority enforcement matter from a planning point of view,
but it would be a building safety regulator enforcement matter.
And also the BSR has also referred to the role of the fire and rescue service as well.
So I think they also have powers to intervene.
So there are regulatory powers, it's just that they would be dealt
with by different organisation rather than the council.
Any more questions for members?
Yeah, go on, Councillor Baster.
Thank you. So just in terms of the...
What is it within the proposal that constitutes building work
as per the BSR's definition, just so we're really clear on what that is?
They're saying all of it, all of it, so it's all, yeah.
And it's also the fact that, so I suppose in a slightly different scenario, if you were
to, the development in itself is relatively minor in nature, so you can foresee other
scenarios where this kind of canopy and terrace could be constructed on a building that wasn't
described as high risk and there would be no, the BSR wouldn't be involved.
It would still require planning and it would still require building regulations approval
but they'd both be dealt with by the council without BSR's involvement.
The reason that this requires the BSR involvement is because the building is deemed as high
risk, not necessarily because of the cladding issues but because of its height.
So the fact that those issues are there is a consideration and quite rightly, the committee
last time just questioned whether the BSR were appraised for facts.
They are now appraising for facts and we've also provided to them some additional information
that was submitted to us by the objectives that wasn't in the applicant's pack.
So they've seen everything now in order to come to their conclusion.
So everything the applicant submitted plus additional information submitted by some of
the residents.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Would you like to share your final thoughts?
I do have some final thoughts, which is I think this is really difficult.
In many ways it's a very simple application and I think if it wasn't for the fire safety issues,
I think it would be really straightforward and I think this, you know, we wouldn't have had the deferral.
And I think it's helpful to have that additional information.
I think personally I do feel it's still a bit uneasy because I'm not an expert in this,
because I'm not, I'm relying on what has been told to me in the report.
There's an uneasiness I have to say, because I don't know what additional information I could
have to get rid of that uneasiness. I think it's just this hesitation with being aware of these
additional risks to the building and I need to find a way of overcoming that, I think,
personally. But I'm keen to hear from other members of the committee if they've got similar
views or contrasting views as well.
Do you rely on the explanation given by the officer in terms of further explanation and
findings on fire safety? Do you rely on that?
I think I feel uneasy relying on it because I'm not an expert in the matter, I think.
That's the only issue because I think there's a serious risk there and I'm not sure how...
by granting planning permission we are basically saying this is now in the hands of the building
safety regulator to intervene at the next stage or various stages after that as well.
and I just don't know if that is a thorough process or a sufficient process
and I don't know whether that is a planning matter to consider or not either.
Councillor Chaudry.
Is the fire safety issue a very important issue, but I don't think so it falls under
the planning material consideration.
And with the additional consultation to the building society regulatory required and based
If it is on this ground, I am going through to the office of recommendation.
Thank you for your final thoughts, members.
Now I would like to now call Diane Phillips, Senior Planning Lawyer, to share the final advice before we move on to vote.
Thank you, Chair.
So just in terms, if you're just looking at the application
around and sort of what would normally be
in material considerations,
we've set out in the main report they are matters
such as design appearance, effect on amenity,
effect on the living conditions of those in the flats
above along with material consideration
that because this is a high,
works to what's designated as a high risk building,
and then obviously fire safety also then comes into play.
In terms of the first group of issues,
we discussed those last time,
and we have recommended some conditions as well,
which would mitigate all of those matters
around noise disturbance, et cetera,
and those are still recommended,
if you're minded to grant planning permission.
In terms of the fire safety,
I absolutely appreciate the scrutiny
that members are giving this,
and that it is a really, really difficult issue,
and none of us here are experts.
What I would say is the Building Safety Regulator is the expert.
And if I perhaps just read out from their concluding paragraphs of what they've sent to us.
So they've said your councillors can be reassured that the proposed works will be further scrutinised
as part of any related building control application.
In future, they have also said in future if a planning application is needed to make further changes to the external wall system,
For example to deal with known deficiencies then the Building Safety Regulator should also be consulted on that.
So they have kind of put a bit of a marker in the sand in case any further alterations are required.
So in a way what they are saying is enough has happened to grant a planning permission on planning grounds.
And as I said earlier whether this development actually goes ahead or not, even if a permission is granted,
is purely dependent on what happens next gateway to.
So that's what they're trying to advise us
and give us that reassurance.
So I can't really say much more than that,
but I can if you want to ask further questions.
But I think that's my summary of how the BSR looked
at it following the deferral last time.
And if we felt there was any reason not
to recommend the planning commission,
we wouldn't be recommending it.
we would be recommending refusal.
So I think our professional opinion is that as far
as this stage of the process is concerned,
enough work has been done to satisfy that.
So are you saying that even if we granted permission
and there was a non -material amendment
that was then submitted, that would still need
to go to the regulator?
Non -material amendments, I suppose by definition, if they depend whether they are material or not, but I think given the circumstances, I think professionally we would err on the side of caution with that.
If the BSR then turned around and said, this doesn't raise, you know, it's out of scope, then that's fine, that's their decision rather than our decision.
Thank you Paul for joining us. Do you have anything to say?
Other than to support what Paul has said, with these applications, they are subject
to comments made by statutory consultees who are experts in particular fields at the time
Council is not an expert. So my only concern is that having had received the
comments back regarding fire safety and the assurance that have been given by
the experts to not take those on board if I may say could possibly open the
to a risk of challenge because we're not the experts in that field and we've possibly gone
against what the experts have said. That's my only thought. Can I also add, because I've
noticed that we've basically got a main quorum of three members and I just want it to be
noted you were present at the initial meetings, especially the fact that we're not listening
to all the, we had objectors speak last time, so you would have heard all the materials
needed to make a decision on your part.
Thank you Jan, thank you Paul. Can I see now all those in favour of the recommendations,
All those against?
Any abstentions?
Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision?
Thank you, Chair.
So on a majority vote of two members in favour and with one abstention, that recommendation
would be carried.
So the recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the details in the main report,
the update report, second update report and the deferral report collectively.
The planning permission is granted for the development at Discovery Dock East.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone, members and officers.
This is the final development committee
meeting of the current municipal cycle and I would like to take this opportunity
to thanks all the committee members, officers over the past few years. This
committee has been taking a wide range of important decisions, grant
implications, planning permission and significant development of new housing
including much -needed affordable homes along with major office
I would like to take the opportunity to thank all colleagues on the committee for their
hard work and dedication. The insight, local knowledge and experience that members bring
to this discussion has been vital in helping us make balance and inform fair decisions.
Together, that has helped ensure we continue to deliver sustainable development that meets
the needs of our communities here in the tri -hamlets.
Thank you all.