Development Committee - Thursday 9 July 2026, 6:30pm

Development Committee
Thursday, 9th July 2026 at 6:30pm

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.

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the first Development Committee meeting, Thursday

the 9th July, 2026.

I am Councillor Abdul Wahid and I will be chairing the meeting.

Before we start, I would like to give some reminders and briefing to confirm protocols for the meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.

This meeting is being webcast live on the Council website and the public and press may follow the meeting remotely.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as the chair.

If you are participating online and addressing me, you must switch on your microphone and you may also switch the camera at that point.

You must keep your microphone and camera switched off at all other times.

Please do not use the meeting chat facility. Any information added to the facility will be discarded.

If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or Democratic officers as soon as possible. Thank you.

On to our agenda. Apologies. Mr Fazl, do you have any apologies?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I can confirm that we have received apologies from Councillor

Abu Chowdhury with Councillor Omar Mehdi as his substitute. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now ask members who are present at this meeting to introduce themselves.

Please can you also state any declaration that you may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interests.

I'll start with myself. I do not have any declaration or interest in either of the items.

I'll go to my right.

Councillor Mamehdi, I do not have any declarations.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm Rina Ali, I'm Councillor for Weaver's Wood and I don't have anything to declare.

Thank you.

Councillor Martin Parker, I don't have anything to declare.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Amadur, Councillor Amadur Khan.

And for your information, Chair, I live in Canary Wharf and Park Drive is in Canary Wharf.

So I live in Canary Wharf. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair. My name is Shonnelly Meer, Councillor for St. Dunstan Ward. I don't have any interest in this.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone.

I have no interest in particular.

I would like to mention that the previous application made by this applicant, I was

involved in the decision making.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

That concludes item 1 on the agenda item.

Number 2 is the election of a vice chair.

As this is the first meeting of the municipal year 2026 -2027, I call for nominations for

members for the position of Vice Chair for the Development Committee.

Can I get a second?

Yeah I'll second that.

Thank you.

Are there any...

Okay, so I declare that Councillor Iqbal Hussain is nominated as Vice Chair for the committee.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members.

It takes us to number 3 on the agenda.

Can we confirm as a correct record of the minutes of the meeting of the Development

Committee held on 23rd April 2026?

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate it.

There's a number of new members on the committee.

If the officers have checked the minutes, from our point of view, they are factually

correct.

Thank you, Paul, for confirming that.

Next item, number 4, is the recommendation and procedures of hearing objections and meeting

guidance.

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

to present the guidance.

Thank you.

Good evening to members on the committee, to 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 the relevant

development policies and relevant material considerations.

So the process for considering the reports with recommendations and the procedure for

public speaking is outlined briefly.

So I'll just go through that for everybody.

So I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation.

Officers will present the report.

Anyone registered to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three minutes

each and then anyone registered to speak in support, including the applicants, can address

the committee for three minutes each.

And finally, any councillors registered to speak can also address the committee.

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

the recommendation, including any questions, debate or further advice from officers.

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

to everybody in the meeting.

If the committee proposed changes to aspects

of the officer recommendation, for example,

to add, delete, or amend planning conditions

or obligations, then the task formalising those changes

is delegated to the director of planning

and building control.

And in the event that the committee did not accept

the officer recommendation, they must give their planning

reasons and propose and agree an alternative course

of action, the committee may be adjourned briefly

for any further planning or legal advice.

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 appear to go against the provisions

of the development plan or could have legal implications, then the item may be deferred

for a further report dealing with the committee's proposed course of action.

Chair, there is an update report that's been published this evening dealing with some issues

that have arisen since the main agenda was published, so I'll refer to that when I come

to the individual items. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Paul. Now we'll move on to item number 5, which is the Development

Committee terms of reference, quorum membership and dates of meeting 2026 -2027. Could I ask

The report is straightforward. It is what is set out in the papers.

At the first meeting of any committee, it is good governance practise for the members

to note all of these. As such, I am asking members to note the terms of reference, quorum,

membership and dates and times of meetings of the Development Committee for the Municipal

year 2026 -27. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. Are all members happy with that? Thank you. Moving on to item

number six is deferred items. Item six, can I confirm that we have no deferred items to

Next item is 7 .1. We have applications for two sites to consider this evening.

PA 2501815 -5 Park Drive, London E14 -9GG

The Agenda Item 7 .1 is a planning application for proposed outdoor seating for the adjacent

Vestron, Umbrella Coverings and Associated Works at Five Park Drive, London E14 -9GG,

taken in conjunction with PA26 -00935 and PA26 -00936 as they relate to the development.

I now invite Paul Buckingham to introduce the application, please.

Thank you, chair. So as the chair said, this agenda item, this report actually covers three

applications but you'll see from the details that they are connected with one another.

So I'll just run through them briefly. So the first one is a planning application at

5 Park Drive and that's proposing outdoor seating for the adjacent restaurant, the umbrella

coverings and associated works. And the recommendation to your committee this evening is to grant

to Planning Commission subject to conditions.

The second one is an application

of what's known as a non -material amendment.

So this allows local authorities to consider proposals

which affect an existing Planning Commission

but are deemed to be non -material.

So they don't raise any new material issues.

And this is in connexion with amending

an existing Planning Commission on the site

for the repositioning of the fence at One Park Drive

and the removal of a previous planning condition.

And the recommendation there is to grant

the non -material amendment.

And then the final one is the discharge

of an existing condition affecting

the wider Wood Wharf estate.

And this is in connexion with the details

of the highways, footways, boardwalks,

and other street furniture in relation to phase one

and the certain development plots that are listed there.

And again the recommendation is to approve the details and discharge the condition.

In effect what I would advise the committee is that the second two applications are connected with the first one

because they mitigate certain impacts associated with the first one.

So that's why we're considering them all together.

There is an update report for this item Chair.

So I'll just run through that briefly.

So this raises, sorry, firstly it deals with some additional representations that we've

received since the agenda was published.

So that changes the balance of representation and support and objection to the application.

So those are set out in the table there for you and they'll be covered in the officer's

presentation and the details of the issues that are being raised are all set out in the

update report.

We have also just identified for completeness some additional relevant planning history.

This is quite a complex site because it sits within the Wood Wharf development, which is

a large master plan development with lots of different components.

So we've just dealt with some of those additional applications just for information for you.

And we've also set out our response to the additional objections that we've received

and they're all set out in the report.

One important aspect to note is that some of the objections relate to the way that the restaurant is operated and the impact on amenity.

Now your members will be aware that the nature of the occupier or the operator isn't a material consideration.

But because there are changes proposed to the way that the restaurant would operate,

In light of the objections that have been raised and some of those concerns,

we've recommended a number of additional conditions.

One is a restriction on live and amplified music being played from the terrace.

The other is the use of the terrace being for seated patrons of the restaurant

and not for persistent standing or congregation.

One covering the management of sales of takeaway food

being only ancillary to the main use of the restaurant.

And finally, the additional condition to limit noise levels from any amplified music

so that the noise experienced in the nearest residential receptors are acceptable.

And so, for completeness, in the final page of the update report, you'll see all of the conditions,

including the additional ones, all listed together.

I think that's probably all I need to say at the moment, so thank you, Chair, for allowing me that introduction.

Thank you very much Paul for the introduction. Before I go on to the presentation for this

application, we are not expecting any fire alarm drills, so if the fire alarm goes, please

follow officers' directions to the nearest exit. Now, can I invite Planning Officer Nicholas

Please, Johan, to present the application, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, members, members of the public in the room,

and residents listening online.

As Paul mentioned, the applications

under consideration tonight relate to an area of Wood Wharf

including three buildings.

The first building is 1 Park Drive,

and then there is 10 Park Drive and 8 Waters Street.

They're highlighted here in the red box and this is the wider Ward Wharf Estate

and then over to the west is the wider Canary Wharf Estate. This is a closer

image of the three buildings. Number one is 1 Park Drive, number two is 10 Park

Drive and number three is 8 Water Street. 1 Park Drive is a residential

building with private residential flats. I think there's 484 in total. Number two is

10 Park Drive and number three have 520 residential apartments between them. The image on the

right shows the three buildings. This slide sets out this site context in a bit more detail.

So the image on the left shows one park drive and the area of the application for the main application for the additional terrace seating.

That is shown in red. That's the area which would be accommodating the additional terrace.

The area in yellow is the existing restaurant terrace which has planning permission.

The image on the right here sets out the extent of the residential garden in yellow and red.

This area is a closed garden currently for residents of the three buildings.

The area in red is the area which is proposed to become public realm and be open to the general public by moving off the fence and gates.

These images just show from a human scale the proposal site.

The image on the left here shows the restaurant terrace from the boardwalk which proceeds south and then east along the southern edge of the Wood Wharf Estate.

The image on the right here is just another image showing the extent of the terrace currently approved across the bottom of the building.

These images again show some more images of the terrace as currently approved and in place.

As you can see there is a pedestrian walkway along the side of the terrace which allows pedestrians to walk around the building.

and then pedestrians can also use the boardwalk along the dockside.

The image on the right here shows the end of the terrace and the continuation of the bench seating,

as well as the residents' screening lounge on the right -hand side.

The terrace proceeds as far as the end of the restaurant.

These images on the left show the current gate into the residents' garden from adjacent to the restaurant entrance,

and the image on the right shows the residence garden from the other end of what will become the new pedestrian path.

These are further images of the residence garden.

This image on the left is looking up towards the entrance from Water Street

and the image on the right shows some of the soft landscaping within the garden.

There's an important planning history on this application site.

As mentioned, there is current permission for a terrace outside the restaurant, which was approved in 2024.

The extent of this terrace is shown here on the left -hand side, inside this red line.

This broadly sits underneath the undercroft of the floor above.

In the summer of last year, there was an application presented to the Development Committee,

which was resolved to be refused for an expansion of the terrace.

In that application the terrace was due to be expanded to include seating along the bench here,

with a 2 metre wide pedestrian access route retained through the terrace.

The committee on that occasion resolved to refuse the application on the basis that it would be an unenforceable condition to retain that 2 metre walkway and an unacceptable loss of public realm.

So turning now to the proposals before you tonight.

The main application, as Paul mentioned, relates to an extension of the terrace on this side

of the building.

It's now proposed that the terrace will accommodate the whole area highlighted in green with no

pedestrian route through the application site.

There will also be parasols with heaters located above the tables and this terrace will provide

approximately an additional 90 covers for the restaurant.

There would be no tables and chairs placed anymore

in front of the main restaurant entrance here.

During the consideration of the application,

it became clear that the previous reasons for refusal

had not been overcome.

So the applicant submitted amendments,

or additional applications, rather,

to deal with the previous reason for refusal

and provide adequate pedestrian access through the site.

Those two applications are the non -material amendment

and the conditions discharge application.

And that involves the removal of the residential gates

here and here, and the placement of a fence

along the current hard standing

within the residential garden.

And the inclusion of two gates,

one of which will be automated for people with accessibility issues.

The non -material amendment simply seeks to move the fence line to create this pedestrian route through the site.

And pedestrians would be diverted around the north of the building rather than around the south.

The current boardwalk would be completely unchanged.

Turning to consultation, there were two periods of consultation undertaken by the Council.

The first on submission of the application and the second on receipt of the additional applications.

In total there were 50 representations of support and 133 representations in objection to the main application,

with 74 objections to the NMA and 47 to the discharge condition application.

The full list of objection matters are set out in the report, but I've included a summary of the main issues of objection on this slide.

They include the loss of public realm and communal amenity space, lack of accessibility, unacceptable amenity impacts, fire safety, lack of substantive evidence,

Reduction in communal immediately space being a material amendment and not a non -material amendment.

Incompatibility with existing legal obligations and issues relating to the deliverability of the scheme as regards the restrictions in the lease over the building.

Representations and support included that the restaurant adds value to the area and is well located, creates jobs and grants security of those jobs.

There will be additional signage, including legibility, being well managed, there will be other access routes, and it aligns with the strategic vision of Canary Wharf and Wood Wharf.

So turning now to the Office of Considerations.

The introduction of a terrace within the public realm is a very common occurrence within areas which are within the central activity zone and metropolitan centres which the application site lies within.

So there are no issues in particular with the introduction of a terrace within the public realm, subject to all other considerations.

The change of use of the residents' amenity space to a public thoroughfare only on the hard standing has been considered acceptable by officers.

and to be a non -material amendment to the overall reserve matters application and outline planning permission,

given its size and relative lack of quality as compared to the rest of the amenity space.

Officers consider the provision of an alternative pedestrian route to be acceptable,

and render the closure of this area a public realm acceptable,

and this would be secured via a grampian condition requiring the pedestrian route to be provided prior to the expansion of the terrace.

In terms of design, the design and details of the parasols and heaters and everything would be secured by condition,

which is a regular occurrence on planning applications like this.

I've just prepared a couple of brief slides detailing the pedestrian movement, just for members' benefit.

So this slide here shows the current pedestrian movement around the site.

The green arrows here show the public and residents pedestrian movement.

So they have access around this southern edge of the building, the boardwalk and into the site from Park Drive itself.

However the red arrow shows that this area here is only for residents.

This is the situation after the proposed amendments.

So the boardwalk would still be in the same use and residents would be able to access the building from off the boardwalk.

They would also retain access to this area here as well as the public and roughly 50 % of the bench seating.

Pedestrians, members of the public and residents alike would also have access around the north side of the building,

both down into Park Drive and from Park Drive up to Water Street.

This is considered to be an adequate improvement to pedestrian movement through the site and connectivity and legibility.

Turning now to immunity and antisocial behaviour concerns that have been raised.

There have been various immunity concerns raised by residents, in particular in relation to noise and privacy.

As you can see from this image on the left here, the additional seating would be provided on the benches,

but the angle of visibility would not allow visibility into the residents' amenity space above.

So there would not be considered any undue increases or undue loss of privacy to residents of the building.

The same can be said for the new pedestrian route around the north side of the building,

which has the same angle of visibility to the amenity space above,

and would be only in passing as residents and members of the public walk through the pedestrian route.

It's also worth noting that this area of the residents garden is currently overlooked significantly by the restaurant,

with roughly 50 % of this facade into the residents garden being part of the restaurant and glazed.

The other 50 % would be this area here, which is the fire escape,

and then this area here which is the resident's own library immunity space.

In terms of antisocial behaviour, the Canary Wharf Estate and Wood Wharf Estate has its own security team

and there are not expected to be any undue increases in antisocial behaviour as a result of the proposals.

Officers therefore consider that there would be no material impact on residents as a result of the redirection of pedestrians

through this part of the residents garden, nor the introduction of additional terrace seating.

However, as Paul has mentioned, officers have reviewed evidence provided by residents of

amenity issues that have arisen as a result of the existing use of the terrace,

and officers are proposing an additional two conditions.

The first is resubmission of an updated operational management plan,

detailing the limitations on music from the terrace,

so there'll be no live music,

and other operational management measures

to ensure that the terrace is used appropriately

as a restaurant terrace.

And therefore, the noise and other considerations

can be mitigated.

The second condition is a condition limiting

the levels of noise from amplified music

from within the restaurant,

So that there are acceptable levels within residential apartments above.

It therefore remains officers recommendation to grant the planning commission, grant the non material amendment and to discharge the planning condition.

I'll be happy to answer any questions that members have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that presentation.

Now we will move on to public speakers.

Before we move on to that, if I can just remind, I know how annoying it is when you're doing a presentation and you get stopped.

So what I do is start the time, when it's 30 seconds, I just say 30 seconds and if you can wrap it up and then I'll say stop.

So if I can ask Jonathan Welch to address the committee in objection to the application.

You have three minutes.

Thank you very much, Councillor.

Jonathan Welch on behalf of the Coalition of Leaseholders of 1 and 10 Park Drive.

There are two technical reasons why you must refuse these applications and five planning reasons.

The two technical reasons are first, the Section 96A is the wrong vehicle for what's trying to be achieved here.

the NMA proposes to eliminate 176 square metres of communal immunity space.

When the council granted permission, it relied upon that space

and it's not possible now to say that it's somehow immaterial to lose it all.

If the NMA is unlawful, the main application collapses in itself

because the NMA is essential to justify the loss under the main planning application.

The second reason, it relates to the third of the application,

is to re -discharge a condition.

That is not something that it is lawfully possible to do.

One has to apply under Section 73 or Section 96A to amend the details that have been discharged under a planning condition.

One can't simply keep going back and re -discharge conditions once the development has been carried out.

Then there are five planning reasons why in your planning judgement you should refuse planning permission.

The first is the loss of public realm and the impacts on inclusive mobility.

The replacement public realm is far inferior.

The space lost is the only direct, safe and step -free water -side pedestrian route around One Park Drive.

The loss conflicts with the Inclusive Mobility Guidance.

I would note that Transport for All, a disabled -led organisation, has confirmed in its consultation response,

not mentioned to you in the Office's report,

inexplicably, that the alternative routes are unsafe, inaccessible and impractical.

The committee refused, wisely, a substantively similar application last year on the similar grounds and the same results should obtain today.

Further, on the loss of public realm, there has been no secured by design assessment or consultation with Met Police,

despite officers saying that this is necessary and should be done under a condition.

That's simply not an appropriate approach to take to public safety.

Turning then to the loss of the private communal immunity space, this is shared by approximately over a thousand people,

and it is relied upon by vulnerable residents in particular,

and yet there's been no quality impact assessment done at all.

Nor has there been privacy overlooking analysis undertaken.

This is contrary to Local Plan D .D .H .3, London Plan D .5 and D .6 policies,

which are not addressed at all in the Officer's Report,

and the Officer's Report ignores the severance effect of the garden.

Third, noise.

The updated Officer's Report now concedes the applicant's record of non -compliance

with the existing management plan.

30 seconds.

Despite complaints made to environmental health

and warning that is being sent,

one might expect environmental health to have been consulted,

but they have not been consulted on this application.

And the officers are now putting to you

that the management plan that's been put forward

is not fit for purpose,

but another one will be secured in the future.

We don't know what that looks like.

We simply have no idea.

The final two issues relate to fire safety.

There's been no consultation with the London Fire Brigade.

and deliverability issues which are material considerations in circumstances where the applicant relies on the viability of the restaurant business

and the need case in that regard as a material consideration in favour of the application.

So I invite you to refuse my permission. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Can I now invite Andreas Barceres to address the committee in objection to the application. You also have three minutes.

Thank you Chairman, my name is Andres Barcenas. I live at One Park Drive and work in Canary Wharf.

I'm therefore a daily user of the Wood Wharf Public Realm.

My name is Andres Barcenas. I live at One Park Drive and work in Canary Wharf.

Therefore I'm a daily user of Wood Wharf Public Realm and I have a direct interest in the protection of the public access,

resident amenity and public safety around One Park Drive.

Canary Wharf Group, CWG and Road Restaurant have submitted a number of planning applications

seeking to secure exclusive or quasi -exclusive use of the public realm on the south -west canal side of One Park Drive.

That area currently operates as a publicly accessible space including a public pedestrian route and a public bench which is used by the public.

and also is partially using restaurant terrace.

In substance, the aim of these proposals has been to exclude the public from using that public realm

so that the restaurant can operate primarily terrace for the benefit of its patrons.

Having failed to obtain that exclusivity through prior applications,

Canary Wharf Group is now seeking to reconfigure access by taking part of the private residential garden amenity

to the north part of OPD to create a so -called replacement pedestrian route.

The state of rationale appears to be just that the road restaurant requires effective

control of the existing public realm to support its business plan.

Shouldn't the business plan change instead of moving people and taking people's rights

away from them?

This is not a proper planning justification.

Planning permissions should not be used to convert public realm into commercial overspill.

or transfer the amenity and safety burdens onto residents,

simply to support a private operator's preferred layout.

My principal objection is the loss on degradation of public realm,

and the replacement is materially inferior.

The existing canal -side public realm is high quality, open, legible,

and attractive pedestrian environment.

Replacing it with a northern route is not like for like.

In particular, the proposed northern replacement route would be cramped and constrained compared with the existing path and bench.

It would be more easily congested and would be less pleasant and less safe as a pedestrian environment.

The northern area is inevitably affected by resonant movements, deliveries, visitors and move -ins and move -outs.

that would cause frequent obstructions and pinch points, undermining the very purpose of a pedestrian.

30 seconds.

Fire safety, the most concerning part is the fire safety and emergency address.

The northern route appears to be in direct functional conflict with the only emergency exit of the building, serving over 400 apartments.

Even if technical compliance could be argued on paper, the Council must take realistic view, creating a routinely busy public route immediately adjacent to an emergency exit, which increases the risk of block -aggress, confusion in an incident and an unsafe congregation.

This is not a mere inconvenience.

Thank you very much. Time's up.

I invite the Council to reject, to refuse the application, please.

Just finish off your last sentence.

Right. This is not a mere inconvenience. It is a foreseeable avoidable safety risk arising from a proposal whose underlying purpose is commercial exclusivity.

Thank you very much.

Please refuse the application.

Thank you for your presentation. Now, can I invite Caroline McIntyre to address the committee in support of the application.

You have six minutes.

Thank you. Good evening.

Is that better?

Good evening. My name is Caroline McIntyre from Spring Planning.

We are the agents for the applications at 1 and 5 Park Drive.

Sorry, just we'll change.

We're just going to agenda meeting for a while.

I'll try again. That sounds a bit better. We're the agents for these applications before

you tonight. The applications addressed the issues with the previous proposal from July

last year. This scheme completely removes any potential for conflict between the seating

and pedestrians and there is no loss of public open space. Additional outdoor seating remains

is an important part of the business plan for Roe,

who are an independent restaurant business.

Roe makes a significant contribution to Tower Hamlets.

They are the only restaurant at Canary Wharf

in the top 100 restaurants in the UK.

They work with charities on various different programmes,

and at present, around 25 % of their employees

live within Tower Hamlets.

The additional seating has the potential

to support around 80 new jobs,

which will be available to local residents.

Roe would work with the council and Workpath to fill these roles as they do currently.

Additional seating with umbrellas to help with good and bad weather would grow their identity in this key location in Wood Wharf.

Additional covers also help to support the business and the significant investment already made,

which is particularly important given the difficulty spaced by the food and beverage industry.

Paul from Roe is here this evening should you have any further questions.

The proposals maintain a pedestrian route at the upper level by positioning the fence lines to create an alternative, shorter, unobstructed route north of the building.

This would be available to all. The boardwalk remains unaffected as an alternative route.

Closing part of the southern route for seating would remove the conflict between pedestrians, diners and staff.

However, about half of this upper terrace beyond the row unit would remain open to the public who wish to make use of the existing benches and open space.

Wood Wharf has always been envisaged as a vibrant location combining a range of land uses.

The design documents for the outline planning permission for Wood Wharf show extensive outdoor seating here alongside the restaurant unit

and these documents also showed an access around one park drive with a potential main entrance to the north.

The current proposals are consistent with this.

The committee report includes a thorough assessment of any potential amenity impacts

and concludes there are no overriding concerns.

The operational management plan will control the external seating area including limiting hours

and unlike other areas across London Canary Wharf have private security in place

and the residents' private amenity space remains enclosed and secure.

The loss of a limited amount of private amenity space around the base of the building

to facilitate the new northern route is in the context of residents' retained private access to the adjacent comps and gardens.

This encompasses both hard -standing and landscaped areas, and residents also have access to extensive public realm across the estate.

To conclude, the applications before you fundamentally resolve the previous raised issues.

The proposals strike a balance with no loss of public open space, no conflict between pedestrians and seating.

They accord with the objectives in the outline planning commission for Wood Wharf and are wholly appropriate in the Metropolitan Centre.

They deliver a significant number of new jobs and training.

We therefore ask that you support the applications and approve these in line with your officer's recommendations.

The applicants and the team would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I would like now to move on to members.

Do members have any questions for officers?

report to Summit General on the

role of shorter

government improve ensure

the nebe am Tempest

changes. Can you respond to this? Can you explain, is there any material changes in

the implication proposed?

I will reload my presentation as I have a couple of additional slides on this.

So this slide here shows the original Reserve Matters application for the building of 1

Park Drive here itself, which also included additional public realm and an additional

building up here, as well as roads and things all the way up to Cartier Circle and down

and Brannan Street here.

And as you can see, it also included a large area

of the Dockside Park and the residence garden here.

And the area which is being sought

to be handed over to Public Realm

is a small area here, just around the north

side of the building.

So in pure qualitative terms, it is

a small area of the reserve matters application,

or reserve matters approval.

Obviously it's not just qualitative that matters, but I also have some figures on the area which is being lost.

So obviously there is 176 square metres of the communal metre space which is being lost.

But there is an overall net gain of public space as a result of 65 square metres, which officers have balanced in the loss of the garden.

And overall this particular reserve matters approval together with the reserve matters approval for the other two buildings,

over provided on open space as against the outline permission requirements by 2900 square metres.

And then in terms of the amenity space as well, the current residents garden measures approximately 2300 square metres.

and the loss of 176 square metres of that equates to roughly 7 .5 % of the overall garden,

which is considered to be a small amount.

It's also worth noting that the bit of the garden which is being retained is of very high quality,

and residents also of all buildings have access to other amenity spaces.

All of the flats in One Park Drive have their own outdoor amenity space.

They've also got a swimming pool, a spa, a gym, a screening room, a library.

The residents of these buildings have similar sorts of facilities.

And then these two buildings also have their own rooftop gardens.

And then there is also the consideration of the remainder of the public realm across the

Wood Wharf Estate, which is part of the original outline application, which is all of a very

high quality.

and these areas along the south here should be opening soon.

This area here is already open to the public.

There's a square in the middle here.

There's the park here, which can be used for children learning to ride bikes and things like that as well.

So there is plenty of other areas within the wider estates

and within the Reserve Matters application itself for residents to enjoy outdoor spaces.

The dockside walk will also remain fully open and unchanged.

We do acknowledge that it isn't potentially the route for every person.

There are people with accessibility needs who might not feel comfortable using the route,

or be able to use it, which is why this new pedestrian route is being provided in the first place.

So in terms of pure quantity, we kind of feel that it really is a non -material change.

In terms of quality, that area of the garden is a lower quality area as compared to the rest of the garden.

It is an area of hard standing, it does look like a path and it is identical to the path running around the other side of the building.

The rest of the residents garden which is being retained is of an exceptionally high quality of landscaping.

With private areas for residents to sit and dwell.

And this area here isn't really an area which really provides as much amenity as the rest of the garden.

There are also areas of hard standing, again which residents can use in similar ways.

And then in terms of the impacts on residents of creating this or converting this to a public route,

there aren't any amenity impacts or unacceptable increases in amenity impacts.

There's no real loss of privacy due to the fact that half of this space is already overlooked by a public restaurant

and viewing angles clearly you would not be able to see up into the residents up here.

The only place where there would be any additional impacts in terms of overlooking would be into the residence library which is located just to the left here.

But the front of the building has exactly the same visibility so you can see into the residence library as it is anyway.

It's really for those reasons, I mean it's all set out in the report as well, why we consider it to be a non -material change.

It is also worth noting that if this were to come forward as a non -material change for a different reason,

for instance, if it were needed to improve via safety access or something like that,

we would consider the opening of this route to be non -material for any other reason.

I hope that answers your question.

Councillors, do you have any follow -up?

contrary to the Woodward master plan, I would like to respond to the applicant to this concern

expressed by the objector.

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

So the objector says the privatisation of public realm by itself, which is contrary

to the Woodwork master plan, how do you respond to that concern

expressed by the objector?

We do consider that the changes comply with the master plan.

So they were, the original documents in the outline planning

permissions show outdoor seating in this area and they show they don't show the

route around the north of the building to be private they show a potential

northern entrance to one park drive on that side so we don't believe that there

is any conflict with the outline master plan thank you any other members

Councillor Duhann.

Thank you, my question to the applicants about the two private gate you're going to remove and make the pathway for the

Predestinion, so how will we ensure that that part that you can open it is secure for people

Passing by and also people living in these apartments and who will look after that

To make sure that is safe for the people who go through this

So the amenity space at the moment is secured by two gates which are manually operated.

The gardens would still remain secured with the revised fence line and they would still

be accessed by two gates. One would be upgraded to an automated power -assisted gate, but there

would be no material difference in the access and security to the

amenity space because fundamentally it would be the same, they would be secured

by a fence with two gates but in addition to that Canary Wharf do have

private security who maintain the presence on the street and each building

also has a concierge to look out for any anti -social behaviour activities.

So those gates will remain open, or are they going to be closed?

They close, so the residents have a FOB access to the gates I believe, or a code that they use to get in,

so the gates are only accessible to people who have a right to access them.

So Councillor, just to clarify, I think there's going to be gates to there, but beyond that,

if I'm correct, beyond that there will be access for the public, but that gate, the

original gate that was there was going to be taken back more towards the building.

Is that, is that, yeah.

Yeah, that's right.

So there will be uninterrupted access around the northern side of the building for everyone,

and then those that are entitled to access the gardens will then have the ability to go through the two gates.

I don't know if it's possible to look at the drawing.

So the new fence line sits on the outside of that yellow area

and the two gates are located one there and then one just to the right so the

northern route will be accessible to everyone but you would only be able to

access the gardens if you had the right to go through those gates.

Is that clear? Any follow up?

Can I just ask, how are we going to control the noise and obviously anti -ASB in that area?

Obviously with the timing, the closing time for the local residents, obviously it's a

residential area.

Who is that addressed to?

Sorry, to that person.

applicant. Thank you. So the proposal is that the seating area is only open to a

certain time and that's managed by the operational management plan and as the

officers noted in their presentation there's a new condition which requires

a submission of a more detailed management plan. There is outdoor seating

at the moment adjacent to the building but it will have to adhere to the updated management

plan that will be submitted pursuant to the condition. And then in terms of other antisocial

behaviour activities, as I said, there is the Canary Wharf security team who walk around

the site. Thank you.

Thank you.

Just before cancel, I forgot my...

Just on the point of safety, what object has made a point in regards to safety, fire, etc.

What level of consultations has been with fire brigade, the councils, health and safety, etc.

in terms of the safety aspect of the whole application.

If you could just give us a bit more of an overview

of that, please.

So this might be one that's better

for the officers to answer.

They have undertaken some consultation

with regards to fire safety,

but I think they would be a better place to respond.

Yes, Chair, if I may,

I have an additional slide on fire safety.

So the building safety regulator who is obviously been set up post Grenfell to regulate fire safety within high -rise and high -risk buildings was consulted on the application, or the NMA, which is the application which creates those additional fire safety concerns.

There's no strict requirement to consult them, the officers did on the basis that there are impacts on the egress from the building.

The BSR was provided with a copy of the fire strategy of the building and they've confirmed their content with the proposals.

They did note also that it actually improves access for the fire brigade because they no longer have to go through a gate.

that obstruction isn't there for this whole area which is roughly 3 metres wide.

And obviously the gate is actually quite small compared to that and there's an end of the fence so it just removes obstruction for them.

And in terms of resident egress, it's worth noting that the fire strategy for the building is a stay put strategy.

Which means that it's only, initially it's only the flat where the fire happens, who evacuates, and then it kind of spreads out.

If the fire spreads, the strategy of evacuation spreads throughout the building, so it's then the flat's on the same floor, and then it's the flat's in the same area, etc.

It's not really a situation really when the whole building needs to evacuate at the same time.

Even so, again, the fact that there's no gates on the north or south side of the garden means

that there's an additional layer of fail -safe removed in terms of egress in the event of

emergency and residents would be able to escape onto Park Drive or up around the north of

the building up to Water Street or up through the gate which I understand would automatically

be unlocked in that event and up through the garden as they would currently.

Objections have raised the point that there would be pedestrians walking down this way

and that there might be potential conflict.

I mean that's sort of a regular occurrence everywhere in London where you have fire exits

exiting onto pavements.

But you know in the event that the building would be, there would be a full evacuation,

it's highly likely that the fire brigade would already be there and they'd be managing access

through this area.

So pedestrians would be stopped further point up or south, you know, without having to walk through the area.

So ultimately the building safety regulator were content and officers were also content that there's no material impact on fire safety.

Thank you very much. Did you have a... I'm going to go to Councillor Meti and then I'll come back to you.

Thank you, Chair.

So the current situation is you've got two exits which are sort of blocked off like so.

What will happen is as we develop that, then you'll have a fence around the perimeter.

So from a privacy perspective, you'll have the public that be walking across that part of the footpath.

what will then look like, I presume from a resident perspective,

have we sort of taken into account that sort of privacy

that they potentially might be losing as such?

Yes we have.

We don't consider there to be any material impact in terms of privacy.

I went on site this morning and I took some photos from outside the garden

and here you can clearly see, you can already see clearly into the garden

from public vantage points, including over the fences and gates as they are currently.

The garden is also overlooked by hundreds of residents of the building itself.

There is also the public restaurant which currently takes up half of the garden's facade here.

So members of the public dining in the restaurant sit in this area here and look directly into the garden.

So there is no real material change in the situation in terms of privacy if members of the public were to be diverted through that route.

Thank you.

Yes, my question to the presenting officer.

The last planning application and this one, what is the significant difference between the last one and this one?

I'll just go back to this slide here.

So this is the last application here on the right -hand side of the screen.

So in that situation there was additional tables and chairs to be placed along the bench

on the dock side.

That application sought to retain a two -metre wide pedestrian route through the terrace.

Now members acknowledge the fact that there'd be issues in enforcing that 2 metre wide gap

and there'd still be conflict between servers and members of staff and members of the public getting up to go and use the restrooms or whatever, and pedestrians.

And it would still feel like a loss of open space or public realm on the basis that you'd be walking in between diners on that area of the public realm.

So the new proposals as a whole look to again introduce seating along this benched area as well as up here.

So this would be used for dining with roughly an additional 90 covers.

There'd be no pedestrian route now through this area and this area here would be closed off.

It's worth noting that all of the planters and parasols and tables and chairs would be

secured as easily movable as part of a maintenance strategy in the event that there was a need

to move things for maintenance or in the event of any sort of emergency they'd be easily

movable to provide access through.

So instead of providing a route through this area of the site, the proposal is instead

to provide that route around the north of the building by that non -material amendment application to move the fence line from here and here up around the edge of the garden.

So that pedestrians, instead of being routed down through the terrace, they would be routed around the side of the building here.

We've acknowledged in our report that it isn't as high quality route as the current route is around here.

But there is still a high quality waterside route along the dock on the boardwalk.

And it is a very small stretch of roughly 30 metres where that kind of dockside isn't able to be enjoyed.

But there is then also a very significant amount of public realm along the rest of the dock

Which members of the public and residents are able to enjoy?

Still and there's also the retention of this area with the bench seating here

Which residents can and members of the public can continue to enjoy?

Thank you any other members

is the proposed increased outdoor setting.

Did you consider my question to the applicant, sorry, the officers, did you assess, how did

you assess the increased level of any noise because of the increased outdoor setting and

how did you mitigate that?

Thank you.

Yes, so obviously we became aware in the last week or so

that we've been provided with additional evidence from members

of the public, which we have not seen before, including kind

of music being played from the terrace and sort

of additional noise which hadn't ever been considered before.

So in terms of mitigation, we are now securing by condition

an additional or a resubmission

of an updated operational management plan, which will set

out noise mitigation measures including no playing of music from the terrace, no members

of the public being able to stand and drink.

It would be a restaurant terrace as you would expect.

So essentially you would be moving people dining from inside to outside.

The previous approval included tables just under the undercroft so noise wouldn't be

able to travel upwards.

It would only travel outwards and then up, so it would dissipate much quicker.

Obviously the introduction of tables and chairs in this area would create additional noise, which would move straight upwards.

But there are parasols proposed, which would create a level of buffer.

And there's an additional 90 covers, which isn't a significant increase.

And we wouldn't expect to create a significant increase in noise.

And in particular, with the new operational management plan requiring the type of dining

to be undertaken in those terraces would be very different to what has occurred in the

last year or so.

And it's an opportunity for us to be able to secure a more robust management plan.

Thank you.

Councillor Parker.

Thank you, Chair.

What are the accessibility provisions to the boardwalk and could those be improved?

Because obviously one of the things that is being lost through this application is being able to go around that side of the building such that you could actually have a view of the water.

So the boardwalk was designed and has always been intended to be a fully accessible route

as part of the wider master plan and indeed it is the, as secured within the master plan,

it is the primary route through this area of the site.

It just so happens that this secondary route along the sort of raised area is just arisen

by virtue of the design of the building.

But obviously there is a steep slope, or relatively steep slope, as you progress down and not

everybody would feel comfortable necessarily using that route.

There are benches all the way along the side of the boardwalk.

Let me just get up a photo here.

So this photo here shows the slope coming down from Water Street with the benches all

the way along.

And the idea of not having fencing along this side of the boardwalk was to encourage interaction with the water and the wildlife and everything rather than having an obstruction as such.

But the benches provide that buffer between the water and the boardwalk.

It is a very wide pathway and it is suitably wide to be able to get multiple people walking

either side with buggies or wheelchairs or people with accessibility needs.

But obviously we do acknowledge that isn't necessary for everybody.

But we have considered this in the round of what is provided within the wider estate or

So it's not a material loss of interaction with that water.

Thank you.

Chair, forgive me, I know I don't have the right to speak.

Do you have any follow up?

No, thank you.

Unfortunately we cannot entertain any, unless you've been specifically asked any questions.

I just want to cheque I got the notes correctly.

Just bear with me.

Sorry, just got clarification.

Unless members ask you a direct question, you cannot be involved in the actual debate, sorry.

Does any members have any further questions?

If not, does any member have any thoughts before we move on to the next item?

Okay, thank you.

Can I now ask Paul and Diane Phillips, our Senior Lawyer,

to share some final advice before we move on to make another decision.

Thank you, Chair. So I suppose just to sum up, this suite of linked applications in item 7 .1 has arisen as a result of the applicant seeking to respond to what they understood the concerns were from the committee's previous refusal.

It is fair to say that in any planning decision there will be compromises, but we're satisfied that this is a really good approach to addressing those concerns.

Where the committee identified that previously the route kind of running right through the terrace with tables and chairs either side, probably wasn't going to be satisfactory and very difficult to enforce.

whereas this is providing a very clear route, albeit around the other side of the building,

but it isn't any less convenient in that sense.

There will be changes to the residents' private garden area and the emergency space,

but what will be retained will still exceed what the policy requirements would be

for that level of development.

So, and as you've seen from the images, it's probably the more utilitarian part

of that garden, it isn't the main soft landscaped area, it's a very hard landscaped area, it

actually weeds almost as a path as it is. I know some of the objectors have raised concerns

around whether the combination of the applications are the correct process and whether it's lawful

to consider them in this way. We are satisfied procedurally that this is the right way to

and we don't see any problems there,

and possibly my colleague might comment on that in due course.

Finally, there is recognition that obviously the restaurant is

expanding, and there have been some concerns raised

by residents about some of the amenity issues

that they've experienced.

If you are minded to grant planning permission

for the extension, you will see in the update report

that there are a number of additional conditions

that seek to try and mitigate some of those impacts.

Just a reminder, I know one of the members mentioned about the opening hours,

that they're not changing, and just for clarification, the restaurant,

that area has to close and be cleared of customers at half past ten in the evening,

so it's not a late opening restaurant in that sense.

Finally, I think I'm correct in saying, Diane,

And although this is a package of measures, if you like, that are interlinked in the way

that they've sort of come forward, we would recommend that you just take a vote individually

on each of the three items.

And I can guide you through that when we come to it.

So thank you.

Do you have anything to add?

No.

Paul's covered it.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul, for that.

We will now move on to members' vote.

I am now proposing the office of recommendation for the application as set out in the report.

Can I?

Oh, yep, just.

So, members, I was going to say that it would probably be best to work through,

so if we start off with the planning application, which proposes the outdoor seating,

and bearing in mind that has a condition that links it to mitigation.

I think we're doing that in the right order, or do we want to do the mitigation first?

Let's take the planning application first.

So this is the application to extend the seating,

but with a grump in condition set within the recommendation

that links it to the mitigation of the alternative route to the north of the building.

so all those in favour of the planning application

for the additional outdoor seating

and the umbrella coverings and associated works

but subject to all of those conditions

that link it to the mitigation.

Okay, so can we have...

Can I see those in favour for that proposal, please?

Is that unanimous?

Thank you, Chair. Also, can I just confirm from members that they have acknowledged the additional recommended conditions in the update report as well.

Sorry, can you just repeat the additional recommendation?

Yes, sorry Councillor, I'll just go back to you.

It's the submission of a revised operational management plan which amongst other things would have a restriction on the playing of live and amplified music being played from the terrace.

The use of the terrace being for seated patrons because there have been some reports that it's been congregating rather than sitting and dining.

So it's in order to control the way that the terrace is used so it is more very much a traditional restaurant setting.

and to ensure that any takeaway sales or ancillary to the main use of the restaurant to avoid impacts on the neighbouring amenity.

And finally conditions proposed to limit the noise levels from any amplified music so that noise experienced in the nearest residential receptors is acceptable.

So that's been recommended by our environmental health team.

Can I again see those who are in favour of this proposal?

Thank you, Chair. I think that if we move on to the final two elements of this,

the non -material amendment which deals with the repositioning of the bench line,

If you could ask members if they are in favour of granting non -materials.

Yes.

May I ask members of the non -materials.

In favour of the non -materials.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

That's unanimous.

And finally, the application to re -discharge the condition that deals with the details

of the footways, boardwalks, lamp posts, etc.

so this is to make sure that the

The fencing is that this deals with the details of the fencing if you like that sits along the new the new line

So thank you. Yeah

Again, can I see members?

in favour of

pause

Thank you chair that concludes

That concludes this agenda item. Thank you very much for everyone's contribution.

Thank you.

We'll resume with the next part, which is 7 .2, PA260037 -42, Adler Street, London E1,

1EE.

Agenda item 7 .2 is a planning application for the refurbishment and extension of the existing hotel,

including additional two -storey to the roof, alteration to the basement and erection of block C wing.

For this item, we'll also have the Council's daylight sunlight consultation consultants from the BRE group,

who have joined the meeting virtually.

So welcome to you.

I will now invite the Planning Case Officer,

Shahara Ali Hamstead to...

Sorry, jumping the gun.

I will now ask Paul Buckingham to introduce the application.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So, as the Chair said, this is a planning application

affecting 42 Adler Street and it's the refurbishing of an extension of the existing hotel, in

addition of two storeys, the roof, alterations to the basement and erection of a new Block

C wing.

The application, as I've seen, is recommended to you to grant planning permission subject

to planning conditions and planning obligations.

There is a very short update report, Chair, and this just simply deals with the community

The infrastructure levy, members I'm sure would be aware that the community infrastructure

levy sill is if you like a charge on new development that then comes to the council and also a

second one that goes to the mayor of London in order to support infrastructure and to

mitigate the impacts of the development.

It is a material consideration, you are allowed to take it into account, so the scheme when

calculated the sill for this particular scheme would be £707 ,679 in terms of the Tower Hamlets

Community and Infrastructure Levy and £2 ,226 ,863 for the London Mayor's Sill. Otherwise the

recommendation is as per the main report. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you Paul.

Now we will move on to another invite, the Planning Officer Shahara Ali -Hamsters to present

the application please.

Thank you.

Good evening everyone.

This presentation will take approximately 15 minutes.

The description of the development is as shown on the slide.

I will begin by providing an overview of the site, including photographs.

This map shows the red line of the site and the map of the site.

red line boundary of the site which denotes the applicant's ownership.

The site is bounded by Adler Street to the east, no sorry, Adler Street to the west,

Marlborough Street to the south and Plumbers Road to the east and to the north of the site

is the existing service yard. This is an aerial photograph of the site.

This aerial image shows the vacant plot to the east of the site.

The image on the left shows the existing site approaching from Alta Valley Park.

The image on the right shows the site from Adler Street.

The view on the left is taken from the junction of Marlby Street and Plumbers Row.

The view on the right is taken from Plumbers Row looking at the rear of the building.

This slide shows the south elevation of the proposed development.

As stated, the proposal is for the refurbishment of the existing hotel, two -storey roof extension,

alteration to the basement, and erection of a seven -storey extension on the vacant plot.

The proposal also includes the demolition of the existing boundary wall to the vacant

plot that occupies the corner of Marlborough Street and Plums Road.

In terms of public consultation, 230 maybe letters were sent out, 41 objections were

received.

The slide summarises the principal objections of the proposal.

The majority of the objections stated that the proposal will result in the loss of daylight

through residential properties.

The additional height is out of keeping within the surrounding townscape.

Terms of planning matters.

The material planning issues considered in assessment of the development proposals are

shown on the slide and will be discussed in the following slides.

Terms of land use.

The existing use of the site is as a hotel, which is well established.

The proposal seeks to extend and enhance this use rather than introduce a new land use.

The existing hotel has 184 rooms.

The proposal introduced an additional 56 rooms, bringing the total to 233 rooms.

The applicant is an established hotel operator with several hotels in Europe.

The applicant has stated that their core concept is to provide family -orientated accommodation

within central urban locations.

Unlike many of the hotels within Tower Hamlets, which provide single and double occupancy,

The proposed hotel will accommodate families and small groups of friends in rooms for two,

four and six guests.

The applicant's existing hotel occupancy consists of 63 % families, 11 % small groups of friends,

12 % couples and 14 % business travellers.

Officers consider the proposed development wholly acceptable in land use terms.

Moving on to design.

This slide shows the building height within the vicinity. The applicant site is five storeys

Proposable first thing extension will increase this to seven storeys as you can see from this slide the height of surrounding

Buildings range from five to 18 storeys and go up to 26 storeys further west

The roof extension will be set back approximately 4 .5 metres from Adler Street

Elevation and by approximately 1 .3 metres along Mulberry Street

The new element is proposed to match the massing of the existing building, creating a coherent

urban block.

In terms of height, the roof extension will match the height of the neighbouring Hickman

building to the north -west of the site.

The proposed glazed ground floor would introduce active frontage on Mulberry Street and Plumbers

This is of particular benefit to Marbury Street, which currently features a dead frontage and

an unattractive, unwelcoming public realm, particularly at night.

In terms of detailed design, the roof extension will be a lightweight metal structure with

double -hyped vertical fins and areas of glazing.

The vacant plot extension is predominantly a brick building, reflecting the prominence

of bricks in the local townscape.

A red tone brick has been selected and paired with light coloured mortar.

The new extension reflects the scale, proportion and penetration pattern of the existing building,

ensuring continuity in terms of building line, height and facade rhythm.

Moving on to heritage, the application site is not listed but it is located within the

The next slide is a slide that shows the existing view from the Whitechapel High Street Conservation

Area. The surrounding context includes a number of designated heritage assets as can be seen

in this slide. Most notably are the Grade 2 star listed Whitechapel Bell Foundry to

the north -east, the Grade 2 listed Church of St. Boniface to the south and the heritage

The site features associated within Alsobelli Park to the west.

The left slide on the left shows the existing view from Alsobelli Park, the view on the

right of the development with the proposed roof extension and Church of St. Ponefis to

the right.

With regards to the impact on Whitechapel Bell Foundry, the Church of St. Ponefis, the

site does not form a key part of the immediate setting and the surrounding built form frequently

limits direct inter -visibility in views.

Where visibility does occur, the proposed development would be seen within the context

of a broader urban backdrop of buildings.

This slide shows the proposed extension in context with the wireline of the approved

Whitechapel Bell Foundry Scheme.

Officers consider that the proposer would preserve the significance of the heritage assets.

Moving on to amenity. One of the main issues for objectives has been daylight impacts.

The closest residential property will see some impacts in daylight received as a result of the proposed development.

The image on the left is of Jacobs Court.

The image of right here is 18 Plumbers Road.

The table here shows the numerical classifications that are applied for

negligible minor adverse, moderate adverse and major adverse

impacts, daylight impacts. At Jacobs Court

95 windows were tested, 60 meet the BRE guidelines,

9 windows would experience minor adverse impacts,

11 moderate adverse impact and 17 major adverse impact.

At 18 Plumbers Row, 39 windows were tested.

Eight of those windows fully comply with BRE guidelines.

Six have minor adverse impact.

10 moderate impact, 15 windows major adverse impact.

While 18 Plumbers Row experiences the greatest impact,

officers note that many of the affected windows

already have lower light levels due to existing design

of the building itself.

The results of the slide summarises the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties.

These impacts primarily arise from the constrained open context and close proximity of the surrounding building.

While certain reductions exceed targets' VRE guidelines, officers consider that, on balance,

The impacts are acceptable when weighed against the overall benefit of scheme and mindful of the urban context in which the development sits

It should be noted that these impacts are not being created because of poor design of the scheme but due to existing factors as mentioned

Moving on to transport

cycle parking cycle parking long stay provision and

and space standards have been met.

The cycle parking is provided within the existing service area.

In terms of short -stay cycle parking, the applicant has agreed to deliver

three on -street Sheffield stands via a financial contribution.

There are existing car parking provisions which will remain unchanged.

In terms of servicing for the hotel, the proposed hotel development

would not result in an increasing number of servicing trips when compared with the existing

hotel use on the site.

Instead, the current servicing arrangements will largely remain the same.

The difference will be the quantity of goods will increase per vehicle.

Servicing and delivery will take place from the existing rear service yard.

The slide here shows the vehicle route in and out of the service yard.

Planning obligations are listed on this slide.

Of note are the non -financial skills and training opportunities provided, which consist of the

hotel operator to attend local careers fair, provide opportunities for local students to

visit the hotel to learn the business and gain work experience of back -of -house operations,

commitment to develop an end phase career path programme for hotel employees,

commitment to target to recruit at least two employees with learning or physical disability,

secure best endeavours with respect to establishing local supply chain for the hotel,

and to adopt a graduate programme to help fast track local graduates onto the management training programme.

The proposals are considered to be in line with the relevant planning policies as set

out in the Committee report and it is recommended that planning permission be granted to subject

to a Section 106 agreement including obligations and the conditions and informatives as set

out in the Committee report. Thank you.

Thank you, Shonara, for your presentation.

Now we move on to the public speakers.

Again, we have three minutes.

When it's 30 seconds, I'll just give you a heads up.

So can I invite Amira Artez to address the committee

in objection to the application.

You have three minutes.

Thank you. My name is Amira Arasta. I've lived at flat 39, 19 Plumbers Road directly opposite

the site for eight years and I've been an active resident throughout, working with the

council and local services on issues affecting our street. I know this community and I know

this council can deliver for when it listens. Tonight is one of those moments. I want to

add three points. Process the street and public benefit. Firstly, consultation. The application

The applicants' own documents record that their newsletter was hand -delivered on the 22nd of December, Christmas week.

Their public exhibition was attended by one person that is quoted directly from their own planning statement.

Yet, 41 people engaged across the entire consultation and the residents of 19 Plumbers Row, the most affected building, received no direct engagement at all.

And that is why you are hearing from us tonight instead of earlier.

Secondly, the street. Plumbers Row is a narrow side street that was recently made one way

precisely to reduce congestion and accidents. This scheme invites coaches and HGVs into

a servicing arrangement with no room to manoeuvre. There isn't space to turn safely at Cope

Street. This brings horns, idling engines and late night drop offs directly beneath

permanent residence windows. A 39 metre elevation above a street that cannot absorb the traffic

it generates. That is not good planning. In addition, there are numerous local businesses

which will be affected by the congestion. The potential traffic jams could interfere

with day -to -day business and community schedules, including but not limited to wholesale retailers

and the mosque. Furthermore, the proposed building will be out of scale compared to

other buildings on the west side of the street, therefore creating a significant visual intrusion.

Firstly, this would severely obstruct the view of a London skyline that is currently

one of the building's most defining features. This is unacceptable due to its visually overbearing

impact and over dominance which would not only disrupt the established streets gate

but also unreasonably impact resident immunity and be detrimental to the character of the

area. Secondly, there is the issue of privacy. Having extra hotel rooms housing temporary

guests giving the feeling of being overlooked in a way that is less accommodating than fellow

permanent residents. This would encroach upon the privacy of residents of Jacob's Court

due to the close proximity of the buildings. Thirdly, public benefit. This proposal delivers

no housing, no affordable units, nothing that answers this borough's housing crisis. Hotel

guests stay for two nights. We are the permanent community and the harms, the daylight, noise,

traffic, enclosure, they fall entirely on us while the benefits are private and commercial.

That balance is poor.

I want to be clear, we are not against refurbishing this hotel, redecorate it, improve it, or

genuinely fine.

What we object to is the height and the added intensity.

I ask that the committee refuse this application or at minimum to require the development be

kept to the existing storeys, five storeys, so it does not put its permanent neighbours

into shadow.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Can I now invite Stuart Ross to address the committee in objection to the application.

You also have three minutes.

Thank you, thank you, sir.

Chair, committee members, thank you.

My name is Stuart and I live at flat 2919 Plumbers Row on the fourth floor, directly opposite the application site.

And Amira and I are here to represent the 41 objections from the approximately 100 residents of 17 to 19 Plumbers Row.

I want to make three points, all grounded in the applicant's own submitted evidence.

First, daylight. The applicant's own daylight and sunlight assessment by 0 .2 surveyors concedes

that 35 of 95 windows at our building will fail the BRE vertical sky component test.

12 habitable rooms fail the no -skyline test. Individual rooms in our building lose between

30 and 100 % of their day -lit flawed area, including living rooms, which the BRE protects

most strongly. These are not our numbers, these are the applicant's numbers. The

answer is mirror -massing argument based on a hypothetical building that does not exist

on the site. That is a professional opinion. And this committee is entitled to reject it.

Local Plan Policy DDH8 requires that you protect residential amenity, which is on the applicant's

own evidence and this scheme fails to do so. Also reading the agenda, which I'll have a

look at this evening, 7 .79 says, BRE assesses the overall loss of daylight impacts to the

homes in this building as moderate averse. Loss of sunlight would not be an issue as

the windows facing the development are northerly. There's no windows facing northerly. They're

Also you will see in Figure 2 that there's a large plant on top as well.

So we're not talking about two storeys, we're talking about three storeys.

Second, the true height. This is presented as a two storey uplift to six storeys.

But the rooftop plant and cooling equipment sit on top of that, directly opposite our windows.

In effect, a further storey of massing with the noise of cooling fans added to the daylight loss.

Fans were removed from this very site around 10 years ago when it was a data centre because of exactly this problem.

The scheme reintroduces it closer and higher.

Third, the personal case. I am autistic and work from home.

Consistent natural daylight materially affects my mental health and my ability to function.

On the applicant's own figures, my flat is among those where the loss will be noticeable and sustained.

This is not an amenity nicety, it is a wellbeing issue the application already admits it will

cause.

I want to be clear about what we are asking.

We are not opposed to refurbishing this hotel and we are opposed to the excessive height.

I must ask the committee to refuse this application and if you are minded to defer instead to

To require the applicant to bring the massing down, so the BRE failures at 17 to 19...

Sorry, thank you, I'll start that again.

To require the applicant to bring the massing down, so the BRE failures at 17 to 19...

Time's up, thank you.

...are resolved, not explained away.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Can I now invite Don Ethinger and Anatole Berb -Kirish to address the committee in support of the application.

You have six minutes. Are you taking turns or are you...

Yes.

Good evening. Before we discuss the scheme in more details, I wanted to quickly present the Yuma brand.

Can you speak into the mic?

Of course. Apologies.

So this human brand has been created and run by my family from the very start.

We developed a four -star brand hotel dedicated to families and friends travelling together.

The principal, as it has been explained by the case officer, are rooms for two, four and six people with specific services,

such as a playroom for the kids or a bar for everyone but the kids.

We also have always a restaurant proposal for guests and for the public, but only with

partnership with local operators because we never want an hotel restaurant but a restaurant

which happens to be in a hotel, which is actually the only condition for it to be a success

is to be accessible to the public.

We also always develop a theme specific to each hotel because it gives a storey and a unique cultural approach for customers and guests.

In Paris it's Ben Dainamco with Batman theme and in Brussels we work with the editors to create the comic book hotel in Brussels.

In Whitechapel we will be working on the Alice in Wonderland theme.

We want families and friends to be able to stay together during their trip, which is

interesting because our format reduces the cost per guest for our customers, but also

reduces the embodied and operational carbon footprint per guests in our hotel.

Finally, thanks to our unique offering, we believe every Yuma guest is a guest which

which is not renting an Airbnb, which matters for housing supply in Washoe

as much as anywhere else.

Just to pick up a few planning points in addition to the Office's comprehensive report

which recommends approval. This scheme takes a tired 1950s building and an underperforming hotel

and turns it into something generally exciting for this borough and for the UK.

Rather than knocking this building down and starting again

and all the carbon costs that that would involve, we are taking a sustainable

retrofit first approach. We're keeping and upgrading the building fabric

and building on the vacant plot next door

which helps to complete the street

and remove the current eyesore. The site is within a designated opportunity area

The site is within a designated opportunity area and the central activity zone, and that is exactly where policy directs future development.

This is a significant investment into the borough that will enhance the appearance of the site, enhance its energy and sustainability performance with new plant machinery,

and enhance the jobs it generates and the opportunities it can deliver for residents.

We've undertaken comprehensive engagement with your officers to get the scheme right.

The massing fully relates to the surrounding context.

The design is a significant enhancement from the existing building

and is sympathetic to the conservation area.

Your design officer describes the proposal as

response sensitively to the urban grain, architectural language

and material character of the locality.

We also create active frontages on Mulberry Street which currently attract anti -social behaviour

and we will invite the public into the building, into the restaurant and lobby.

Yuma fully understands the need to work with the community and has agreed to provide employment financial contributions,

apprenticeships, local labour commitments, providing work experience opportunities for students

and to develop career work paths for hotel employees.

this will generate significant economic and social value for the area.

We sympathise with residents.

In relation to construction, the report recommends various planning conditions

in relation to construction management plans

and we fully sign up to the Tower Hamlet's Code of Construction Practise

which ensures development minimises disruption.

In relation to daylight, there are some losses

and this is predominantly because the Pot C site is currently vacant.

The site is within an opportunity area and central activity zone as we mentioned and

this is exactly where we should be putting new development.

The proposed massing is modest and aligned with the surrounding prevailing height and

is lower than the building to the east.

It is common for development to have this level of daylight impact in Tower Hamlets.

Finally this scheme represents a real vote of confidence in Whitechapel with a substantial

investment into a tired building.

We are targeting Bream Excellent and EPCA and the proposal will bring genuine economic

benefits to the borough and Yuma looks forward to fully embedding themselves into this fantastic

community.

We welcome the case officer's recommendation to approve and we look forward to delivering

this site in Whitechapel and commence construction at the end of the year.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to both the objectors and the applicants' presentation.

We will now move on to any questions or comments from members to officers as well as objectors

and applicants.

Councillor Mahdi, please.

Thank you, Chair.

You've got East London Mosque, which is quite close by.

On a Friday, you've got about 10 ,000 worshippers that would attend that area.

It's very congested. Also where it's situated, the hotel, you've got Adler Street, which is quite narrow as you go in.

I believe it's one way, if I'm right in saying, in terms of that.

So I just wanted to sort of understand what sort of impact assessment that you've done in terms of that.

And also get an understanding of like what additional traffic that may cause within the area.

But yeah, thank you.

Yes, so the application is supported by a full suite of documents, but one most relevant is the transport assessment.

And that looks at the existing trips from the existing hotel and proposed trips from the additional hotel.

I think there's 54 additional rooms we're proposing.

I can get you the exact numbers, but there's a modest uplift in trips to and from the site.

In terms of servicing, it's about the same as an existing hotel

and that's because we're just using bigger vehicles to get in and out.

You have to remember the current hotel has an impact on the local area

currently and it's a very modest impact above that.

But I can dig out some numbers if that's useful.

Is there...

If you've got it to hand.

Chair, sorry.

If I could just jump in there.

We have assessed the transport assessment as part of the application.

In terms of numbers, during peak times there would be an additional one vehicle trip per hour.

Over a day there would be an additional 14 vehicle trips per day.

The vast majority of movements to and from the hotel would be via the underground or other public transport.

In terms of vehicle movements that would be pretty much pretty insignificant.

And in terms of servicing, as has already been mentioned, the current servicing arrangements which are off street

and the rear car pack would remain and the number of trips there would not increase

they would just increase the amount of products being delivered at once

so there would be a minimal impact on the highway.

I've got another one, thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Parker please.

Thank you, Chair. I noticed to the north of the site there's 32...

...

...19 -0008, which has approval. You showed that in the wireframe.

I couldn't work out this afternoon whether you were using part of the site,

the area C I think you call it in your application, whether that was part of that application

that has been previously approved. So that was my first issue and the other issue was

whether when doing the daylight and sunlight assessment whether you had actually considered

that development in that analysis.

Just in terms of your first question, the site which you have identified on the screen as Plot C,

that formed part of the application you mentioned and there was an approval for a hotel on part of that site,

which is a five storey hotel.

It is similar in bulk to this but slightly lower in height.

That has not been implemented and this hotel would be built on that corner plot of that application site.

If that has not been implemented, does that mean that application PA190008 now falls?

because if this was approved there would seem to be then a legal conflict between the planning applications.

Just to correct something Kevin said, so the application has been technically implemented,

obviously the scheme hasn't been in a more meaningful sense built out, but it has been implemented.

So, to answer your question, yes, there is overlap between the two red lines.

So there wouldn't be an opportunity to build out the previous consent as it was consented

and simultaneously build out this consent if that makes sense.

Thank you. Do you have any follow up?

Yes, my other question was had any modelling been done with respect to this consent

with a lower building at the Palmer's Row end which would seem to address some of the

daylight and sunlight issues?

I mean, as is always the case, the local planning authority consult there makes the assessment

on the application before us, so the assessment is what you see tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chih -Chi.

Thank you, Chancellor Khan.

Thank you, Chairman.

My question, I've got two questions.

So first one is the applicant have said there is actually two floor, is there three floor?

So there is some, what I'm going to say, the applicant says two floor and the objector

says two floor actually is a three floor.

So we want to have some clarity on that one.

Except that there is no floor.

The second one is that the objector said that there was a fan ten years ago

and it was so noisy they put down the fan.

So what sort of fan are you going to put in your hotel that will be noise proof?

What are you going to do about that noise?

These are the two questions. If you answer them I'll be grateful. Thank you.

The second question is about plant machinery when you refer to fans.

Yeah, because the fan, you know the fan, makes a noise.

Last time, ten years ago, they had put down, so if you put a fan again,

and that would make noise, and that was the objective.

How are you going to mitigate that?

So first of all, part of the application is about really improving the sustainability of the building.

The building currently, the plant machinery is towards the end of its life and needs to be replaced.

So there is going to be brand new machinery put on the roof.

there are noise conditions within the officer's recommendation for approval

which limit how noisy that fan or plant machinery can be

and we need to make sure we're within those noise conditions when we specify the exact machinery

so that is how the noise element is controlled.

Your first question, sorry, you have to remind me.

I was saying it is not actually too flawed.

I think the current building has plant on it already

I think it's it's two full floors of development, but equally there's

there's a full set of planning drawings which show the exact heights and

Exactly what's being proposed?

Thank You councillor

Council like is it thank you. Thank you

The plants only cover a small section of the roof so to the east and to the west

they don't cover the whole roof.

As you can see from the proposed roof,

they only cover two small sections of the roof.

Thank you.

Councillor Hussain.

Thank you, Chair.

Can you share with the plan for service vehicles,

how easily service vehicles will be...

have access and exceed from the site?

This is the plan showing the servicing.

So you have vehicles coming in from say Whitechapel Road and you enter the site.

The servicing yard is existing so we already have existing servicing taking place.

The vehicles are not going to change in terms of size, they're just going to increase the

products in the vehicle.

So you come in and then the vehicle has ample room to manoeuvre on site and come out.

Can I just, can I, can you please, yeah, yeah, sorry.

So this is an existing servicing arrangement and we've consulted our highways as well

and they're okay with the proposal subject to conditions.

Also we have a servicing condition on site on the application.

Any other members?

To the applicant, I was going to ask, I know you said you were going to work with the local

resident in terms of employment, work experience.

how much of it that you are going to offer and do you have anything in place?

The heads have termed in the report, kind of set out the obligations which we're committing to

and they'll be secured by a legal agreement known as a section 106.

So it includes apprenticeships during the construction phase, apprenticeships during

the end user phase, which the hotel and Anatole might just give you a bit more background

of how they do that elsewhere.

There's also commitments on local labour in the hotel, commitments on getting work experienced

students into the hotel.

So it's all detailed in the report and will be confirmed in a Section 106 and I think

we're very open to engaging with the community wider than what's already in the report.

Thank you.

Any other members have any questions?

If not, we will move on. Can I ask Paul and I, Philips, to share their advice and give

us advice before moving on to the vote?

Thank you chair and thank you members for all of your questions and interrogation of the proposals.

I think, chair, just really to sum up, this is a brownfield site adjacent to an existing hotel.

I think the proposals, as you have seen the report from an officer point of view, we think they are well considered.

They are not excessive in height, they do relate to the existing design.

Where there is an increase in height of two storeys is actually set back.

So it is designed not to be too imposing.

I have heard obviously a number of issues around servicing requirements.

Those have been assessed and the existing arrangements effectively will stay the same.

Yes, there will be some increased demand for some of those projects and requirements,

but the applicants have explained that they will deal with those either through using vehicles more efficiently

or possibly using a slightly larger vehicle, but either way they can come into the servicing yard,

they can turn around and they can come out without having to reverse,

which is really important given the nature of the area.

We have worked quite hard to secure some additional local employment skills and training benefits,

probably arguably beyond what you might normally expect to see if it was the policy minimum.

Finally, we acknowledge that there are some amenity impacts, but this is a cleared site.

So, in a way, any development on this site is going to have some impact on daylight and sunlight.

The question really, I suppose for the local planning authority, is are those impacts proportionate to what's being proposed?

do they relate for example to aspects of being a bad neighbour or poor design?

Our view is that they don't because it's quite well designed in terms of the relationship

to the existing building and the surrounding height.

So those impacts, yes they are there, but they are probably to be expected

in that kind of quite tight sort of urban location.

So beyond that chair, everything's in the reports and we feel very comfortable

recommending the planning commission be granted.

Thank you.

Do you want to add anything?

Thank you.

Thank you very much Paul for that.

We will now move on to members of vote.

I am proposing the officer's recommendation for application as set out in the report.

Can I see all of those who are in favour of granting planning permission?

Those against?

Thank you.

Can I ask Paul to confirm the committee's decision?

Thank you, Chair.

So I think I counted correctly with four members in favour and one member, sorry five members,

five in favour, thank you, Pardon, and one against.

The committee resolves the majority of votes to grant planning commission for the redevelopment

of 42 Adler Street in accordance with the details set out in item 7 .2 of your agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

I can now confirm that we have no other planning matters to consider.

So that concludes the business for this meeting.

The next meeting will take place Tuesday the 1st of September 2026.

I now close the meeting and wish you all a good evening.

Webcast Finished - 1:57:36

Thank you.

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 hCaptcha.

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.

Interactive webcast player

Development CommitteeThursday, 9th July 2026 at 6:30pm

Webcast Finished - 1:57:36

Development Committee
Thursday, 9th July 2026 at 6:30pm