Strategic Development Committee - Tuesday 21 July 2026, 6:30pm

Strategic Development Committee
Tuesday, 21st 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

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

Share this agenda point

Reformatted DPI Note

3 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

Share this agenda point

Minutes - 1 April 2026

4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Share this agenda point

Public Information Sheet, 14/11/2019 Development Committee

5 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE, QUORUM, MEMBERSHIP AND DATES OF MEETINGS 2026/2027

Share this agenda point

7 b) PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

Share this agenda point

PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

7 b) PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

Share this agenda point

PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

7 c) PA/25/02104 - Standon House, 21 Mansell Street, E1 8AN

Share this agenda point

PA/25/02104 - Standon House, 21 Mansell Street, E1 8AN

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, everyone, and welcome to the first meeting of the Strategic Development

Committee this Tuesday, 21 July, 2026.

I am Councillor Amin Rahman and I will be chairing this meeting.

Before we start, I would like to give you some reminders and briefing, confirm the protocol

of this meeting, including virtual meeting procedures.

There are no fire alarm tested planned to take place during this meeting, so should

the fire alarm sound, please calmly follow signs to the nearest fire exit and please

do not use the lifts.

This meeting is being webcast live on the Council's website and public and press may

follow the meeting remotely.

Participants must address the meeting through myself

as a chair.

If you're participating online and addressing me,

you must switch your microphone on

and may also switch the camera at the point.

Should you keep the microphones and cameras switched off

at all other times?

Please do not use meeting chat facility.

Any information added to the facility will be disregarded.

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

service officers as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Frances, do we have any apologies for tonight?

Thank you, Chair.

I can confirm that Councillor Abdul Manan has sent his apologies with Councillor Shafi

Ahmed as his substitute.

Thank you.

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

I will now ask the committee members who are present this evening to introduce themselves.

Please can you also state any declaration that you may have in the agenda's items and

the nature of their interest.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

I am Councillor Gulan Thi Bhiya Choudhury, Popular Ward.

I have received some email but I did not respond.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

I am Councillor Martin Parker.

I have also received lots of emails but I have not responded.

Good evening.

Thank you, chair.

Everyone.

This is Councillor Paul Hussain for Lainsbury Wood.

I see that my other colleagues have received a huge number of emails, but I didn't have time to respond.

And I have nothing to declare in relation to any of these items for tonight.

Good evening, I'm Councillor Minnara -Kotun for Blackwell and Cubittown.

I have nothing to declare. I have also received a number of emails, but have not responded. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Shabab -Hussain from the south, nothing to declare other than receiving a

huge number of emails and have not had a chance to go through them or respond to them.

Thank you, chair.

Councillor Shafiya, I will watch up on that.

Also no DPIs and emails received but not responded.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Ahmadur Rahman Khan.

I am the representative of the Blackwell -Keeby Council.

And for 77 Marshall, for your information, Chair,

I live in Kennego -Ford and I have nothing to declare.

Thank you.

Thank you everyone.

Good evening.

My name is Councillor Séo Conklin.

I have nothing to declare, but from received email,

which is I have responded to you.

Thank you.

I have received loads of emails regarding the applications.

I have not responded to any of the emails or anything.

As this is our first meeting for the years 2026, 2027, I call for nomination for a member

of the position of Vice Chair for Strategic Development Committee.

Can I see anyone who would like to...

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to nominate Councillor Kibbe Achoudhury as the Vice Chair.

I second.

Thank you.

Is there any more nominations?

Okay.

So we take that as our vice chairs.

Shall we take it to a vote?

There's no other nominations.

So yeah, it's okay.

Okay.

So we would like to congratulate Councillor Goulame -Kibre

as the Vice Chair of Strategic Development Committee.

Thank you, congratulations.

Okay, now, can we confirm as the correct records

3 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

of minutes of the meeting of Strategic Development Committee

held on the 1st of April, 2026?

The next item is recommendation and procedure of hearing of meeting of the guidance.

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

to present the guidance.

Thank you very much, chair, and good evening to yourself and committee members, members

of the public and officers who are joining us in the meeting 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 Development

Plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.

When we come to the report of recommendations, the running order will go as follows.

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

4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Officers will then present the report and then anyone registered to speak in objection

can address the committee for up to three minutes each and anyone registered to speak

in support, including the applicant, can also address the committee for three minutes each,

followed by any councillors who have registered to speak.

The committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers and then the committee will

on to consider the recommendation, including any questions, debates 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.

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

for example to add or delete or amend funding conditions or obligations, then the task of

formalising those changes is delegated to the Director of Funding and Building Control.

And in the event that the committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must

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

Committee may be adjourned briefly for further planning or legal advice and the task of formalising

the Committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director of Planning and

Building Control.

If the Committee proposed to make a decision that would appear to go against the provisions

of the Development Plan or could have any legal implications, then the item may be deferred

for further report from officers dealing with the Committee's proposed course of action.

There is an update report this evening that's been published and circulated to members of

the committee so I can come to that when we get to those individual items.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Paul.

5 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE, QUORUM, MEMBERSHIP AND DATES OF MEETINGS 2026/2027

Onto the Strategic Development Committee terms of reference current, memberships and dates,

meetings 2026, 2027.

Could I ask could I please ask Frances, Director of the Dramatology Service Officer to introduce

the report.

Thank you, Chair.

This is a short report and reflects the information set out in the agenda.

As is standard practise at the first meeting of the municipal year, it is important for

members to revisit the Committee's terms of reference, Committee composition, quorum

arrangements and scheduled meeting dates.

Therefore, I am asking members to note these for the Strategic Development Committee for

the municipal year 2026 -27.

Thank you.

Our members happy to agree?

Thank you.

Item 6.

Deferred item.

Can I confirm what we have on deferred item to consider?

We have three planning applications to consider this evening.

PA2501729, the South Quay building 77 Marshville, London, E14 9SH.

The first one is a planning application for a phased development with demolition of existing

7 b) PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

building and the construction of new building for residential and commercial use along with

associated works.

I now invite Paul Beckenham to introduce the application.

Thank you very much, chair.

So as the chair has said, this is a planning application affecting the south key building

at 77 Marsh Wall.

The full description is a phased development comprising the demolition of the existing

office building and the construction of a single tall building providing residential

accommodation including affordable housing, service departments and co -living accommodation

with flexible commercial and community uses at the lower levels and alongside hard and

soft landscaping, public realm improvements associated works.

The recommendation to the committee this evening is

to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions

and planning obligations to be secured

in the section 106 agreement.

Chair, there is just some updates to share

with the committee in the update report.

So since the publication of the agenda,

the council has received a further petition

with 455 names raising objections to the scheme,

and the initial 13 letters of objection.

The 45 signature petition was previously submitted

with 160 names, so it's obviously an increase

in the number of names on there.

We've also received an additional letter of representation

from the operator of the theatreship,

who have confirmed they are content

with the recommended mitigation measures

identified in the report and also they have reached a separate agreement with the applicants

outside of the planning process around mitigation of the impact of the developments on their

very specific operations.

We have 12 letters of representation confirmed and they also wish to withdraw their objections

which were all related to the impact on the theatreship.

And then finally, chair, there is,

it's a very long section, but in reviewing the report,

the report deals with the daylight and sunlight impacts

of the development.

But as you know, this is an area

that's subject to a lot of change.

So there are developments that have permission

but haven't been built.

So the application includes a cumulative assessment as well.

And that wasn't fully reported in the main report,

so we've now included the cumulative assessment

of this proposed development alongside any other relevant developments in the area which

have permission but have not yet been constructed. However, none of that changes the overall

recommendation which is still to grant planning permission. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul. I will now invite Planning Case Officer Daniel Jeffries to present the

application.

Thank you, chat.

Take you for the report.

Take you for the presentation.

So this is the site location plan.

Do you want to give us a few seconds?

Sorry, yeah.

Thank you.

Yep, thank you.

So this is the site location plan with the application site

outlined in red, the existing building.

So the arrows highlight the nearby South Quay station

along the wash wall and the adjacent Millwall cutting

to the east and South Dock to the north.

So this aerial image includes the adjacent

Hampton Tower 75 Marsh Wall, which is a 68 storey residential tower, and the theatre ship

which is in the Millwall cutting to the east of the development, which is used as a live

entertainment venue. So this is another aerial image from the existing building, which is

15 storeys in height in the context of the surrounding area, taken from the south east

towards the northwest.

So looking at the existing site,

this is taken from the opposite and north side of South Dock

and the building in the centre of the image,

which is here, is flanked by Hampton Tide to the right

and Umo cutting to the left.

So this image shows the existing east elevation

of the building on the left hand side

and the relationship with Millwall cutting to the right.

So this photo shows the existing building

on the right hand screen and showing it a vehicle access

from Marsh Wall.

So these three images show the pedestrian access from the north

along South Quay Walk.

And these images show the access to the site from Marsh Royal to the south,

which provides the only vehicle access.

So in terms of the proposal itself,

so it's a single -door building, 54 storeys with two additional basement levels.

It provides 194 private homes, 121 affordable homes,

and 238 co -living rooms as well as associated communal space and other areas.

And includes 266 service department rooms, 430 square metres of commercial floor space,

and 192 square metres of community floor space.

So these are two CGIs from the north and south.

As you can see, it has a podium level, which is four storeys a night, with the remaining building slightly rotated.

This is another CGI. It shows how the building would appear from the north side of South Duck.

And this is another image from South Duck further along the west.

So in terms of the different uses, this image shows how the uses will be arranged within the building, showing different colours.

So the other part of the front of the building, which represents yellow and green, is the part hotels and co -living rooms.

The affordable homes are represented by burgundy, so colour, for the social rent, and orange for the intermediate,

which are located to the rear and front of the podium,

above the podium level.

The private units represented in blue

are predominantly located to the rear.

So these show the layout of the pros uses,

with the colours retained for the different types of use.

They show that the layout will have a central core

and a staggered design with other building

would maximise the levels of daylight and sunlight

with only 6 % of the units meeting PRA criteria.

And it maximises use of triple and double aspect

and inclusion of external main city spaces.

So this is it, the image shows the layout of the ground floor.

The residential entrance to the east and west elevation.

The three commercial units would be located to the north, south and east of the development.

The community floor space would be located to the south and deliveries and collection

access would be located to the southwest corner.

So the original application resulted in 5 ,593 objections, so the vast majority of the objections, being a total of 5 ,385,

related to the impact of the theatreship, with the remaining 194 letters of objection, including 169 petitions.

So in terms of the objections to the scheme, a vast majority are related to the impact of the theatre ship,

which are about it within mill wall cutting, which is used as live entertainment venue.

So the objection is received from various locations, including across London, the UK and other seas.

The concerns are mainly related to the impact on the continued operation and access to the venue during the construction, as well as following the completion of the development.

So officers have worked with representatives of the theatreship and the applicant during the course of the assessment of the application to try and resolve these concerns.

So as outlined in the updated report,

representatives of the theatre ships

confirmed in writing that they are satisfied

with the recommended mitigation measures

and also they are content in agreement

it was the applicant outside of the planning application

to help mitigate the impacts.

So as in, consider that the concerns

related to the theatre ship have now been resolved.

A further 12 letters of representation have been withdrawn

with their objections relating to the potential impact

of the theatreship.

In addition, as noted previously,

whilst the scheme resulted in 208 objections

that weren't focused on the objections,

including 169th petition,

as outlined in the update report,

since the publication of the report,

an updated petition has been submitted with 455 names.

So in summary, these are the main objections received,

particularly in terms of design heritage,

immunity impacts and those related to the existing infrastructure and the airship.

These are the main issues in terms of raising the terms of letters of support.

So in terms of delivering new homes particularly affordable,

and working with public spaces in the uses of ground floor.

So these are the key considerations in the assessment of the application.

So in terms of land use, these are the key issues.

So the principle of the pros uses are considered acceptable in this location and aligned with

and align with the future site allocation for the site.

It is acknowledged that the loss of the employment floor

is strictly accorded with the policy

given the building is still in use.

However, following the assessment

of the submitted marketing evidence

together with the benefits of the scheme,

the proposed uses are considered acceptable

in land use terms.

So in terms of housing,

the proposal delivered 360 homes

195 with private tenure, 121 affordable homes.

These are considered to meet the London Plan standards.

So 154 homes would benefit from dual aspect

and 60 would benefit from triple aspect.

We deliver 238 co -living rooms associated

with communal spaces in the accommodation

of the London Plan standards.

So this page shows the main proposed immunity spaces

and landscaping. So the left you've got the community garden to the south and to the dockside

gardens to the north. So these are child play spaces for the 5 to 11 and 12 plus years age

categories. So the image to the right shows the fourth floor which would be above the

0-4 and the external immunity spaces at this level.

It should be noted that the further external immunity spaces to level 3 for the co -living

occupies an additional external to floors 28, 53 and 54.

It is considered to be compliant in terms of external immunity spaces

and also in terms of child play space, which is outlined within the table.

So in respect of affordable housing, ordinarily as a co -living scheme,

the loan plan guidance would normally seek a financial contribution as a payment in lieu towards affordable housing provision.

So in this instance the scheme provided affordable housing as part of the development of the site.

The scheme would deliver 48 % of the C3 homes as affordable when calculated by HUB -2 -Room.

Taking into consideration co -living, the scheme would deliver 38 % affordable housing calculated by HUB -2 -Room.

This would equate to 121 homes in total, 96 being social rent and 25 being intermediate tenure.

So this would be a split of 84 to 60 percent respectively, which is policy compliant.

Then 46 of the follow -up buildings would be family sized, being three or more bedrooms, which is welcomed.

So this provides a breakdown of the housing mix by tenure and size.

So one of the key aspects of the acceptability of the proposal is the design and its impact on heritage.

This image shows one of the key images showing the building context of the wider area.

The building here.

So the site is in the Canary Wharf tall building zone.

The image shows it is insistent with the hierarchy of buildings when this designation of the building is centrally located.

So this CGI shows the proposal in its immediate context showing a relationship with adjacent buildings.

It's considered to be consistent with these.

So this image shows one of the key views used in the assessment in terms of its heritage impacts.

taken from Greenwich. The big image and the inset image shows that the building would

be set down from and ensuring the prominence of one Canada Square. So this image shows

the design and the materiality would be in keeping with the surrounding building which

considered to be high quality.

And as mentioned previously, the building will be

a four storey podium which is shown in the images below

from different positions.

The proposal would deliver improved public realm

to north and south of the building.

This would include planting, seating, basketball court,

table tennis and various other features

and will be secured by air condition.

So in terms of the main impacts and the application is becoming by a daylight sunlight report

which is independently reviewed by the array and

This

has identified the proposal would have major adverse impacts and

The only building which has major adverse impacts into the pros and cumulative assessments would be Hampton Tower

however, and

However

In terms of this impact, 92 % of the room will be in full compliance with the BRA criteria

in respect of no skyline and 69 .4 the windows will be in full compliance with BRA criteria

in respect of ESC.

So this table shows the significance of the breaches in BRA criteria within this building.

The committee report outlines assessment of these impacts.

It identifies that some of the impacts are a result of the architectural features, but

the majority of the impacted ones would benefit from VSC's levels of mid -teams being 50 % or

greater, which is considered appropriate in this urban location.

So these images show the separation distance between the windows of the habitable rooms,

which would exceed the required 18 metres.

So the proposal is considered forward in the remit of the EIA regulations and an environmental

statement has been submitted to assess the environmental impact of development. This

has been independently reviewed by RAMBL who have confirmed that all of the issues have

been resolved and the mitigation measures considered appropriate. The proposal includes

several sustainable measures, some of which identified in the image on the left, and the

roof plan on the right shows the proposed plans, use of voltaic panels and green roofs.

So in terms of highways, the vehicle access would be from Marshboro to the bottom of the

screen, which would be used for refuge collection and service and deliveries, as well as emergency

vehicles. The pros would also provide policy compliant cycle storage, 12 accessible parking

bays and various active travel improvements. So the recommendations would be subject to

a number of obligations. So these are the non -financial contributions associated with

including photobousing and community floor space,

as well as transport, sustainable,

and impact on terms of the construction,

including the agreement, the potential for position,

the airship, subjected noise criteria.

And these are financial contributions

associated with development.

I should highlight the contribution

towards the construction of footbridge

or pedestrian improvements.

And these are the calculations in regards to CIL.

So the recommendation is that the application should be approved subject to a referral by

the Mayor of London and an agreement to secure the obligations and the conditions set out

in the committee report. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

I now invite States Lawrence to address the committee in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, councillors.

I live in Marsh Wall where this development will be based and seeing a high level of community concern.

I started a petition against it.

It now has 461 people signing it in opposition.

That's together with 5593 letters of objection.

That's more than 6000 people from the community opposing this application against one letter

of support.

6000 people telling you they don't want this development because it brings no benefits.

Let me show you why using the Council's own report.

This application breaks council policy in four ways.

And every one of those breaks makes life worse for people who already live there.

First, unprecedented level of density.

You don't have anything in London of this kind, where you have three super tall residential buildings next to each other

on half a hectare, which is the size of a football pitch, squeezed between two waterways.

At the moment it already has one tower, Hampton Tower, 68 storeys, home to around 1 ,000 people.

Another one is coming, South Quay Plaza 2, over 40 storeys, home to hundreds more.

And now this application asks for a third tower, 54 storeys,

next to each other. And these are not the office buildings. These are residential buildings.

And so based on your own neighbourhood plan,

this application adds

820 homes and rooms, that is over 1 ,800 per hectare.

That's nearly double the 1 ,000 hundred threshold

that you have in your neighbourhood plan,

which triggers extra infrastructure needs.

Speaking of infrastructure, this building alone adds

around 1 ,000 new residents, all sharing on small, small street.

And if you come there at the peak time,

this small, tiny street is already at the capacity.

When people have deliveries, emergency service, ambulances, there's just not enough space for these 1 ,000 people already living in this one tower

We're adding two more towers. And as I said, there are waterways on two sides. There's only one small entry

It's very common for the cars to break garden to scratch each other because it's just a super small tiny space

In addition to this, it's not just traffic

Thames water says the network cannot take this development without upgrades

TFL asks for money towards a new footbridge because the current one is at the capacity.

So both organisations are telling you this area is already too stretched for the number of people living there.

Third, light. As you mentioned, Hampton Tower is the worst affected building in the whole assessment.

There was a change of documents today, so I'm not sure which one is correct,

but based on the old one, the impact on daylight and sunlight was major adverse.

around 552 windows of Hampton Tower, that is 40%, will breach BRE guidelines,

that means real feminists losing daylight in their own homes permanently.

Then this site is not allocated for the scale of development under the adopted local plan.

It's white land.

Thank you sir. Thank you very much. Your time is up.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I now invite Jessie Chu to address the committee in objection of the application.

You have also three minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors. I live in Marshall as well. And tonight I

ask you one question. When the evidence identifies major permanent harm on existing residents,

how much harm is too much? But the petition already has over 6000 objections. And the

number alone do not decide the planning application, but they show the depth of concern. This is

about the light reaching the homes where my neighbours and I live. At Hampton Tower, almost

one in three assessed windows fills the BRE daylight test. 251 windows also lose at least

40 % of their daylight. Councillors, we all know how precious daylight and sunlight in

London is. Please consider what a permanent loss of 40 % of daylight would mean in your

own home. This is not a handful of windows, it affects hundreds of households. This is

confirmed by the Council's independent BRE reviewer. Once a building is built, the harm

is permanent. A conditional or financial contribution cannot give the light back. Harm on this scale

conflicts with the Tower Hamlets Local Plan Policy D .H .8 and is too great to be considered

to accept. Secondly, I want to mention the loss of employment space. This is not a vacant

and derelict site. It contains over 26 ,000 square metres of employment floor place, remains

around 40 % occupied and was partially refurbished only five years ago. Policy D .E .MP3 requires

24 months of active marketing or robust proof of continued employment use is generally unsuitable

or restoration is unviable.

The report cites no marketing evidence was provided

and acknowledges that the proposal does not directly comply

with the D .EMP3.

We support the home, however,

new homes should not be delivered

by making existing homes permanently darker.

We also wanna ask if adopted policy can be set aside

when this test has not been met, what protection does the policy provide?

This is not about housing versus no housing.

It is harmful design versus requiring a better and lower impact design.

As a local resident on behalf of the community...

You have 30 seconds.

Okay.

We refuse, please refuse permission for the major loss of daylight and sunlight and the

and unjustify loss of employment space,

protect the integrity of the local plan

and the daylight of the people

who already call this place home.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chamayikov.

Thank you.

I now invite John Grant, Pangeek Patel and Oliver Sheffers

to address the committee in support of the application

you have up to six minutes shared between you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, Chair and members.

My name is John Gard and I'm a Development Director at Arelli.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our proposals for 77 Mark 4.

Our ambition is clear.

Genuinely affordable homes for local people in a place that feels part of the community

and not apart from it.

At the heart of the scheme is 38 % affordable housing which is in excess of your policy,

including 96 social rented homes, almost half of which are family sized.

This directly responds to the borough's most pressing housing need.

We are already in active discussions with a well -established local registered provider who understands the borough and its residents.

Alongside this, we will deliver 195 built -to -rent homes, offering a higher quality and more secure alternative to the local private rented sector,

and service departments for people working locally on stays from one night or more.

A valuable offer in a borough where many families have been lost to short,

family homes have been lost to short -term lets and in accordance with your existing and emerging planning policies.

The scheme also includes co -living accommodation.

This is a critical part of the economics of our scheme.

It allows us to maximise on -site social rent provision, something many schemes cannot achieve.

Beyond housing, our ambition is to create a mixed, community -focused environment which activates the waterfront.

Residents told us developments along Marsh Wall often feel closed off.

In response, our architects have designed an open ground floor with shops, cafes and sheltered public space that invites people in to use and enjoy.

The proposals have been designed in conjunction with an experienced operating partner who

will manage the building day to day, running an active programme of community events for

all, all year round.

These proposals reflect three years of close work with planning officers and extensive

engagement with residents and stakeholders, including our neighbours at the theatreship,

who I'm pleased to confirm support the project.

We're grateful for their time and look forward to having them as a neighbour.

Thank you to our neighbours who have taken time to raise their concerns this evening.

I want to acknowledge a few of their points and highlight that our design is a product of a sensitive and considered process with our architects Patel Taylor.

The massing and footprint of the building have been carefully developed to mitigate impacts on neighbouring homes at South Quay Plaza.

Detailed daylight and sunlight settlements have been undertaken.

Results are considered good given the urban location and scale of the proposed development.

Further to this, economically the scheme delivers around 2 ,200 construction jobs each year,

151 permanent jobs and approximately 7 .8 million in annual household spending.

This scheme provides a range of new homes which respond to the changing way in which

people are living.

It is one of the first schemes of its kind in the UK and brings much needed housing,

significant public benefits and strong alignment with your local plan ambitions including a

policy compliant affordable housing offer.

Alongside me this evening are our architects and planning team and we would be happy to

take any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you as well.

Do members have any questions for officers?

Or the applicant or the objectors?

Yes.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, officer, for your presentation. My question is because

the objector raised the concern in relation to the design. In relation to the design,

we have some criteria for example D9 and D .D .H6 does this proposal comply this criteria?

Councillor would you like to repeat your question please here?

In relation to design, we have some criteria.

We need to fulfil this.

For example, D9 and D .DH6.

Does this proposed development comply this criteria?

Because objector raised the concern

in relation to the design.

Yeah, so I guess trying to give a holistic answer

to all of the design considerations

that we would take into account when assessing an application like this.

So in the first instance in terms of the design itself, we're content in collaboration with

our colleagues in play shaping that the design itself is high quality and appropriate for

a building of this scale in this location.

As Dan showed in the presentation, I don't know if you could bring up the floor plans

for example, Dan.

But the way that the building has been sort of staggered,

when Dan brings up the floor plans,

it might make a bit more sense,

but like it's got this sort of staggered form,

which we believe in terms of the quality

of the internal accommodation allows for, for example,

a high degree of dual aspect,

and also actually offers, we think, mitigation

in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties.

That's both in terms of the separation distances

between the neighbouring properties which are in excess of the guideline 18 metres and

also protects in terms of, well reduces impacts in terms of daylight and sunlight, not to

say that there aren't significant impacts.

More broadly one of the main criteria that the objectives we're speaking about was daylight

and sunlight and in terms of that, as Daniel said, so if you go back, just stick up the

So as we identified, the proposal has been assessed against all residential properties

in close proximity.

The one property that we have identified as being most affected is Hampton Tower, which

I believe is where the residents, speaking objection, both reside.

And as you can see on the screen there, of all the rooms tested, 92 % of those meet the

NSL criteria. So the NSL criteria is what is also referred to as daylight distribution

and this is a measure of daylight within the rooms itself, so that's within habitable rooms,

so living rooms and bedrooms principally. And we're saying 92 % of all residential rooms

in that building pass the BRE guidance, which is in our experience a high number. The other

measure on the screen there, the VSC, you'll see that there are a greater number of failures,

So the VSC, that's windows, testing windows,

and it's a measure of daylight at the window itself.

And as you can see there, there are quite a significant amount

of failures in terms of major failures.

And so that major failure constitutes a 40 % loss

as set out by the objector as well in terms

of the existing values.

But we're of the view that the retained values,

so whilst 40 % is lost, the retained values on the whole

are not so adverse that we would say this is an unacceptable loss.

And as Dan said, some of these are in the mid -teens,

which is a sort of measure that people like to refer to as to what could be an acceptable level of daylight.

And I think it's really important to highlight with this application that this is one building that's affected.

And yes, it is, it does have some failures, but given where this building is, if you can picture it,

Dan, if you could just bring up the wider site.

So we've obviously, to the north is South Dock,

so there's no impact to residential properties

to the north.

To the east is the Millwall Cutting.

And as we're aware, there's the theatreship and Lassa

Welling, the cutting itself.

And they're not residential uses.

So there's no real impact on residential windows

or anything to the east.

The principal impact is really to the west,

and in particular to this one building.

And again, whilst there are impacts to that building,

for a development of this scale

to only impact one residential property,

it isn't considered on the whole to be too adverse

for again, for a development of this scale.

So whilst there are impacts to that building,

and we've identified and analysed those impacts,

we don't think that on the whole that they are so bad

that they would, in the first instance,

constitute as saying that they contravene the amenity policy and that also that we would

say that the proposal should be refused because of that.

And that's taking the decision in the round, considering all of the benefits of the proposals

which Daniel set out in the presentation.

I don't know if there's anything further you wanted me to touch on.

Can I come back to that as well?

Why do you think it's acceptable though?

I think members will, obviously members that have been on the committee previously, they

will have seen other applications of this scale delivering this many residential units

in Tower Hamlets.

There's a lot of residential units, a very large building, and generally speaking when

we have applications of this scale there will be impacts on residential and neighbouring

residential properties.

That's almost unavoidable in a London or a Tower Hamlets context.

We're saying that on the whole the amount of impacts or the amount of residential properties

that have been impacted isn't so extreme,

it isn't so high compared to other schemes

of a comparable nature, and also that ultimately

our recommendation is based on the wider benefits

of the proposal as well.

Could I just cheque, Councillor,

the Policy Zoom reference, were they D9 and DDH6?

Okay, so just to add then to what Simon said in relation to amenity, those policies that

you reference relate to tall buildings and whether tall buildings are acceptable in this

location.

So this is in a tall building zone, it's in the Canary Wharf cluster.

So in principle it's unacceptable location for a tall building.

It's also in the Isle of Dogs opportunity area, which is an area that's been identified

for being able to have the capacity for significant growth in homes and jobs and

their homes that the borough obviously very much needs. So it's in

the right location for the type of proposal that it is.

It does make them at the most of the site. I believe it has been

designed led

And it's made is the most appropriate form of development for the land and I think it does respond

respond to the site context and

The pack capacity for growth that the that the area does have

Well, there are those impacts as Simon said there will inevitably be those sort of impacts in this

kind of high growth area, but I think the benefits outweigh some of those inevitable

impacts on neighbouring occupiers.

So coming back to the same question, is the 54 storey buildings the tallest one there

I'm guessing?

The impacted buildings are actually taller at 68 storeys, which is Houghton Tower.

So it's a lower building than the existing building.

Can you repeat the answer again please?

So the Hampton Tower is 68 storeys, the proposal is 55 storeys, so the proposal is lower in height than the adjacent building.

And it's also lower in height than the majority of buildings north of Marsh Wall in the centre of the Canary Wharf cluster.

and as policy requires step down from the centre of the cluster which in this case is

one Canada square. This building as I think you would have seen from one of the slides

that showed the heights of the buildings coming from the centre of the cluster it really fits

very well in terms of its height in relation to its location in the cluster. It's set down

from the higher buildings in the middle of the cluster in Canary Wharf.

So coming back to it, do you believe the height is acceptable for this site?

The height specifically is acceptable for this site, yes. It is in compliance with policy

of the London Plan and DDH 6 of the local plan, which requires that tall buildings in

this particular area, which is the Canary Wharf cluster, step down from the centre,

which this proposal does. We've got the Hampton Tower, which is slightly to the north -west,

which is higher than this building, and then we've got buildings to the north of South

with in Canary Wharf sort of central if you like which are kind of 200 metres AOD plus

this proposal is 190 AOD metres AOD Hampton Towers in the northwest is 220 metres for

comparison thank you thank you councillor Shafi I just want to talk about the

The play space area that you talked about, number one, does it follow the guideline and does it meet the guideline?

And number two is, if the play space is on the fourth floor, is all residents on the building accessible to that, including the social housing tenants?

Yes, so in terms of the child play space calculations, this is a site that does provide all of the

required play space on the site itself.

So that's across all age groups, it's provided on the site.

And yeah, as you can see on the site, on the images there, so it's provided on the podium

level and the child play space in particular is only accessible to the residential uses

on the site.

So whilst the building has other uses in it, so co -living and the visitor accommodation,

they can't access the child play space.

Child play space is just for the residential uses, including the social rent.

Take it, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Could you address the issue raised by the objectors about the density that will occur

as a result of this development and the other

consented development, please.

Yes, so I guess there was a lot of different parts

to unpack about the density in terms of,

in the first instance, as you will have seen

in the presentation, all schemes of this type of,

particularly delivering residential accommodation,

they are required to make a contribution

towards the community infrastructure,

or via the community infrastructure levy,

and you'll have seen that the total for this scheme

is 12 million, over nine million of which comes towards the council and that is used

for infrastructure projects within the locality which can include things such as GP services

and school provisions and other related matters such as that. So that's just what happened

I guess as a legal process of an application such as this. In terms of I guess one of the

So, the other points was raised about infrastructure and the ability of people to move freely across

the area in terms of connexions.

So, the applicants have made a contribution of 6 ,000, which could go towards the construction

of the south footbridge, but it could also go to wider pedestrian improvements.

That was as requested by Transport for London and offered up by the applicant.

In terms of emergency vehicular access, the proposals have been reviewed by what is now

known as the Building Safety Regulator and they've confirmed it that for the purposes

of planning the proposals are acceptable and that that assessment will have regard to,

for example, fire tender access.

In terms of vehicles and other vehicles moving across the site, one of the things that this proposal does is it has car parking underneath.

So any car parking that is provided, in particular the blue badge parking which is required by policy, is underneath the building itself in a basement.

and we're of the view that basically the way that the building is going to operate in terms

of being able to accommodate some of the servicing or refuse storage within the basement etcetera

is going to actually improve the wider public realm in terms of, if any of you have been

to site you would have seen that cars are parked in a kind of like ad hoc manner all

the way around the building at their present, well not all the way around but not at the

north but on the east and the west as demonstrated by these proposals.

We're of the view that the proposals, particularly in terms of the way that the public realm

and landscaping will be set out, will prohibit this.

Some of it will be informal play space.

And then as with all these kind of proposals, they are, we have them reviewed by our highways

team and they will, when they're making their assessment of the proposals, they will have

regard to things such as emergency vehicle access and they've considered in their professional

I think there was a specific reference to a policy in the neighbourhood plan that relates

to density and high density developments and that high density developments should ensure

that they conform with the GLA's housing SPG and they're of high quality design and also

the high density or strategic developments in this area should provide an infrastructure

impact assessment which is specific to the Isle of Dogs because in the Isle of Dogs we

do have this neighbourhood plan which requires that any growth is good growth, is sustainable

growth and the applicant did submit an infrastructure impact assessment which has been assessed.

The quality of the development as a whole has been assessed. The quality of accommodation

is good and in relation to sort of density, now we tend to look at density as a sort of

optimises the capacity of the site and it ensures that developments are high quality.

There's enough play space. There's enough

public open space. So the developments been

assessed on those

on those measures and

it's yeah deemed to be acceptable.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I'm just relating these two slightly different topics on page 128,

7 .447, policy D .ES 6, request a new residential development achieve a maximum water use of

105 litre per person per day to minimise the pressure.

It says at the end, a planning condition will be secured to ensure this policy objective

is met. So it's not clear how that policy will be implemented.

Have you got any guidelines to it? Because after all, it's a massive project.

Which is, how many altogether units? We have 316 plus 316 plus 19.

So you've got quite a few, nearly a thousand units that's being adopted in the existing residential area.

So how would you make sure there will be no impact?

Because at the moment we see a lot of water outage and lacking water and drain problem and everything.

So in order to meet all those water issues that have been taken.

So as part of when an application such as this comes in, one of the people we would

consult is Thames Water and the condition that you mentioned there that would have been

recommended to us essentially by Thames Water and so when they assess the proposals they

will be taking into account I guess water stress in the area, any issues affecting water

pressure in the area and then they will base their consultation response based on the information

they have to hand and they have obviously set out what the requirement would be and

we also have local plan policies relating to water usage as well which set out and require

similar levels of water usage.

So in terms of the recommendation including a condition, so generally speaking the things

that can control or limit the amount of water usage within a development wouldn't necessarily

be detailed at planning stage, they'd more likely come through at the building control

stage. Nevertheless, what we're saying here is that we want details, or details need to

be provided to the council of, for example, fittings that will be used within individual

residential units, so there can be all of the water used using fittings, so showers

and every other thing that uses water within the unit, they're going to have to provide

details of those to us and demonstrate that taken together that they can limit or reduce

the amount of water usage within those units. So we'll have to have all of that information

provided to us and that would be, because it's a condition that would be post consent,

the information would be provided to us and we would be consulting Thames Water again

about that condition and they would be reviewing the contents of the submission and telling

whether they think it is accord with, I guess, best practise

and practise that would reduce water consumption

within the units and the development as a whole.

Yeah, does it mean like, you are looking ahead

for any modification of Thames water site

that you have to take in account that it is a great pressure

that that building need and does it

does this include any modification of Thames Water pipes?

Not that I understand.

Thames Water obviously have a statutory duty to provide water to residential properties

and the statutory duty says the water pressure that they have to provide to residential properties.

If for example they identified problems because they have the data on this, we don't as a council have that data.

If for example they identified issues with that, it would be for them to address that.

However they've asked for this condition to try and ensure that the building as a whole isn't using water heavily or in an inefficient way.

Finally I just mentioned that Thames Water has this, I mean their response is to provide more pressure.

But for the last few months we have experienced in tower homeless

this lacking pressure and Thames Water is not likely to take any responsibility

of the buildings that owned by even tower homeless or different other authorities

or housing association. They completely deny and they said

we are providing the water, it's your responsibility to add a pump or whatever

So it's impacting the local residents.

For one building, you have another several buildings around the area.

It's impacted as well.

So that's something...

I guess all we can do at the planning stage is to ensure that the building, should it be consented,

has best practise and best technology available, used within the proposals

to ensure that the water consumption is kept to a minimum and that's what we think this

condition would do.

Or that's the intention of the condition.

Thank you.

There's been a lot of objection on this application and I've noticed one of the supplementary

questions come up that 12, is it 12 objectives I've pulled out, is it?

12 new objectives.

Yes, that's correct.

Can you tell us a bit more about the objections?

Is it similar objections and what are you guys doing to rectify a lot of the objection?

Because there has been a lot of heat on this application.

So we just want to understand a bit more about this.

The vast majority of the objections related to the theatreship and in terms of the impact during the construction,

as well as access in terms of emergency vehicles and things like that.

And they have come from not just with immediate context, but across London, across the country and overseas.

And that came in quite a short period of time.

So as we joined the application assessment, we have worked with the applicant and the representatives of the theatreship

in terms of resolving those concerns and understanding those concerns and we have put a number of conditions and obligations

in terms of ensuring that those impacts aren't,

they're gonna be basically having an unacceptable impact

on the operation during the construction

as well as following the completion of development.

And as outlined in the update report,

the airship have come back to us

and confirmed that they have satisfied

with the mitigation measures that we've recommended,

and they've come to an agreement with the applicant

outside of the planning application process.

Just to add, so you would have seen the total number of consultations come up on the screen,

or sorry, objections come up on the screen?

Yep.

So there's 5 ,600 or something like that, and I think the exact figure that relates to the theatreship specifically is 5 ,200?

It's about 5 ,300.

I think we received about 2 ,500 emails.

Yeah, as did we.

So there was obviously a lot of objections

that were received, and this was,

principally they came in about three months ago,

and they all came in at largely the same time.

And yeah, they related to, as Dan set out,

like operational concerns for the theatreship.

And given the reason it's in the update report

is that I guess there's been extensive negotiations

between the applicant and the theatreship themselves and they actually only concluded

on Monday of this week. So lots of objections came in and they all related to the theatreship

and on Monday of this week the theatreship themselves sent the council, sent the planning

authority, essentially a letter of support saying they now support the proposals because

they have come to an agreement with the applicant and also because of the mitigation that is

outlined within the proposal more generally.

So the theatres themselves have effectively withdrawn

their objection by now supporting it.

That technically speaking, the 5 ,000, how?

So it's in total 5 ,593 objections

and originally submitted and 5 ,385 related to the theatreship.

Okay, so.

There again.

So 5 ,385 of 5 ,593.

Yeah, so since Monday we've had, is it 12 people?

12 people.

Right, so they now withdraw their objections,

but obviously we are of the view that the concern

appears to be largely have dealt with.

There is a representative that's understanding

the theatership is actually here today,

and they have written a letter of support to say they support the proposal.

So 5 ,390 people, they basically helped out the theatre ship and objected and said,

but now the theatre ship themselves are saying they support it.

So we are of the view that those remaining objections, if the people were asked again.

Can you calculate how many?

Minus it, let's see how much it is.

So there's obviously other objections that do not relate to the theatreship, so Dan you've got the numbers for that as well.

Originally there was 160 named petition and now it's 455.

So it's probably about 500 objections.

So that's 465 people on a petition, which is people in your building that have signed that.

461.

461, apologies.

That's a little bit of a feverish.

Okay, yeah, yeah exactly so and that's in relation to your concerns about density amenity

Impact on your building at Hampton Tower. So those still are completely unaffected by what we're explaining in terms of people

Thank you for letter of support and people would draw potentially withdrawing their objections those objections still stand and

Obviously members of the public here to express those objections tonight

Thank you, yes

I just wanted it to be noted that water companies are not considered, are not statutory consultees

on planning application, although it's good practise to consult with them, they aren't

statutory consultees.

Okay, Councillor Ahmad Oukan.

Thank you, Chair.

My question is a bit of confusion.

I think when the presenter said that there will be a 96 social home available.

But I can see another time like, I can see that 96 affordable oriented home.

Another sheet I see 48 social home will be provided.

I want to get clarification on those three sheets.

Which one is correct?

96 social homes will be provided or 48 or 96 affordable homes.

I want to clarify.

Social rent homes, there will be a total of 96 social rent homes.

The confusion I think arises because of how that figure has arrived at

and that figure is coming from basically affordable, required affordable housing

or affordable housing contributions from two separate residential products within this scheme.

So you have C3 or traditional residential accommodation,

and that is providing a level of affordable housing,

which is 48 homes.

And then there is the co -living within this proposal.

And the co -living is also, well,

policy requires co -living to be financially viable,

or the viability of the proposals to be assessed,

and then typically a payment in lieu is made.

But in this specific instance,

the applicant has taken the decision to,

rather than pay us a financial contribution to instead provide affordable housing on site.

And that affordable housing on site also accounts for 48 homes.

So the total figure is 48 homes from the C3 or normal residential accommodation,

plus 48 social rented homes from the co -living, making a total of 96 social rented homes.

So that's the actual number, 96.

I want to do a little bit of clarification on that one.

So it's 35 % of the property will be socially rented home

and council will have a minute on that one.

Not quite, not quite 35 % because the proposals are,

also include intermediate homes.

So actually by habitable room there will be 38 % of the accommodation

would be all affordable, and then within that,

84 % of that would be social rent,

and 16 % would be shared ownership or intermediate.

The table on the screen sets out

the exact quantums of each product.

So you can see there the affordable rent

on the right -hand column, the affordable rent,

96, and then the intermediate, 25.

And then, again, to reiterate, within the affordable,

the percentages, 84 % of all the affordable homes are social rent and 16 % would be intermediate.

Questions for objectors.

We know there's quite a bit of objection.

Can you tell us briefly how it will be affecting you guys if this application was to go through?

I think the main concern is that it's just the day -to -day life.

It's going to be hard, because we are trying to fit three towers with roughly thousands of people

within 20 metres distance to each other.

So there is a lot of concern about the density, about the water supply, about the accessibility, about the wind effect.

So we find it's just like an exceptional level of density and development.

that is there is no precedent for that.

These are not office buildings.

They are just too close to each other.

And so we find that the developer

is trying just to squeeze too much.

And there's no benefit to the community

because we already have cafes and everything there.

So we just don't need this.

You share.

So I agree that any development will reduce light.

However, the legal and policy question

is not whether there is any change.

It is whether over the 40 % loss of daylight

to hundreds of windows of households,

independently classified as major adverse is acceptable.

And I think this affects a lot of the residents

in the Hampton Tower who lost their,

sunlight, not along the daylight, and 552 windows fill the independent access from the

Council's independent reviewer.

So I think this is another major issue in addition to what Stas mentioned.

Questions for the applicant.

Apart from the affordable housing, what do you believe this whole application will bring

to Thai Hamlets?

The amount of affordable housing that's being provided here given current economic circumstances

and other schemes that have been before this committee earlier this year and before is

a very, very significant public benefit and it's being provided in a location and of a

type in the affordable rent category which is rare and should be afforded in a very,

very significant way in your decision making.

There's also very significant economic benefits,

both during construction and once operational,

both directly and through household spend.

And of course it's located, as has been mentioned

in Officer Report and Q &As, in a location where

this type of growth is strongly encouraged

in the opportunity area in the South Quay location.

I would also add that the suggestion

that about this being without precedent

...is not in fact the case for a series of schemes that have been delivered in recent years...

...particularly along Marsh Wall, both 56 to 58 and at the Wardian complex.

So this is of a comparable scale.

Finally I would add that in relation to the way in which this site relates to South Quay Plaza...

...the orientation of that development was very specifically set up...

...with the anticipation that further development would come forward on this site.

And the change in form of development, so we have essentially responded to that change in orientation.

We should have seen on some of the diagrams, replaces an office building which itself is 15 storeys.

And occupies a bigger footprint with some improvement to the day light of some of the lower levels of the building.

Where it corresponds to the 15 storeys of the existing office building.

So I would say that there are some distinct benefits.

I understand the points raised by objectors this evening and I totally get those points.

But there are some benefits in the way that the building performs environmentally, including

daylight, sunlight, today compared to what we are in front of the committee tonight.

One more question for you guys.

If planning permission was to be granted tonight, when do you think you will start the development?

and that's probably a question more for John than for me as the developer.

Well, clearly we go through a detailed design process.

The site is owned by an institutional investor.

They're keen to get on with the scheme as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Chair.

My question regarding to community is this, they will provide it.

So I just want to know if the residents or the people surrounding that development want

to use that community centre, community space, do they have to pay or will there be free

available for them to use that space?

to be granted to engage with local town -hamlets focused occupiers for that community space,

which activates and animates that waterfront, which is really important in the scheme.

I want to make sure that those spaces will be free or they have to come with some sort

of rent.

If I could come in there, that's one of the heads of terms in our section 106, or would

be recommended as a head of term in our section 106 legal agreement that it's rent free, provided

on a rent free basis.

It does say on the...

That is okay at the moment for me.

Salih Ahmed.

Thank you, Chair.

My question would be in regards to the education.

It says, it is estimated that the development would generate a demand for a net additional

55 primary school seats and places and a 55 secondary. And it also says that it is too

accommodate demand, it's likely to take the demand to local school. I just wanted to know

that is it the assessment that taking these students,

is it the local schools or you're talking about the,

especially I'll be asking my,

the planning authority that what's your assessment

in that school places?

Is it gonna be the local or is just you're talking

about the entire homeless schools?

My expectation would be local schools within Tower Hamlets.

In terms of the impacts, as you set out, there would be this additional demand for school places.

As we already spoke about, the community infrastructure levy that is required, or the payment that is required,

were these proposals granted and implemented, would be a part of that could be towards an additional infrastructure provision which can include schools.

Especially my concern is that I want the neighbouring school to be overflow, then you're sending

them to assessing with the outside schools as long as the students can be accommodated

within the area.

I just maybe point you to 7 .489 of the report.

Within the infrastructure impact assessment that was submitted, it specifically references

the net additional provisional primary school places that the development would provoke.

And the infrastructure assessment that was submitted demonstrates or did demonstrate

that there is a surplus capacity within primary and secondary schools in the area that would

be able to accommodate the demand for the development. So that evidence was submitted

with the application in addition to the community infrastructure levy financial contribution

that would be paid that would go towards such infrastructure.

Thank you very much. Any more questions?

Councillor Aikbaka.

Thank you, Chair.

With 238 co -living units, it's certainly over -concentrating of co -living.

It's likely to bring with the short -term tenancy of those co -livers,

ASB issues like noise and other kinds of wool,

how the applicant will respond to this concern.

Is the question about co -living requirements within this area?

Thank you for the question.

Co -living is increasingly gaining popularity as you have seen in this committee

across the course of the last couple of years.

Effectively, co -living allows young professionals

locally in the area to be able to live in this borough and in Marsh Hall.

And effectively, it gives people that stepping stone

before being able to move onto the ladder.

And what it does is it allows us to increase, as the team were discussing earlier,

allows us to increase our affordable housing offer

and provide that on site.

And it increases that substantially from a policy position.

So overall, co -living is, there is a demand.

We understand that a lot of homes in the area

have been given away to short -term lets,

and co -living provides a necessary need to plug that gap

and provide homes for people locally and young professionals.

If I could just answer specifically regarding noise. I think the co -living product or the

facility has been set up to provoke a community within the building itself, there are a number

of amenity spaces throughout the building and also external spaces within the buildings,

rooftops that would provide for immunity spaces for the co -living residents and I don't think

there would be any necessarily associated sort of antisocial behaviour or noise or disturbance

related to that.

try not to react.

Before I open up beforeya's

LAUPG mean I will now close on

replace the mark on question.

National Choir of the

statutory consultation.

Click on the one.

And second one, we have a lot of

objection here, we have heard.

Apart from daylight and sunlight, we know that we have BRI guidelines and we have a lot of

talk about it.

Other objections

are these objections fall in any planning material consideration?

Am I clear to you?

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

So in terms of the 14 organisations that have been mentioned, I'll just ask officers to

confirm, but my understanding is they were all organisations that were involved in some

way with the culture or the arts, and it was all in connexion with the concern that was

raised the time along with the several thousand objections all to do with the

the worries about the impact on the theatreship which is in the dock so

those organisations were not raising other concerns they were just purely

about that and as you've heard we've worked through some really detailed

mitigation around the theatreship and indeed the theatreship themselves have

now confirmed they're no longer objecting it's just that those particular

organisations haven't formally withdrawn so we have to report them to you.

In terms of the other objections raised this evening by residents and reported in the report,

which is around about 500 objections including the petition,

there's actually a whole range of material considerations in there,

including daylight, sunlight density, concerns about servicing, transport, etc.

So they're all valid material considerations to raise.

However, they are all subject of detailed assessment

through the application and we are satisfied

that none of those in themselves would amount

to reasons to refuse planning permission

because they've either been dealt with

through mitigation conditions, obligations, et cetera,

or in the planning balance.

We feel they're acceptable given the nature of the area.

It's an opportunity area.

It's an area where we expect

high density development to happen.

So, I don't know if that helps you, Councillor.

My last one.

Though we have already talked about our

different plan,

for example, London plan, our neighbourhood,

neighbourhood plan,

does this proposal fully comply with

this plan?

For example, our local plan, neighbourhood

plan,

does this proposed development fully

comply

with this neighbourhood plan?

And these three plans, yes?

Thank you, Councillor. You're absolutely right to identify that the Statutory Development Plan has three elements to it.

The London plan, the Tower Hammersfolk plan, Isle of Dogs, the neighbourhood plan, lots of detailed policies on all of those.

And there will be individual areas where you may say that there isn't full compliance, but I think it's important that you take the plan as a whole.

If you take the plan as a whole, then all the strategic direction around the type of

development, the nature of the land uses, the scale of the development, etc., then we

would say that broadly it does comply with the development plan.

So, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any more questions?

Before we move on to the debate, one more question for the officers.

Why do you believe we should grant permission for this application?

I mean, as set out in the report and the presentation, we believe that a significant amount of weight

should be afforded to the provision of affordable housing, and in particular the provision of

96 social rented homes on the site.

As the applicant has set out, we concur that this is a very good affordable housing offer,

which is compared to what we are seeing more generally

in terms of the trend,

this is a strong affordable housing offer

and a lot of weight should be given to that.

In terms of our overall assessment,

we are content that this is a high quality design.

We do acknowledge that there are some impacts

in terms of amenity in particular

and that there are other impacts

that are almost inevitable of a scheme of this scale,

but in the round, considering the benefits of proposals,

We think that the proposals merit recommendation of approval.

Thank you.

Would members like to share their thoughts or debates on this application?

I will move straight to the votes then.

Before we move to the votes, I would like to ask Paul

Bickenham and

Sara to share final advice before we take the vote.

So firstly, thank you to everybody for giving the application, you know, appropriate level

of scrutiny, particularly given the fact that we have received large volumes of objections.

So I think we're grateful that members have worked through all of those.

I guess, in a way, my summary of it is a bit sort of like your last question, Chair, so

why would we recommend it?

I mean, it's development that is, as I said earlier, it's broadly in line with development

plan policy in terms of the type of development, the scale, the nature of the land uses, all

of those are supported in terms of policy.

It's quite an innovative use of a brownfield site because it does have this different mix

of residential, including different typologies, and commercial uses including the visitor

accommodation and the ground floor uses.

It opens up the site, the building at the moment is lower but it's quite a lot of site

and isn't particularly attractive in the way that it meets the public realm.

And what this development would do is provide a really active ground floor

but also sort of open up the site with new public spaces and new routes.

It responds really well to its context and as you've seen on some of the diagrams,

the building effectively doesn't sit in the traditional kind of north -south

or east -west alignment.

It is rotated on its axis to align with its neighbour that's already built to the west.

So it almost completes that family of tall buildings.

We understand why residents would raise concerns about daylight, sunlight and issues around density

and how that all works in terms of servicing transport.

Those matters have all been very carefully assessed and there's nothing there that we would say

is particularly concerning or extreme in terms of this particular context in the opportunity area

where we would expect to have some impact.

So it's about balancing whether those impacts

are proportionate or disproportionate.

We think they are proportionate

and there are lots of examples elsewhere

along Marsh Wall where tall buildings sit close

to one another.

It's to be expected in that area.

You've seen all of the different conditions

and planning obligations.

So I think on that basis, we're content to recommend

a report to you, Chair.

Thank you.

With regards to my previous comment, just a reminder that Thames Water not being a statutory

consultee are therefore not a material planning consideration.

And just a reminder, the key question is whether substantial benefits of the scheme outweigh,

particularly the delivery of affordable housing and wider regeneration benefits outweigh the

identified policy conflicts and immunity impacts.

If the members consider that the harms outweigh the benefits they must clearly identify and the specific planning harms and policies relied upon

Also on the other hand if members agree with the officers recommendation

They should be satisfied that the proposed conditions and planning obligations

Adequately miss get the impacts of the development

Thank you.

Yep.

I now propose the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions,

obligation and any direction from the Mayor of London.

Can I see all those in favour?

Those against?

Those abstaining?

Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision, please?

Thank you, Chair.

So on a majority of votes, I've just been the cheque chair.

I counted eight in favour.

The majority of those in favour of one abstention, the committee is resolved to grant planning

permission for the redevelopment of 77 Marsh wall in accordance with the details in the

report, item 7 .1 on the agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

You

Guys we're gonna take a 10 minutes comfort break if that's okay. Yeah 10 minutes. Let's do 10 minutes. Can everyone come back

Yeah, yeah, yeah 10 minutes yet

7 b) PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

Moving on to the next agenda, PA2600212, 255 -297, Cambridge Road, London, E20EL.

Agenda item 7 .2 is planning application for demolition of the existing building and redevelopment

of the site to provide a purpose -built student accommodation, led scheme with commercial

use and associated works and improvements.

We have that and now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So as the Chair said, this is a planning application affecting 205 -279 Cambridge Heath Road in

Bethnal Green.

This is a building that's often known as the former London Electricity Board building,

LEB building.

And the application is for the demolition of the existing buildings, read about the

to provide purpose -built student accommodation,

extending from four storeys to 11 storeys,

with commercial and community floor space

at the ground floor level,

alongside public realm improvements,

car parking, and other associated works.

And the recommendation for the committee this evening

is to grant planning permission subject to conditions

and obligations secured in the section 106 agreement.

Chair, if I may just very briefly with the update report.

So since the publication of the agenda,

We have received some further representation,

so 37 additional objections have been received.

The correspondents are all very, very similar emails

and they raise a number of concerns that are set out

in the update report for you.

We've also received one representation in support

and their comments were also set out in the update report for you.

No other updates beyond that, the recommendations are set

It remains to grant the planning permission.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

I will now invite Planning Case Officer Katrina Chung to present this application.

Thank you, Chair.

So the scheme I'm presenting this evening is for 255 -279 Cambridge Heath Road, which

as mentioned is the former electricity board building, also known as the LEB.

The scheme will involve demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment to provide

purpose -built student accommodation scheme also referred to as PBSA in buildings of 4 to 11

storeys. The scheme will also provide commercial and community floor space and also provide public

ground improvements, car parking and other associated works. Presented on this slide is a

site plan with our site highlighted in red. It's a short walk from Bethnal Green station here to our

north and immediately opposite Bethnal Green Gardens to the east. The railway tracks run

immediately behind us and also Cambridge Heath Road is the main highway fronting our site to the east and to the south our site fronts onto Birkbeck Street.

Within this aerial view you can see our immediate neighbouring properties better.

So we have Blythe Hill Court to the left of the photograph which is an 11 storey student accommodation building

and to the east on the right hand side of the photograph are a run of 2 to 4 storey terrace buildings along Cambridge Heath Road.

And here is a photograph of the existing building taken on the opposite side of Cambridge Heath Road.

It should also be noted that the site is located surrounded by a number of heritage assets

which has helped to inform the design of proposals. The Bethnal Green Gardens conservation area is

highlighted in pink around us. Grade two listed buildings are shown in blue which notably is the

Bethnal Green library opposite the site and in purple is grade one listed buildings which in

this occasion. Closest to our development is the St. John's Church on Bethnal Green

which is just outside the station. So in just a bit more detail the scheme again

is to demolish all the existing buildings and to provide a purpose -built

student accommodation led scheme. It will provide 520 bed spaces of which 50 %

will be affordable and there will also be private internal and external

amenity spaces for the students. There will be a flexible ground floor commercial

and community floor space which will be affordable and that will amount to 389

square metres and the buildings will range from 4 to 11 storeys.

In terms of public consultation we sent out 477 letters to neighbouring properties around

3 March earlier this year.

We also displayed site notices outside the building and also advertised the application

in the local press.

We received 57 representations, one in support, one not wishing to make a comment and 55 in

objection.

As Mr Buckner mentioned in the update report, we have received additional representations,

which brings the total to 92 objections and two in support of the application.

In this slide is a short summary of the recurring themes from the representations.

There is greater detail in the committee report.

So in terms of support, the representation noted that the proposal would address a need

for this type of accommodation within the local area.

They commented the height of massing was of no harm to heritage assets and also said that

proposal would raise the quality of the townscape. In objection there were

concerns raised regarding height and massing, narrowing many impacts such as

daylight, sunlight and wind conditions, land use concerns such as a loss of the

existing occupier and also introduction of student accommodation and lastly

highways concerns. So before presenting the applicant scheme for you it's

helpful to set out the relevant planning context particularly the previously

refused scheme from 2019 which was then subsequently dismissed at appeal in

2020. This earlier proposal sought the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment

to provide buildings from 5 to 15 storeys which would have given 189 residential units

and flexible commercial floor space. The scheme was originally refused for six reasons including

non -compliant housing mix and affordable housing tenures, highways impacts, microclimate concerns

and also the proposed layout height and massing being out of keeping with the townscape and

and nearby heritage assets.

However, by the time of the appeal,

the only remaining reason for refusal

related to design, height, and massing,

all other matters had been resolved

or considered capable of being addressed by condition.

It's also relevant to note that

in relation to tall buildings,

the inspector acknowledged that there was potential

for increased height on the site,

and the inspector identified the southwest corner,

which is here in red,

as being the most appropriate location.

So here is a comparison diagram of the appeal scheme on the left and the proposed scheme,

our current scheme on the right.

And you can see that the design principles do follow this in terms of the tall building

being positioned at the southwest corner.

Here is just a better understanding of how the current scheme has improved upon the appeal

scheme.

The appeal scheme is outlined in red and our current buildings are in green.

you can see that there is a much reduced height,

there's a pulling back of the buildings

either side of the site,

and also just a better, gentle rising of roof lines

across the development.

So overall, we do think that the applicant

has worked positively toward meaningfully addressing

the height and massing with a better design approach,

which is presented further on.

So in terms of the key considerations

I will run members through this evening,

it will be on land use, design and quality of accommodation,

naming amenity and highways impacts.

In terms of land use, the current normal use of the building is offices.

So the loss of this employment use engages local plan policy DEMP3.

The applicant has undertaken extensive marketing in line with Criterion A shown on the slide,

but only very limited demand came forward for continued office use.

As a result, the building has remained largely vacant since 2011 and no works have been carried

out to improve its condition or make it suitable for modern office requirements.

Given the continued lack of Occupy demand demonstrated where Satisfied Proposal complies

with policy DEMP 3.

Then to address representations that have raised concerns around the loss of the existing

occupier, which is Proposition Studios.

They are currently on the ground floor and are a temporary Meanwhile user.

As mentioned, the building has largely remained vacant since 2011 with only short -term licence

agreements in place, and this includes Proposition Studios.

Their occupation comprises a temporary meanwhile use and there is no specific policy requirement

for its retention.

Given this, we do not consider its loss to be contrary to policy.

And then leading on to the introduction of PBSA, we have considered proposals in depth

in accordance with our local plan policy D .DH 6.

First, the policy recognises that student accommodation can be supported provided that

they are located in close proximity to the borough's higher education institutions or

are within highly accessible locations.

The applicant's proposals will satisfy both these criteria, being around 14 to 17 minutes

walk in distance to both QMUL campuses in Whitechapel and Marlend, and the site is also

located within PTA 6A and 6B, which is the highest on the Public Transport possibility

scale.

The policy further requires compliance with criteria A to D as shown on this slide, and

we are satisfied that they meet all these criteria.

So in terms of A, the proposal should not compromise the supply of land of self -contained homes.

And our site is not located in one which is allocated for C3 housing in the local plan.

And there are no ex -sampan commissions to deliver housing on this site either.

In terms of B, the proposal should have an undertaking in place at one or more education institutions

or otherwise provide an element of affordable street accommodation.

The applicant's proposals would deliver on both.

We have a higher education institution who will agree to a nominations agreement for an undertaking to take on the affordable

Bed spaces which will be 50 % of those offered

In respect of C the development should respect existing residential amenity. The scheme will respect residential amenity

We've assessed that daylight sunlight reports noise and wind assessments and consider them to be acceptable and in terms of criteria D

the scheme should provide 5 % of accessible student rooms.

The applicant's proposal would deliver over 5 % of the rooms as accessible.

So in conclusion on the introduction of student housing,

geographically the site is located within close proximity to the borough's higher education institutions

and also would be within a highly accessible location

and the scheme will also meet the criteria set out in A to D of policy D .DH6.

Therefore we do consider that student housing is an acceptable land use for the site.

So moving to the ground floor, provided here is a detailed floor plan of the affordable

commercial and community floor space.

The space is provided as flexible, so the layout here is only indicative and can be

repartitioned to suit occupiers demand.

But as you can see from this layout, the uses would occupy a highly visible location on

the building frontage to continue the active frontage along Cambridge Heath Road and also

attract natural light and local visitors.

Moving into design, here is a proposed front elevation of the scheme.

You can see the four storeys at the farthest northern end and then gently stepping upwards

to the 11 storeys on the southern end.

The scheme has been designed with different bays which helps to break up the elevation

and it creates a more playful building line.

And the approach has also sought to soften the taller elements by positioning them toward

the rear.

So you would mostly experience the front bays as you walk down Cambridge Heath Road.

So from the further visuals here at an angle you can better appreciate the broken up bays and how they help to break down the long elevation.

And the layer on the different blocks feels very successful.

On the other side from Birkbeck Street you do appreciate the 11 -storey building.

However, having a shoulder in front of it, you do having a shoulder in front of it and setting this toward the rear,

you would appreciate it more with the 11 storey Unite building to the left of us rather than with a historic scale further to the north.

And as mentioned earlier in the presentation the inspector considered this location to be the most suitable for a tall building.

Some verified views are presented in the following slides to help provide some context as to how the proposal would appear in its wider street scene.

So here is a scene from Bethnal Green Gardens South which is immediately opposite us looking west.

So you can see the existing here on the left and then the proposed on our right.

So the 11 storey block here and then that kind of steps down toward the historic end to the north.

In the next view is from Bethnal Green Gardens West which is also known as Paradise Gardens,

just outside the list of buildings Paradise Row.

This is a view from further north looking south.

You can see here the existing situation and then on the right the proposed with a successful layering of the building blocks

so that it doesn't appear too dominant.

And then the final view here is on the opposite side

of Paradise Gardens, where we just were,

on Cambridge Heath Road.

Also from north, looking down south.

So the existing situation, and then the proposed here.

Overall, the scheme's also been supported by a play shaping

team.

They did not consider that there would

be harmful townscape impacts, and the setting

of the conservation area will be suitably preserved and

enhanced.

In terms of the amenity spaces provided, the proposed ground floor plan here shows the

private courtyard space which will be provided for students and also the internal flexible

workspaces connected to the private courtyard. The design intention was to create a really

lovely visual green corridor that connects Bethnal Green Gardens through the building

into the courtyard. And then moving to a first floor plan of the living spaces, the design

again has been to focus on enhancing student well -being. The corridors into

the bed spaces have been broken up into zones helping to improve the walk and

journeys to bed spaces. The applicant has also provided generous corridor widths to

the bedrooms. Student rooms have also been positioned away from the railway

and the blue spaces here are internal study spaces, again another form of

alternative working space for students and they're sprinkled throughout the

floor plans and they also help to inject a little bit of light into the corridors.

So overall we're satisfied that living accommodation has been designed to uplift the student experience.

And then moving on to neighbouring amenity.

So daylight and sunlight has been assessed for neighbouring properties and those tested are shown on the screen.

To the south is Blythe Vale Court which as mentioned is student accommodation block.

To the north is 285 Cambridge Heath Road which is a hotel.

And to the west of us Sunlight Square, New Court House and Gale Gardens are all residential blocks.

So modelling results are shown on this table for the different properties.

So whilst the modelling identifies a high number of major adverse impacts on the windows

at Blythe Hill Court, we're satisfied that given the type of accommodation provided there,

the fact that the appeals scheme did not raise daylight or sunlight as a reason for refusal

and the current proposal is actually much reduced in height and with better managed

massing.

These impacts do not reasonably justify reviews in the application.

And for Gale Gardens, there are six windows that would experience major adverse impacts,

however having checked over these, they appear to serve communal or hallway spaces rather

than habitable rooms.

And then in relation to noise impacts that could arise from PBSA uses, we will be securing

a PBSA management plan through a legal agreement and also managing through appropriate planning

conditions, such as a condition for extended management spaces in order to control amplified

sound, music and hours of use. Lastly the highway strategy is proposed to be managed on site.

We have a refuse tracking diagram shown on this slide where you can see vehicles entering through

the rear from backpack street entering through a forward motion exiting onto Cambridge Heath Road.

This will be similar for other delivery and servicing movements. There are two servicing

bays just here thus managing to provide such activity on site and also to the north are two

blue badge parking bays.

So overall, we do find that the proposal would deliver a number of public benefits.

There are several of the most significant shown on screen here.

We will have 520 bed spaces provided of which 50 % will be affordable and that will be secured

through a nominations agreement with a local higher education provider.

There will be a high quality combination benefiting from generous internal layouts and external

amenity spaces and there will also be affordable, flexible, commercial and community floor space.

So in terms of community floor space, this will be peppercorn rent for the lifetime of the development.

In terms of the commercial floor space, this will be offered at a 75 % discount to market rent for the initial two years and thereafter at 50%.

Spaces will be fitted out and also there will be a focus on advertising to tail hamlet space groups to occupy the spaces.

So overall the scheme, our recommendation tonight is to grant planning commissions, subject conditions and obligations.

The financial obligations are presented on the screen here for your convenience.

And then the last slide will show the relevant SIL payments.

And that brings me to the end of my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

I now invite Maya Baharwaj to address the Committee in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

Is she on online?

I think you are online.

Hello?

Yes, thank you.

I'm present.

Shall I begin?

Just to let you know, you have three minutes and 30 seconds before three minutes I'll let

you know.

But just carry on, yeah?

Is that okay, Maya?

Better now. Yeah, yeah, you want to start Yeah, go for it. Yes.

That'd be great. Thank you. Um, yeah, first, I'd like to share my appreciation to the committee

for convening this meeting and inviting feedback.

My name is Mayib Harajwaj.

I am an academic and I'm also a community organiser

with the London Renters Union.

We are an organisation based out of Bethnal Green

with more than 7 ,000 members.

And over a thousand of those members are from Tower Hamlets

and join our weekly meetings in Bethnal Green,

as well as significant other activities in the neighbourhood.

We were significantly concerned and are significantly concerned about this application for a number

of key reasons. First is that I mentioned that we hold weekly meetings where we speak

with members of the community about issues that they're having in their housing, things

like evictions, disrepair, unsuitable housing, etc. Every week, we are matched with a large

number of renters in the area who are either being evicted because of their rents being

raised or are experiencing disrepair, but with continuingly increasing rents. And many

of them find that when they speak with their landlords, they're told that that is just

the market rate in the neighbourhood and they need to put up with it if they want to stay.

Plans like this one to create 50 % luxury student housing in the neighbourhood that is largely

working class only serves to heighten the concerns that our members are already facing.

Moreover, we know that the 50 % of reportedly affordable housing does not match the needs

of the neighbourhood. It's not affordable nor accessible to residents of the neighbourhood

as it's only accessible to students. And we find that there are extremely long waiting

lists for council housing as well as a shortage of private rental housing that is deeply affordable

in the area. We've also noted that there are concerns about infrastructure in the neighbourhood.

Our members were severely dismayed by the privatisation of Bethnal Green Gardens through

the paddle court that's been installed there and planned works like this one would only

serve to reduce public infrastructure and increase the demands on the infrastructure

in the area. We welcome development that serves the need for deeply affordable housing but

However, this plan does not serve that.

Bringing in luxury housing even beyond this

does not serve the needs of students

who are coming to Bethnal Green or coming to London

in our conversations with members

of the National Union of Students.

30 seconds Maya, 30 seconds.

Thank you.

We found that developers of such types of affordable,

excuse me, such types of student housing

often are unable to meet basic housing needs over years.

the quality of housing significantly deteriorates and students report severe concerns with mould,

disrepair, damp, ventilation and other things which we don't see adequately met in this building.

But I think the most important thing is that we are at this time seeing huge pressures on the

neighbourhood with regards to gentrification and this plan does nothing to delay that and in fact

makes things significantly more difficult. So we hope that you're able to vote no.

Thank you. Thank you

Please do stay online as we might have questions for you later on

And I'll invite Charles

Lick leader to address the committee in objection to the application you have up to three minutes

Thank you chair

The report accepts major daylight losses to Gail's Gardens and then discounts them because

because the windows appear not to serve habitable rooms.

One is my kitchen.

This building would make me switch on the light even at the height of summer.

My photographs show morning sunlight at New Court House and Caulfield Street.

Yet a whole wing of New Court House was ignored by the report

and Caulfield Street wasn't addressed at all.

My photographs prove the report is wrong.

The same faulty assessment hides what will happen to Bethnal Green Gardens.

Tall buildings have already taken much of the gardens evening light.

The area around the basketball court is the last substantial part that still catches the late sun.

The park people are drawn to on a sunny evening.

This development will take that too.

Bethnal Green Gardens sits at the heart of a conservation area.

If you're not going to conserve the sunlight that brings people into the gardens,

What exactly are you conserving?

And again, developers want to cut down mulberry trees.

The site is outside the adopted tall building zones,

and the report admits that it fails two required policy tests.

Approval guarantees the demolition of the building

with a unique role in Bethnal Green,

hosting artists, businesses, exhibitions and events with nowhere obvious to go.

The building is fully occupied.

The supposed replacement is less than 5 % of the space being demolished.

That is just a glorified meeting room.

Approval tonight will begin a campaign to protect Bethnal Green Gardens, raise money for independent experts and pursue every available legal route.

I've told you exactly what this development would do, both here tonight and in my objection earlier.

What happens next will be a consequence of how you vote tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Do you want to switch your mic off?

I now invite Katie Hale and Oliver Sheppers to address the committee in support of the

application.

You have up to six minutes to share between you.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening to members of the Planning Committee.

My name is Katie Hale.

I am planning director at Telford living. I'm pleased to be here this evening to speak in support of our planning application for the LEB building

Firstly, I just want to thank officers for their thorough assessment of the application and for their recommendation to approve the scheme

This application follows extensive pre application engagement with your planning design and highways teams

Whose feedback has helped to shape the proposals before you today and challenged us to achieve high level standards of design

a combination of quality and sustainability.

As a developer, we have a long track record

of delivering residential -led development in Tower Hamlets.

Over the past 20 years, we've delivered more than 3 ,400 homes

including almost 1 ,000 affordable homes

alongside a new school, a nursery, a mosque,

and community facilities.

Tower Hamlets is an important borough for us,

and this application represents our continued commitment

to the area, as well as future housing -focused developments

that are in our pipeline.

This site has a complex planning history.

It includes a refused residential application and a dismissed appeal.

We've worked closely with officers over several years to explore residential options, but

we've not been able to identify a viable housing scheme.

The site is heavily constrained, as you will have seen from the site plan, by the railway

to the rear and by Cambridgesheath Road to the front, which makes it extremely difficult

to deliver high quality homes, especially family housing, with suitable amenity and

play space.

We also examined the retention and reuse of the existing building, but it's highly inefficient,

it's very expensive to operate and it would require comprehensive redevelopment to support any potential long -term use.

The proposal before you is for purpose -built student accommodation with 50 % of those rooms provided as affordable student accommodation.

We've engaged closely with Queen Mary University, who are one of the borough's most important institutions.

The site is located within walking distance of their two main campuses and it is exceptionally

well placed to meet a clearly identified need.

Of the 66 ,000 students currently living in Tower Hamlets, more than 3 ,500 students live

in Bethnal Green.

Many of those are in shared private rented accommodation.

With very little purpose built student accommodation delivered locally in this area in recent years,

our scheme would meet a clear need while helping to reduce pressure on the private rented sector

and may in part potentially assist with the issues that the first of JENKTA has raised in terms of the private renter sector and its quality.

Alongside this accommodation the development will provide high quality community floor space and two affordable retail units for local businesses.

Over the past year we've worked closely with residents and organisations including the Good Shepherd Mission,

Oity Joe and the Bow Food Bank. These partnerships have helped to shape the proposals and informed our community investment programme.

which demonstrates our long -term commitment to Bethnal Green and to the communities that these organisations support.

For us this application is about more than a building. It's about creating a long -term asset,

supporting local organisations, providing genuinely affordable student accommodation and bringing a neglected site back into positive use.

We're grateful for officers recommendation and respectfully ask members to support the application this evening. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Would members like to do members have any questions for officers, objectors and applicants?

Councillor?

Thank you, Chair.

The proposed application for the purpose -built student accommodation

is appeared to be over concentration and harm the community balance, which is contrary to

local plan policy.

I would like to respond to that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Can I just ask for you to repeat the question one more time?

I think, did you say that the process harm community facilities?

Community balance.

Sorry, thank you.

So we do recognise that the immediate labour property is a student accommodation block

and also there is probably one I think to the west of our site.

However, just in terms of assessing against policy, the criteria hasn't been for us to

assess the concentration of student accommodation, it's whether the site is appropriate for student

accommodation or not.

And in the London Plan we have an opportunity area designated which is our current site

which is student accommodation is appropriate for,

but also to note that our local plan,

Mergent Local Plan do not allocate the site

for student, sorry, for residential housing.

So whilst there is, yes, a recognizability for student,

for family housing and housing in the area,

our site isn't allocated for such uses.

So as the applicant has mentioned,

we've spent probably over 10 years

trying to achieve a housing scheme on the site,

and it's not without effort that we have been doing this.

There's been an application refused, appealed, public enquired and also one withdrawn which

we have attempted to do housing on and that hasn't come to fruition.

So therefore the proposal of student accommodation we have assessed in policy terms and it does

meet the criteria that was set out in the presentation.

Just to supplement that, so the applicant did submit a student demand and supply report

which demonstrates that there is an over concentration in the area

and the local university has also agreed to enter into a nominations agreement

which demonstrates that there is a demand for student accommodation in the area as well.

Did the DC have proof of nomination agreed from universities like the post -London 2021

post 2021 London plan requires proof of need for such student accommodation.

Do you have any proof or agreement in place, nomination in place for the student accommodation?

Thank you from any universities.

Thank you, Councillor. We do have a letter from Queen Mary's University who have committed that they have a demand,

they have a need for the student accommodation and they will be taking on the affordable student accommodation

and we will be entering into nominations with them to secure this.

If the letter is considered to be proof, is there any agreement in place?

Do you have received a nomination?

This is a common situation.

I can't think of any student schemes coming forward where when they come before the committee

there is actually a nomination agreement that is signed.

but what we do have is a clear undertaking from Queen Mary that they're fully committed

to undertaking it and as this is ex -public land and because that place is a requirement

for 50 % affordable student accommodation as opposed to 35 % which you find on many and

the scheme isn't subject to viability testing this does make it not only is it in very close

proximity to both campuses of Queen Mary's catarina set up but also it makes

it very attractive for the university so there's yeah we are fully confident and

yeah when the decision is issued that would be a nomination agreement in place

thank you so just to come back on your question so it's it's mainly for Queen

Mary University yeah does Queen Mary know how far it is because Queen Mary is

all the way in Stepney green this is Bethlehem green is are we just giving it

to Queen Mary are we giving it to other universities for University maybe from

Hackney as well I'm trying to understand cause more towards Hackney Hackney is

more closer than Queen Mary apologies for interrupting you just then chair and

so as I mentioned earlier in the presentation there are two campuses of

First of all I would be happy to and thank the

Council for the support they are taking

COVID

Glenn

I'm wondering if you have a random understanding from Queen Mary saying that they will take on this as a project to house their students, number one.

And is that something that we have to go by being in contract prior to the approval of the application? That's the first question.

Thank you, Councillor. We do have a letter from Queen Mary's University.

It's available on our public register that they have identified a need for it and are committed to taking on the bed spaces.

I mean a legal officer may want to come in. I wouldn't want to say that letter has the same status as it were, as a member of understanding.

But it is what one would expect at this stage and I would stress that there would need to

be a nomination agreement in place at the relevant time. The policy doesn't require,

there needs to be a nomination agreement in place, it doesn't have to be with one of the

most, the nearest universities in place. So if for some reason Queen Mary fell away then

then there would be an onus on the applicant to bring forward a nomination agreement with another university.

But I say I think officers have high every expectation of that nomination agreement with Queen Mary would be fulfilled.

And just to be clear that is one of the obligations at 8 .3 of the officers report.

So that is one of the obligations within the section 106 that would need to be agreed before a decision was issued.

Yeah, and if I can just add that the obligation is for a higher education body, so if Queen Mary did fall away, then there would have to be a higher education body that would be coming onto a nominations agreement in order to satisfy that obligation.

I'm trying to think about it. Yeah. Yeah counsellor

Thank you, John Charlie to go

This panic implications my

Question to applicant as you know that nearly 29 thousand people in living in homeless or over

putting condition in this

bar after Hamlets

and lots of our residents are suffering due to overcrowding,

their health issues and everything.

Have you considered if we bring this planning to this house

that provide some affordable or social rent accommodation

for the local residents so they can have a bigger home

and their health care like mobile care can be dealt

with your planning applications?

Thank you.

Yeah, sure, provide a response to that.

As I said in my speech, we are primarily a residential developer, we've built a lot of affordable housing.

This site poses quite a lot of challenges, we've had failed residential applications in the past.

And when we've looked at the provision of affordable on this site, it's very difficult,

it doesn't compare to the quality of other sites that we've delivered.

There's an extremely noisy railway to the rear and a main road to the front.

it would fail on being able to provide sufficient garden space, play space, particularly if we wanted to focus on delivering family sized affordable accommodation,

which is what we are doing elsewhere on our designated housing sites.

So on that basis, with the local plan policies in place, we've chosen to target the provisional affordable student accommodation, which would be for domestic students.

And, yeah, I think just the trickiness of being able to unlock and deliver this site,

you will have seen from the site plan, once the building and the access is gone, there's

really nothing less.

And the noise from the railway is very substantial.

So we are focused on bringing that forward on our allocated housing sites elsewhere in

the borough where we can deliver very high quality social homes.

So can you, a question for the objector, can you elaborate a bit more how it's going to

affect you? Is there more houses there or can you tell us a bit more?

Sure. It would actually affect the whole block because the tallest part is right on the corner

so at the moment Gales Gardens actually gets the sunrise because everything is quite aligned

at the moment so when they built it there are an awful lot of east facing windows because

it was designed with that in mind so you literally do get the sunrise that'll all go the entire

morning sun will go get no direct sunlight through the windows at all until I don't know

maybe noon maybe for about 20 minutes it comes just around the side that's it gone.

Gales Gardens is already suffering from sunlight isn't it?

No not at the moment.

Maybe, I forgot the, yeah actually I forgot that, let's find that.

The north part of it is a tiny bit in the morning, but not very much.

They actually were very clever in their alignment when they put all this together,

which you can see on New Court House except you can't see the wing that they left out of the report.

That very carefully aligned to catch the morning sun as well.

You can just see it, just go look.

and Caulfield Street which is even further up that gets the morning some of which would be blocked by that tower in the corner there.

So everyone loses the morning.

May I also respond to the question about how community members would be affected as an objector?

Please do so. Yes.

Thank you. Yes. So I echo what the other objector has mentioned. I'd also like to

to raise up what has been said about the loss of Proposition Studios in the neighbourhood.

We've understood that you have said that they are a temporary use of the space and that

the proposed building will include community space. However, the integration of artists

that are involved with Proposition Studios, as well as their ample community space provision,

has been really important to being able to lead successful events in the neighbourhood.

Moreover, the London Renters Union and several other community organisations work out of

a space that is very close to the proposed building site.

And we have been noted that due to the likelihood of rising rents in the neighbourhood as a result

of this site, that the lease for that community space is under threat.

I imagine that a number of private landlords will be following the same mechanisms.

As you can see, the impacts of gentrification of this building are significant and extremely

negative to the community, notwithstanding the stresses on infrastructure that I mentioned

earlier.

Thank you.

I just want to ask the officer, is it 520, is it, is it student?

Yeah, that's correct, yeah.

And why do you believe we need 520 student rooms there, do you know?

What is presented before us is a need by a local university.

There is evidence, as Kevin mentioned earlier, the applicant has provided us a marketing,

well a package of research that tells us that student accommodation is required in the local

area and also we do have a higher education provider coming forward, committing to take

on the bed spaces that their university requires.

In this, and chiming with that, is a design of very high quality which has been with student

well -being at the focus of design they will be provided with very generous layouts and

also certain amenity spaces and location very well accessible and also in close proximity

to university institutions so therefore we do consider that this is an appropriate accommodation

for the site.

Appropriate, yes.

Councillor Shepkins.

No, I'm just trying to think.

So there's a park right at the front.

Very busy park.

It's got paddling and it's got badminton.

It's got roller skating.

It's got a lot of people going to the park and then you've got the houses at the back,

Gales Garden.

You've got Caulfield Street there and obviously the train station.

Do you feel like bringing students there will bring a different sort of crowd there unnecessarily?

Do you feel like it's going to be because there is a lot of antisocial behaviour behind

COVID -19 because I am one of the counsellors from that ward so I know about the obviously

the antisocial behaviour in that area.

However, I'm trying to think how we will control if we were to grant.

Thank you, Chair.

I think there is an unfortunate stigma around students.

They're not necessarily, I don't think it's fair to have a blanket assumption that all will cause antisocial behaviour.

They will bring in a new kind of community to the local area and create a mixed and balanced community, which is what our

development plan seeks. We do have

design implementation in place, design kind of, sorry, beaches in place where we are providing a many spaces within our own development.

So they do have their own courtyard spaces, their own terraces and internal study spaces.

so they don't have to rely solely on just external facilities.

We also have, as I mentioned earlier, conditions to manage things such as noise,

so in terms of hours of use, so there won't be increasing noise impacts for labour and development,

and also the number of occupiers for the manatee spaces as well, and the roof terraces,

so again to manage any potential inappropriate nuisance created from students.

But also, this is a transient community, can I say, so there will be a kind of regular rotation of students out.

So they will kind of hopefully, I just think it's unfortunate that students have been labelled as kind of a nuisance.

They are there for school, so they will be there going to university and in close walking distance

and hopefully using the mental spaces provided within our design as their main offering.

Just to supplement that, you've got to recognise that also the design of the building provides additional activity at ground floor level

and there's a community and retail space there so there'll be that passive overlooking

so that actually might help reduce the sort of anti -social behaviour in the area

And there is existing student population who live there and function quite well already and it would fit in with the existing mix.

Councillor Martin.

Thank you, Chair. I have two questions.

One was about the community and retail space.

I couldn't actually work out where it was on the ground floor plan and whether it would actually

activate

The street not

And the other question was

there was

It was said by the applicant that they'd actually

Decided to go for student housing on the basis of

Viability assessments. Well any words the council involved in any of those viability assessments because I'm aware that they would

May have come to different conclusion if they had actually done a viability assessment

Can I just pick up on that second point

So obviously the scheme is delivering what we call the threshold approach is delivering 50 % of student

Accommodate formal accommodation which is what the London plan requires so on that basis with the application before us

There's no need for it to be viability tested

Sorry, I

Didn't I excluded something from what I meant to say and that was that

originally the

The application that went went to appeal was for housing

and the only failure on appeal was to do with the heritage and townscape.

And so I'm sort of puzzled why an application was made on housing

and now it's become student accommodation.

And the applicant is saying, well this is down to the fact that they couldn't agree with the council

development of housing on the site.

So I don't really understand there what happened.

And if the applicant is saying, oh, they couldn't do that because it wasn't viable, did the

council test whether using their viability model whether it was viable for housing that

is viable or not?

I don't want to speak for the applicant all I can speak is for the responsibility of officers and the committee tonight

Which is to assess the application before us and the application before us is for a scheme

That doesn't need FBA and is a student accommodation scheme

There was a previous scheme. Yeah that that

Did submit?

Affordable housing did what did provide proposed affordable housing and actually that wasn't

policy compliant in terms of the threshold approach.

So there was viability involved in that and indeed when it was before this committee it

was refused on viability grounds.

By the time we got to an appeal situation both sides had agreed the viability so it

fell away as a matter of dispute if you like between us and the applicant at the time of

that appeal.

But, yes, the responsibility of Committee tonight is to turn the application before

us rather than kind of compare this scheme before us and AN other scheme, whether, yes,

some other scheme that members may want or a previous scheme, Mr Puckin may want to come

in to stop note.

Should we get the applicant in for that question?

I think from our perspective the slide that the Office of Presentation put up that dealt

with policy DDH6 which went through the four criteria.

It was the starting point for saying,

is this acceptable for student housing?

And having gone through that test,

all four points were met.

We then moved on to the public land point

and the provision of 50 % affordable housing,

which is the threshold on public land

for development of this nature.

Furthermore, student housing is a recognised form of housing

for which there's significant need

and there is indirect benefit in providing something that is of a high standard,

50 % of which would be affordable,

which alleviates some of the points that the speaker mentioned online

about substandard student housing.

So this would indirectly alleviate that by providing two different types

of affordable housing tenure within the student content.

But to get back to your point that you made,

essentially it was the criteria under DDH 6,

which led to student housing and then to the threshold fast -track approach of 50 % discount student accommodation

Councillor Shafi

Just for the record, I don't know

Sorry, thank you chair I just

Going on your comments about students

We don't want to say that we don't label them as any anything other than we welcome and we encourage

students and we have a

renowned world non -university, as in the Queen Mary being a university of high level and students coming here from different parts of the country and abroad to study in a prestigious university.

One of the questions that I may bring in is that we do have more student accommodation within Tower Hamlets.

And are you aware that within that Cambridge Heathrow just behind, there is also a student accommodation within that vicinity,

within 100 yards, 200 yards of the proposed site.

and also there is other accommodations that have been approved for development of student accommodation within time.

So it's not that we're not approving it or we're not labelling anyone as well,

but we're just looking at the benefits and the social benefits of another type of living within the Buffalo Green area.

the community space and how it would activate Cambridge

Road. Is that a question you had?

If you remember. In terms of the community and

retail floor space, this is the ground floor plan you can

see on the screen. The community space you can see

the larger plan on the left and then the

this is a small insert on the right. So it will be focused toward the front

elevation. So Cambridge Heath Road as you know already is an active frontage and

this kind of continues that frontage along that road. Notably our site isn't

in a district centre but the applicant has put a lot of attention into creating

an active frontage and moving all servicing to the rear of the site.

Therefore there is a lot of glazing, a lot of openings and entrances to that

main front elevation. As I mentioned also the space is flexible so there is

opportunity to repartition as required but it is it's quite small but there is

opportunity as you can see within to kind of partition spaces so that you do

retain active frontages for each of the units were it to be smaller or larger.

So and in the elevation in the next page I think there's one further on here you

You can just about see the active frontages on the right hand side here.

So that will all be a continuation of the existing street frontage and that will be captured as opened and transparent.

We also have conditions in place which will limit the use of vinyls or any advertising to close off the active frontage along that street.

Hopefully that answers your question first, Councillor, and then, Councillor, in terms

of question around more student accommodation and being aware of those in the locality.

So I think I did mention in a previous answer that I'm aware that we have Unite Student

Accommodation just immediately to the south of us and there is further student accommodation

also to the west, but we do also have policy in place which does allow acceptability of

student accommodation provided a certain criteria are met.

And with this, the applicant has provided us research

and assessment that demonstrates there is a need

for continued student housing, it seems.

It is within a very highly accessible location.

There are a lot of good institutions in the area

that obviously people would like to use for themselves.

So it's unsurprising that it's a location

which they have selected for student accommodation.

So whilst aware that there is potentially a number

within this specific area.

There is a demand for it that has been demonstrated

and we've accepted and gone through the assessment.

It was also within the appeal scheme.

Oh sorry, not the appeal scheme, I'm thinking silly there.

So it has been demonstrated to us that there is a demand

for this use and we also do have a local higher education

institution come forward to back up that need as well.

So we're quite comfortable that this is an appropriate use

Regardless of there being additional other street combination blocks in the area.

Hopefully that's answered your question.

Thank you.

Councillor Patu.

Thank you, Katza, for your question.

In terms of addressing first proposition studios who are currently in the space, as mentioned,

they are a Meanwhile user.

They don't have any formal planning permissions to occupy the site.

It is a Meanwhile lease that they are there.

So therefore there is no formal protection and policy for their retention.

Hence we have assessed that it's been acceptable that they are not re -provided.

However, the community floor space on the ground floor has the potential to provide

if they were to stay.

It has been designed to be a flexible space, so were a community user to come forward and

they would like the entirety of that space, there is an opportunity there to negotiate

a bigger provision.

So I think hopefully that addresses the need for flexibility with communities, but also

The applicant has committed to providing a management plan and also focus advertisement on local town hamlet space groups

There has been engagement in the past and still current and moving forward where they have

Commitment and are speaking to local groups at the moment who express interest in the space. So with the nominations agreement

We would hope to have an organisation in place rather than just to say they will advertise

I think at the moment at homes do have some interest where we can capture that in on the outset. So

that will benefit local communities.

And in policy again, the space should also be open

to local residents as a public benefit.

And because the space is a community retail space,

there is demonstrated need for affordable community

and affordable retail spaces, which this will be provided

as listed in kind of slide there.

That hopefully will again capture smaller businesses,

which is common in Bethnal Green, rather than big chains.

And the space that is provided

will accommodate those needs for kind of smaller startup businesses. So we do believe that

there would be public benefits to the ground floor units, albeit maybe a smaller size and

current but again the current isn't a protected use and I think it'd be unreasonable to place

onus on the applicant to try and retain them one for one because they do not have formal

planning commission to occupy the site currently is just a meanwhile lease in place.

Thank you. Councillors, any more questions?

Councillor Sulu, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

Well, part of my question was asked by my colleague, Mr Rakhathim.

So that's having been the application

followed by a previous refusal of back in 2018.

I'm not trying to relate that.

Just a question to deal with is,

what are the major changes that you found

that this time the application is gonna be acceptable

and previously it didn't?

And I think it's also been to a uphill system as well.

So how do you kind of relate these two applications?

What's the major changes?

Thank you, Councillor, for the question.

So the appeal scheme has been the starting point for the applicant in designing the new scheme.

As mentioned earlier in the presentation, the only reason for a few that were standing with the appeal scheme is the design height and massing and impact on townscape and heritage assets.

There is, as you can see on the screen, on the left is the appeal scheme and on the right

is our current proposals.

They have made a lot of meaningful changes to kind of manage that height of massing,

whilst I think a councillor mentioned, as in the committee report says, it's not within

a tall building zone, but the inspector had acknowledged that the location is acceptable

for some increase in height and that is to be bound in the south west corner and that's

the kind of principle that the applicant has moved forward with and we do have the tall

building confined to the most appropriate location.

And I think this is also quite an evocative image

where you can see there is a very meaningful reduction

in that 15 storeys down to 11 storeys.

It's more comfortable in townscape terms

and also you can see the roof line is really quite gentle

in how it transitions down to the conservation area.

Importantly, the applicant is also engaged

with our design review panels

and also the urban design officer

and our conservation officers have been involved

in conversations and we feel we've come

with a very high quality scheme in terms of townscape and there is a more effective layering

all those building masses that we find quite comfortable and it's going to enhance that

street scene and create quite an exciting development in our view.

And if you would like I can put on screen some of those rendered views.

So again you can just appreciate how much the development has broken down in terms of

massing.

So I think these views from the conservation area to the north of us are quite effective in demonstrating,

in kind of illustrating to you hopefully that there is a more successful kind of breaking down of the massing of the bays

and it's quite an exciting little tumble in that corner over the previous appeal scheme.

I wish I provided a more evocative appeal scheme image where it was very large and they have successfully managed to kind of reduce that height a lot.

Thank you.

One quick question for the applicant.

If we don't grant for approval tonight, what's your long -term plan with the building?

I dare say it will remain vacant for a fairly prolonged period of time.

We have spent getting close to 10 years trying to redevelop this site.

We have a proposal in front of you that if you were to grant consent

We would be ready to start as soon as paperwork is in place to bring this forward

We do have a meanwhile use in there, which members have raised some questions about

They are a very close party of ours and we have actually partially relocated them onto one of our other sites where we hope

They'll be successful and grow there. So there is a working relationship

They're in this building rent -free, we make no income, that's not a long -term solution

for us and I don't have another scheme unfortunately that I could put forward that we could start

with any confidence anytime soon.

I think it's just worth adding to the point that really the continuation of the meanwhile

is simply not sustainable because the building is in a state of decay notwithstanding the

investment that's been made on a short term basis.

So the building, it wouldn't be possible to maintain that type of occupy and the building

without investing heavily in it.

And we've been through an exercise to study whether or not the building could be retained.

And the answer is it can't.

It's essentially sort of an end of life situation as far as this building is concerned.

Any more questions?

Do members ‑‑ would members like to share their thoughts or debates on this application?

Go for it.

It is to the officers.

I wanted to ask, do we know the current number of data or an understanding of how many of

residential properties are being occupied in town by students currently.

Thank you for the question, but I don't think I have that data at the top of my head.

We don't have it at all, apparently.

Thank you.

Yeah, would you like to debate?

Councillor?

Thank you.

Would you like to sum up your thoughts before we move to the vote?

Thank you, Chair.

I have full sympathy to the applicant because they have spent nearly 19 years.

But if you see, that uphill dismiss, the original reason for refusal was affordable housing split in favour of intermediate tenant, one of the reasons.

Second one was housing mix target do not account for housing issues local to tower hamlets.

Another one was absence of agreed heads of terms and legal agreement.

Again, this proposed development offers nothing to benefit local residents.

No social home for rent. So I am supporting this applicant.

I feel this would result in loss of self -contained family home, which is the bar is in dire need

of.

That is my comment.

Thank you.

Councillor?

Do you have anything?

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I mean, I know LEB days from its early days to what it was, it was significant integral part of how, like, paying your bills and being part of community use.

and it's been kind of gone and it's not been out in the open for many years now.

And we understand that Telfer living and Telfer homes are an integral part of

Tower Hamlet's developments and we've seen some of the good sites and the good work that they've done.

And I think they have Tower Hamlets at the heart of their things.

And I think it's important to recognise that,

but I think it's also important to recognise the need of the time

and the need of the situation.

So, although there is a need for students' development,

one of the concerns I have is the understanding between universities

and colleges, there's nothing solid there to say that they will take over this.

Number one. Number two, we all talk about affordable.

what is the figure of affordability.

There is studio accommodation per calendar month

that are reaching up to £1600 to £2000

in studio accommodations within the commercial E1 postcode area.

So whether it's affordable, what is affordable?

And lastly, I think there's no enhancement

to local area, local things.

So I think it's important that although we respect students coming to Tohamans to study

and to use those facilities that are available, I still feel strongly that there needs to

be a separate or a different way of coming forward.

So I will leave it at that and I'll be mindful when I'm more likely to vote against the officer's

decision.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. We heard from the applicant, we heard from the officers and we heard from

the objectors all night. My original question was when they were thinking of planning for

that planning permissions, did they put any think or thought on that about the community,

the people who are suffering, and a lot of people outside the borough, they're living

with breakfast and also temporary accommodation of our own people.

I acknowledge that we do need student accommodations.

I can see that a lot of student accommodation is going up surrounding London.

If you go around London, a lot of student accommodation is coming up.

That is needed, but we seriously needed the people who are living outside of the Tower Hamlet to come home.

the residents of Tower Hamlets and their children.

So this is why in mind that we do need to do recommendations

but we need a home for our own residents

who are living outside Tower Hamlets.

So I think I cannot support this application.

Thank you.

My thinking is similar to Shugo, which is I don't know if an answer,

It's a good question, like, did I have a clue about the student accommodation?

But I know several student accommodation around and especially the surrounding area of the

Queen Mary University is we do have a lot of private accommodation as well, which is

people are renting out to the students.

they're taking as a bulk the combination of many students together.

And I want to see, because especially the area where it's located, I would prefer to

be that if it can contribute towards the basic needs of the people, the residents in the

which will be more likely to be acceptable for the planning authority.

It's not only that, especially where it's located.

Having the planning authority been through this,

I saw somewhere here that there are three or four listed buildings, grade two or something

in the nearby. But I still think that something needs to be more blendable with the area and

also that to suit the local residents' needs in the area. So I'm not sure about accepting

this application from my side.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you everyone.

Thank you members.

I would also like to make a few comments before we move to vote.

Having listened carefully to the officers, the applicants and the debates from members,

I share many of the same concerns that have been raised this evening.

Whilst I recognise that this proposal would provide a new student accommodation and some

I am not persuaded that this is the best use for the site.

I remain concerned that this is a large student accommodation scheme in an area surrounded

by family homes and public park and I am not satisfied that the need for this scale of

development has been clearly demonstrated.

I also believe we must carefully consider whether this site could make greater contribution

towards meeting the borough's long -term housing needs through the delivery of permanent

homes.

Having weighed the benefits against the planning concerns, I am not persuaded that the benefit

outweighs the harm.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting the officer's recommendation and I will be

voting to refuse the application tonight.

Before we move on to the vote, does Paul or Sara have any last comments?

Yes, so thank you, Chair, and again, thank you to members and everyone who has participated

this evening on this application. So I suppose just to sum up, if I may, I'll just sort of

recap why we had recommended permission be granted. So I guess the starting point is

this was felt to be an appropriate use of a very sort of underutilised brownfield site

that as you've heard has really struggled to come forward

for any meaningful development for over a decade now.

And then that's not to say that the site

isn't suitable for other uses,

that it might not be suitable for,

that it would be suitable for housing,

but obviously the applicant has worked through that

and they've done that in conjunction

with the existing local plan policies

and you saw in the presentation in the report

kind of how it meets the different limbs of the policies.

We've also, the applicant has also tried very hard to respond to the reasons for refusal

given previously on the development of a subject to an appeal and tried to address those issues.

I hear members concerns and thank you for articulating those.

I suppose all I would say is, well two things, I think Councillor Hussain did say that there

would be a loss of self -contained housing.

There is no self -contained housing on the site at the moment, but I do appreciate that it may just be the way that I interpreted your comments, Councillor.

I think I know other members have said it's more to do with the supply of land for housing rather than existing housing being lost.

However, if permission were to be refused, that does not mean necessarily that the site would come forward to residential development.

So I guess you have to bear that in mind in your considerations.

I think that's probably all I need to say for now, unless whether Sara, whether you ever have anything to add.

Yeah, just a reminder that members should focus on whether the benefits of the scheme outweigh those identified harms

with regards to the less than substantial heritage harm and the adverse neighbouring

immunity impacts and whether these harms are outweighed by the delivery of the purpose -built

student accommodation were 50 % affordable and the affordable community and commercial

floor space and other public benefits. It should also be noted that the particular use

is policy compliant with regards to planning material considerations.

So if members are minded to depart from the officer recommendation, they must focus on

some clear and evidence -based planning reasons.

Thank you.

Moving on to the vote.

I now propose the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission subject to condition

and the completion of Section 106 agreement, secure affordable student accommodation, nomination

agreements, community floor space, carbon offsets and other necessary planning obligation.

Can I see all those in favour?

Those against?

Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision?

Thank you, Chair.

So the committee has voted unanimously not to accept the Office of Recommendation to

grant planning permission.

So, Chair, if I can guide you through the next steps.

So as my colleague was saying, we've obviously heard the debate, but what you'll need to

do now is to, I suppose, crystallise and articulate the reasons not to accept and then agree as

sort of second, almost propose your own recommendation, which I suppose by definition would be to refuse

funding permission and set out those reasons. Chair, if I may, depending on where we get

with that, you may also as a committee consider whether you would like to defer the application

for an update report from officers dealing with any recommended reasons for refusal that

could then be ratified at the further meeting.

That would be quite good. Yes, Councillor.

Thank you, Chair. I'm also in opinion of Mr Bakkenham's advice in terms of the different

and helping us to refuse this application as many of the planning policies are against our planning policies.

So maybe we can defer and come up with a report from the officers aligning out the ways of refusal.

Is that something that we can do?

Yes, absolutely, but you would have to set out what your reasons for not accepting a

recommendation were broadly now, because obviously, professional officers have recommended approval,

so it's not our role necessarily to come up with the reasons.

what we can do is listen to your reasons and then go away and look at how those would,

and give you advice on how those might play out, for example, in an appeal situation.

And if there are some reasons which we feel are not defendable, then obviously we could

tell you those as well. So it's more an advisory call, but you will have to sort of give your

main reasons why you believe that planning commissions should be refused.

I'll start off with maybe a misused opportunity to deliver permanent homes.

An acceptable impact on neighbouring residents and the surrounding area.

The planning harms outweigh the public benefits.

Anyone else got any other reasonings?

One of the reasons I could say it's the net zero policy doesn't comply with the net zero

policy of the Council's S12 policy, number one.

The other one I could talk about is the affordable criteria, whether the affordable is not numbered

on what are we calculating as affordable,

and also whether we have an agreement in place

with the provider to provide a contract

for student accommodation or memorandum of understanding,

which I spoke earlier about.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, thank you members.

So, if I can just maybe sort of summarise this.

So, the first one was a misused opportunity to provide

conventional self -contained housing including affordable

family housing.

So, that's really a comment around scarcity of land

and supply for housing.

The impacts on local residents and the surrounding area.

If I may just ask a question on that final point.

On the surrounding area, are you talking about design

or character of the surrounding area?

Or are you simply saying that it would have an effect

on people living nearby?

Do you see what I mean?

They're two slightly different,

and it could be one or it could be both.

So, I'm not sure if I can bother.

Failures comply with the net zero policy. Is that to do with...

If I could just articulate that a little bit.

We could open research for this committee next year.

learning from level A.

This past year, we have Anneandmine Ainslihill.

But I consolidation involved research on the importance

of level A work themselves,

So we expect they will continue into a threats

of a mend in order to get training

I would say that we want all buildings to be built to the best possible standards of

sustainability, energy efficiency and carbon reduction.

There is a carbon offset contribution of 114 ,769 there and that would have been calculated

on a formula basis, so I don't think we could ask

for a higher contribution than that.

I mean, I'll note it as a reason, but I'll have to take

that away and just have a look in a bit more detail.

And finally, there was a point made about the,

around the contract for the provision,

the nominations agreements

and the affordable student accommodation.

I've interpreted, the reason we have those in policy terms

is to prevent speculative student accommodation being built.

So it's about making sure there's a link to a higher education institution.

I've been told that members are concerned that that need hasn't been properly demonstrated through those mechanisms.

I think it's that.

I'm seeing some nods around the table.

So, there are four sort of broad reasons that members have expressed.

I'd like to add another one, and that is over concentration of student accommodation in

that locality.

And that's in connexion with existing developments to the south and to the west.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, unless there are any further comments,

so chair, the next steps,

and I always look towards my legal colleagues

to make sure that we do this correctly.

So it would be for either yourself or any committee member

to propose an alternative recommendation,

have that seconded and voted upon,

and then assuming that's carried to ratify those now five reasons, five positive reasons for refusal.

I'll propose that.

All those in favour of refusing this planning application?

Would you like to?

Thank you. So the committee have indicated that they wish the planning commission would be refused.

And chair, if I can confirm that everyone's understood those five reasons for refusal.

Chair, it's entirely with you have two options. You can either delegate to officers to deal with those,

but in doing so, you would have to give sort of full delegation. So for example, if there were any reasons

for refusal that weren't sustainable, then we wouldn't be brought back.

Alternatively, we do what we discussed earlier, which is a deferral report, so then we can

bring back the details of those to the September Committee for final ratification before we

issue the decision notice.

And that way you are seeing, if you like, the full picture before the decision is finally

issued.

It's your committee's decision in service.

So would you do you want us to vote on that, yeah?

Yes, if you would consider voting on whether you would wish to defer the application for

a further report from officers to deal with the reasons for refusal.

Yeah, can we see all those in favour?

Thank you, Chair, that was very straightforward.

So we will take those reasons away.

We will bring that back to the next meeting of the strategic development committee for

your final ratification.

Thank you very much.

We have one more application to go through tonight, Councillors.

Before we do that, we will need to vote for the time to be extended.

We have gone past 9 .30.

For the application to carry, can I see all those in favour to carry on with tonight?

Can I see all those in favour?

All those against?

Any abstentions?

One.

So we'll have to extend.

Thank you.

We'll try taking it quite swiftly and quickly.

So we won't go on a break, we'll just carry on.

7 c) PA/25/02104 - Standon House, 21 Mansell Street, E1 8AN

Thank you.

Next agenda.

PA 2502104 Sheldon house, 21 Mansell street, E18AN.

Agenda Item 7 .3 is planning application for demolition of existing building and erection

of a new building for office and retail use, as well as a new hotel with restaurants, along

with associated works and improvements.

With that, I now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So the Chair has mentioned the planning application affecting the Standen House at 21 Mansell

Street in Old Gate. The full description is to demolish the existing building, erect a

new building up to 21 storeys plus two street basements to provide office and retail space,

a new hotel with restaurants along with roof level plants, enclosures, refuse and cycling

facilities, cycle parking, servicing, landscape and other associated works. Recommendation

to your committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to conditions

and planning obligations secured in the Section 106 agreement.

Just a very brief update, if I may, Chair.

So at the time that we published the report, we were just waiting for a final confirmation

from Transport for London around planning obligations.

So TfL have now responded and requested a contribution of £50 ,000 that has been agreed

by the applicants and that would be to provide road safety improvements for cyclists on Mansfield

Street. I'm sorry that's been agreed by the applicants. No other updates, Chair, I say

the recommendation remains to grant family permission. Thank you.

I will now invite the Planning Case Officer Adam Hussain to present the application.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening.

Good evening, Councillors.

The application site is located on the corner of Mantle Street and Bram Street.

This is the existing building.

This has a Pret -a -Manger café on the ground floor and offices on the upper floors.

The proposal is demolition of the existing building, construction of a new building up

to 21 storeys to deliver office and hotel floor space.

There will be new active frontages facing onto Bram Street, a separate office entrance

on Mansfield Street, there'll be office floor space on the lower floors, hotel rooms on

the upper floors, and there will be a public restaurant with roof terrace at floor 16.

This is the proposed north elevation.

You can see here the lower element, that's the office floor space, and then the hotel

is above. This is a visualisation of the proposal from

the north. You can see the lighter base of the building, the darker green blue on the

upper floors and the stepped massing of the proposal.

This is a visualisation from Mansell Street. This shows the new hotel and cafe entrance

that opens onto Brown Street, the light coloured base of the building and the improved public realm.

The key considerations for the application are as shown on the slide.

In terms of public consultation, 24 neighbour letters were sent to site notice and press advert were displayed.

There was no response received.

One letter was received from the Allgate Connect Business Improvement District.

The Business Improvement District welcomes the proposed public realm enhancements, the

new active frontages and the new office and hotel floor space.

In terms of land use, the application site is part of the commercial area in Allgate.

Within a secondary preferred office location, office floor space is expected to be maximised

and proposals must not result in a net loss of office floor space.

Officers note a substantial proportion of the existing office floor space

would be re -provided, and this would be high quality modern floor space.

However, the net loss of floor space compared to the existing of approximately 10 %

is in conflict with policy, and this will need to be considered in the planning balance.

Hotel floor space is a CAS strategic function and is supported by policy.

This is an appropriate location for a hotel in a busy commercial centre with good transport links.

The proposal would result in an increase of jobs on the site from 254 to 392

and the proposal would provide affordable workspace with a 35 % discount.

Overall, the land uses are in accordance with policy, subject to the net loss of office

floor space compared to the existing building.

In terms of design and local townscape, the proposal is located within the Allgate Tool

Building Zone.

The proposal would be in accordance with the height parameters for the Tool Building Zone

and would provide a high quality design scheme.

The following are some visualisations of the proposal.

This is a view looking west along Bram Street.

You can see the proposal here.

This is a view looking north up Mansfield Street.

You can see the proposal at the end there.

This is a visualisation from the public realm.

In addition to the construction of the proposed building, the proposal includes a range of

enhancements to the adjoining public realm.

This is a view of the existing Bram Street public realm.

Bram Street was converted from a busy road into a new public realm in 2008.

The existing public realm has two main lawn areas and trees, and in the centre of the

The proposed scheme of enhancements to the public realm includes new tree planting, new

meadow and flower planting, sculptural features for play and additional seating.

This is a significant package of improvements.

This would be secured by the Section 106 agreement and would be funded by the applicants.

The proposal would result in a reduction of sunlight levels in the public realm.

The analysis of this is set out in the committee report.

In the context of the site location, this would be acceptable and overall the quality

of the Bram Street public realm would be substantially improved.

In terms of the setting of the Tower of London, the application site is within the identified

viewing corridor number 25A of the Tower of London.

This is a viewing corridor standing on the south bank of the river looking north towards

the tower and it's split into three viewpoints.

There is a strong policy protection to heritage assets and this is particularly the case for

World Heritage Sites given their special national and international heritage status.

The changes in the views are quite minor and may be difficult to see on this slide.

The detailed analysis is set out in the committee report.

Given the importance of the World Heritage Site, even a minor change has to be carefully considered.

In views 1 and 2, the changes here do not take up any new sky space.

Where the proposal is visible, it is in front of modern buildings that are already visible in the background of the Tower of London.

The proposal has been reduced in scale during the application. The proposal has gone down in height by one storey.

I'll go through the views briefly now.

The first is the view, as you can see on the screen here, this is 25A1.

As I said, this might be difficult to see on the slide, but the view on the left is

obviously the full view, and the proposal appears to the left of the white tower.

As I mentioned, this would sit in front of existing buildings that are already visible

in this location.

The second view,

the proposal is visible to the left of the tower,

so over here.

You can see it here.

So it sits, the proposal would sit in front of the all -gate tower.

And in this last view the proposal is extremely difficult to see, but it is present in the

view.

It's to the right of the tower and at the top of this white building there is a dark

line that is slightly visible.

Officers have given considerable importance and weight to the preservation and enhancement

of the setting of the World Heritage Site.

The Committee may note, as set out in the Committee report,

consortees take different positions regarding the impact on the World Heritage Site.

Historic England do not object to the proposals, while historic Royal Palaces do object.

Planning and Heritage officers note there will be a subtle change in the composition of the views 25A1 and 2.

Officers advise for this reason there would be a very low level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site.

A finding of harm to a World Heritage site, even at a very low level, must be considered

carefully and balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.

The detailed assessment is set out in the committee report and summarised at the end

of this presentation.

In terms of neighbouring amenity, the proposal is within the commercial centre of Algate.

There are no adjoining residential properties.

The nearest residential properties are approximately 30 metres to the southwest.

The proposal would have near full daylight and sunlight BRE compliance with those properties

and there would be no significant impact in respect of privacy and outlook.

In conclusion, the public benefits for this proposal include the following.

new modern office floor space, new hotel and supporting cafe and restaurant uses, an increase

in jobs and affordable work space, a high quality design new building and active ground

floor frontages, significant enhancements to the adjoining public realm and a package

of employment benefits including work placements and internships for Tower Hamlets residents

and students.

The impacts of the proposal are a reduction in the quantum of office floor space on site

by approximately 10%, a very low level of less than substantial harms of the setting

of the Tower of London and a reduction in the levels of sunlight to the Bram Street

public realm.

The financial obligations are on this slide.

These include employment contributions, a carbon offset payment and a contribution towards

cycle improvements on Mansall Street.

The non -financial obligations as shown on this slide,

these include 22 apprenticeships,

work experience placements and internships

at the proposed hotel for Talhamlet's residents and students

and securing the proposed public realm enhancements.

The proposal has a total sill liability

of £3 ,968 ,000.

Planning officers have carefully considered the public benefits of the proposal and the identified impacts.

Considerable importance and weight has been given to the conservation of the World Heritage Site.

Officers conclude that the identified public benefits outweigh the identified impacts of the proposal.

The officer recommendation is as on the screen, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London.

Conditional planning commission is granted. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

I now invite Victoria Cartwright to address the committee in objection to the application.

You have up to three minutes.

I think Victoria is online.

Victoria, hello.

Hello.

Hi.

Good evening.

Shall I start?

Please do so.

I will give you a notice 30 seconds before three minutes.

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

I'm speaking on behalf of Historic Royal Palace's The Independent Charity responsible for the care

and conservation of the Tower of London World Heritage Site.

The Secretary of State's recent intervention in the City of London Local Plan over the cumulative

impact of tall buildings on the Tower of London World Heritage Site sends a clear message,

protecting the Tower is a matter of national planning concern.

The intervention relates to the City of London's examination in public, but it has also led to a

in the examination of the Tower Hamlets local plan.

Against this backdrop, it would be wrong

to assess this proposal in isolation

or without full consideration of its contribution

to the changing skyline around the tower.

HRP has engaged constructively with the applicant

during the application stages

and acknowledges the amendments made.

Nevertheless, HRP continues to object

because the proposal's excessive height would appear

in the background of LVMFU 25A,

harm in the towers outstanding universal value,

and also conflict with tool building policy

for this location.

Firstly, cumulative impact.

The London plan requires cumulative impacts

on heritage assets, including World Heritage sites

to be actively managed and assessed.

The building would appear in the background of view 25A,

adding to the layering of development

in key views of the tower.

It must therefore be considered not in isolation,

but alongside other tool building proposals

that are collectively and progressively

changing the backdrop to one of the country's most important heritage assets. In its July

consultation response, Historic England referred the council to the ICOMOS technical review to the

nearby Calcutta House application, advising that its conclusions were also relevant to Standen

House, this application. ICOMOS agreed that maintaining the tower's landmark quality and

protecting the remaining areas of clear sky are essential to safeguarding its outstanding

universal value. The committee report does not reflect those conclusions nor does it adequately

address the Secretary of State's intervention or the wider rapidly developing planning context

around the Tower of London. Secondly, height. The adopted local plan refers to the tall building

study of 2018. The study states that the tallest building at the centre of the Oldgate Cluster,

where we are, should step down towards its edges. The site is at the edge. The emerging local plan

reinforces this principle.

Its evidence base identifies a height range

of 60 to 80 metres AOD for taller buildings here

and states again that height should step down

towards the southern edge.

It also recognises the lower heights may be necessary

to protect the tower's outstanding universal value.

At 81 .3 metres AOD, the proposal exceeds

the council's identified height range.

HRP respectfully asked members to conclude

that insufficient weight has been given

to the proposal's cumulative impact to the tower

and that it conflicts with policy on height and to refuse planning permission.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now invite Alex Chimel and Tom Horn to address the committee in support of the application.

You have up to three minutes between you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Alex Chimel.

I'm a member of the local family business that owns this site.

We've been investing in and managing property across London for four generations and have owned this site since 2004.

I see myself more as a custodian of this building rather than simply its owner.

Since Covid the office market has changed dramatically.

This area has always relied on demand spilling over from Shoreditch, but that demand has fallen sharply.

Despite major investment, one floor has been vacant for almost two years and we've only retained three tenants through significant rent reductions and flexible leases.

It became clear that it wasn't a short -term cycle but a fundamental change in the market.

In response, we assembled an experienced team to explore the building's best long -term future.

From the outset, specialist hotel advisors and operators were involved and their consistent

advice was that a four -star lifestyle hotel alongside modern office space offers the most

sustainable future for the building and the area.

I'll now hand over to our planning advisor Tom Hall.

Thank you, Alex.

Before submitting the application, the project team undertook an extensive programme of engagement with stakeholders,

including offices from the Council, the GLA, Historic England, Historic World Palaces and Tower Hamlet's Design Review Panel.

This engagement has been meaningful and has directly shaped the scheme you see before you today.

As a result of that feedback, the design was amended through the process, including reductions in height and a number of refinements,

both prior to submission in December 25 and again following consultation responses

during May and June this year.

The team also carried out public consultation and it is notable that the proposals

have not generated a single local objection from neighbouring occupiers or the local community.

Importantly, there are also no objections from statutory consultees on the key planning matters.

Heritage concerns raised by Historic England and Historic Royal Palaces

have been the focus of extensive collaboration with those organisations and officers.

Through that process, the design has evolved to respond carefully to the World Heritage site and the important local and strategic views.

Aside from HRP, the absence of wider technical objections demonstrates the robustness of the final proposals.

The scheme before you represents a successful optimisation of a highly sustainable site and delivers a substantial package of benefits.

These include improvements to the public realm on Braham Street, an active and welcoming ground floor,

and revised servicing arrangements that reduce conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists.

The development will provide a high quality hotel with 246 rooms, 10 % of which are accessible,

along with the provision of a modern, sustainable office building.

The proposals also deliver significant social and economic benefits, including local employment initiatives,

financial contributions, school outreach programmes, work experience placements and apprenticeships.

Affordable Works Place is provided above policy requirements and the scheme will generate

substantial community infrastructure levy contributions.

Officers have concluded that the application achieves strong overall policy compliance

and are recommending approval.

We therefore respectfully ask that the committee support the scheme, recognising the extensive

work undertaken to respond to feedback from all parties and the significant benefits the

development will bring to the area.

Thank you.

Do you want to set your mic off?

Do members have any questions for officers, objectors or the applicant?

I'll ask a question.

Can officers explain why you believe this is the right location for a 17 to 21 storey

development?

Yes, Chair, thank you for the question.

The application is within the Orgate tour building zone.

It's an established commercial centre with a cluster of tour buildings.

This is exactly the sort of location we've identified for this proposal.

Thank you. Any more questions?

Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

A question arises.

The specific location you're talking about, within that square mile,

there is new developments of apart hotels, hotels.

Again, my question kind of moves the fact that we are losing office space,

but we are also creating people to come in and welcome them into the Bahamas

as visitors and guests. Is there a need for that or is there...

That's the first question. And the second question is one of the objectors

talked about the heritage site close to the UNESCO Tower of London

and the total building regulations, are we in any way in breach of those regulations

that she outlined?

Thank you for the question, Councillor.

So in terms of the hotel floor space, the application site is within the central activity

zone, which is an area in the centre of Greater London focused for offices, hotels, visitor

accommodation and there are some existing hotels there's some to the some

to the south there's one about 70 metres to the west and there's one at Allgate

place as well but this is a well -connected location and it's

exactly the type of location we would want a larger hotel to be rather than in

a residential area. In terms of the World Heritage site, the assessment of that has

been set out in detail in the report because it is a very important consideration. It's

something the borough should be proud of to have the Tower of London as part of our borough

and the pre -application and application stages have involved close collaboration and discussion with historic England and historic royal palaces.

And officers are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in those respects.

Just to clarify, historic England officers are satisfied?

Yeah, so just to clarify, we've essentially got two bodies, Historic England, who are

the national statutory body who deal with the historic environment, and then we have

Historic Royal Palaces, who are the kind of custodians of the Tower of London, so they

sort of speak on behalf of the Tower of London.

And there is a difference of opinion, but Historic England have advised that they have

no objection to the proposal.

They are satisfied with the amendments that were made to the application but as you heard

this evening the representative from Historic Court Palaces does still have an objection.

And it is obviously important that members consider very carefully the statutory and

policy requirement to protect the Tower of London. Our advice to the committee is that

this application meets that requirement and is acceptable.

Chair, if I just, just to supplement what Adam said,

the representative, speaker from historical royal palaces

talked about the seeking for buildings to step down

in the tall building zone towards the edge.

As you notice with the development,

it's not of a uniform height.

It steps, it's a lower height as it is towards the edge

of the tour building zone, so that is kind of an acknowledgement of that fact.

And I've just got, again, just reinforcing what Adam has already said to us.

I've got the letter before us from Historic England.

Historic England does not object to the application.

We consider the cumulative harm, which again, the Historic Road Policy has made reference

to today, has been minimised by the amendments the Authority has secured.

I should stress that the local plan authority is always taken very seriously and jealous

guardians of the World Heritage site and that's reflected in this application and why we insisted

upon amendments from the application as submitted to this day.

The comments about the City of London is for another day, because it's around their local

plan as opposed to the determination of applications and really shouldn't be given any consideration,

I would suggest for today.

Councillor Iqbal Singh.

Thank you, Chair.

The proposed application offered a range of benefits for the public.

This includes affordable workspace, discounted rent, additional employment.

I just wanted to know, would this be dedicated to the 200 residents?

Also, what kind of discount is that?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. So that was in terms of the affordable workspace that's discounted.

Yeah, so that's discounted by 35 % and there will be an affordable workspace plan and strategy

that will be agreed with the Council and that will be managed through our work path team.

So that will be for Tahemla's residents primarily.

I would like to ask the question of the

local plan policy.

requires 10 % discount for 10 years?

This is providing a discount of 35 % for 15 years.

So it goes above and beyond the minimum.

And I would draw your attention to the

non -financial obligations that again in

terms of kind of social impact, social

inclusion in terms of the employment opportunities, they have to go significantly beyond that

which is required, minimum requirements by policy.

That is in recognition, if you like, of some of the identified, that minimal harm to the

World Heritage Site which informed that planning about public benefits.

But they are a commitment to say to provide hotel operator to attend a minimum of two

local career fairs per calendar year to promote jobs and

hostilities, to attend local HE and FE colleges that provide

hospitality courses, providing opportunities for local

students to visit the hotel to learn the business and gain

work experience at back of house operations, a commitment

to target to recruit at least five employers with a learning

or physical disability, secure reasonable endeavours with

respect to local supply and a local supply chain for the

10 phase, six work experience placements for two Hamlet schools for five years within the

office and two paid internships for a minimum of three months for residents educated in

the borough.

These are far, far beyond what policy requires but it reflects the planning balance.

Councillor Kattou.

the application site is immediately on Mansell Street which is a main TfL route.

and already has a cycle route going up it. There's no on street parking there

and there's also the Brown Street public realm which it fronts onto is pedestrian

public realm so there has been a bit of a challenge in identifying the location

for disabled parking but there is a strategy and that's set out in the

committee report so and I apologise I might be able to find a better image but

Essentially on here, this is the application site and there is a road linked here in this

location roughly where this red dot is.

And there is business parking there, there's a number of business parking spaces.

So the applicants will be making a financial contribution of £10 ,000 which will fund transferring

one of those spaces to a dedicated blue badge space.

Thank you.

Councillor Ahmadul -Khan, can I just remind the members to be quick with your questions

and everything else because we have to be very mindful of the time as it's coming up

to half 10.

So yeah, so we need to maybe summarise it very quickly.

Thank you, Chair.

I know it's quite late and we voted for it late,

so we are not unexpected.

We're expecting it's gonna be late.

So my question is that, as we all know,

we all live in Tower Hamlet,

most of us, the council is living,

all of the council are living in Tower Hamlet.

It's a very congested traffic area.

So I want to do now from the applicant,

the end date for the completion of that planning,

because if it is not done, there will be a huge traffic

and people are suffering every day.

I don't want that.

So I want the end date.

If we grant application today,

I don't want the start date, I want the end date.

Where is the complete completion of this development?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

I probably can't tell you the exact end date,

But if we were to receive a resolution to grant, the earliest we could be on site is probably the latter end of next year,

if that gives you some flavour of how quickly the scheme could then come forward.

And it's probably, well I wouldn't like to speculate too much, but probably a couple of years construction of this type.

Councillor Gullamchari.

Thank you, Chair.

My question is about film money.

The seal money is estimated here.

For example, the proposed development would be liable for the town's community infrastructure

levy approximately nearly two million.

My question is, will this financial contribution be secured through a section 106 agreement

before permission is issued?

Because it's estimated.

Thank you, Councillor.

It wouldn't be in the 106 because the CIL liability works under different regulations,

so effectively it becomes liable once, after the permission has been granted, but when

the development commences.

So effectively the CIL liability kicks in then.

It's not done through the 106, it's done through just a different process, different regulations.

But it's still a material consideration for your committee.

Thank you.

But did you have, my question to the officers,

did you have to kind of compromise anything

with the applicants before you recommended

this planning application?

And also there are so many, you know,

so many tall buildings around been recently been developed

in the area, how does it blend with the existing buildings?

Thank you, Councillor Liff, for your question.

In terms of how the proposal sort of fits in

with the wider cluster, we've addressed that in the report.

The tallest buildings, as you'll be familiar,

are kind of around the Orgate East station.

They've got Orgate Tower and Orgate Place,

and they reach a height of up to around about 80,

up to 82 metres high.

Now this site is on the edge of the cluster,

so the expectation is that the height would drop on the edge.

And that is what's happened,

So this proposal, the lower part is 58 metres and the taller part is 66.

So there's a drop of around 10 to 15 metres of this building compared to the taller building.

So you get a sort of a gentler drop.

So that's in line with the approach we expect for these kind of clusters.

And in terms of, as we've already addressed, the application was amended during the life

of the application, it was reduced in height.

So the height reduced by one storey, which has also helped in terms of the setting of

the Tower of London, but also in its local setting.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

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

No?

Okay.

Before we move on to the votes, I would like to ask Paul and Sarah to give your final comments.

»» Thank you, Chair.

So just to sum up, because members have asked a number of personal questions in the development

But in summary, we recommended this for permission because it is a beneficial use of an existing site

that's starting to get to the end of its more useful life.

It does allow the exploitation of the site to provide a mix of uses which are entirely in line with policy.

There is a slight reduction in office floor space, but you will have seen from the committee report

what we've tried to do is to make sure that that office floor space works really well

in terms of quality and that's why we've secured over and above policy requirements for affordable

work space. The issue around, it is in the tall building zone, but it's absolutely essential

that we all recognise the importance of the background setting at the Tower of London.

You've heard a lot about that today. Through the application process we've managed to secure

a reduction in the overall height of the proposal.

I appreciate that colleagues from Historic World Palaces

feel that hasn't gone far enough.

However, you have heard that Historic England,

who respond to these matters now,

that they are satisfied and they are no longer

objecting to the proposal.

There's a number of other planning obligations

that, again, officers have worked very hard to secure

that go beyond minimum policy requirements,

and that also balances any residual harm that might exist.

But you would have seen from the images that were shared

during the presentation that the impact

on that background setting is at best,

it's really difficult to see how that causes anything

beyond limited harm to that background setting.

So overall, we're comfortable recommending approval

to your committee.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks.

Thank you, Sarah.

Thank you, yes, just a reminder again to provide clear planning reasons for your decision.

That's all from me.

I now propose the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission subject to condition

and planning obligation to secure in a Section 106 legal agreement.

Can I see all those in favour, please?

Can you please confirm the committee decision?

Thank you, chair.

The committee has voted unanimously to agree the office of recommendation to grant planning

commission for the redevelopment of standard house 21 Mansell Street in accordance with

the details set out in item 7 .3 of the main agenda and the additional planning obligation

Tour cycle improvements set out in the update report.

Thank you.

I can confirm that we have no other planning matters to consider.

So that concludes business for this meeting.

The next meeting will take place on Thursday, 10th of September, 2026.

Webcast Finished - 3:41:06

And now close the meeting at 10 .29.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to 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

Strategic Development CommitteeTuesday, 21st July 2026 at 6:30pm

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

3 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

5 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE, QUORUM, MEMBERSHIP AND DATES OF MEETINGS 2026/2027

7 b) PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

7 b) PA/26/00212 - 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL

7 c) PA/25/02104 - Standon House, 21 Mansell Street, E1 8AN

Webcast Finished - 3:41:06

Strategic Development Committee
Tuesday, 21st July 2026 at 6:30pm