Development Committee - Tuesday 1 September 2026, 6:30pm

Development Committee
Tuesday, 1st September 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

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Share this agenda point

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Share this agenda point

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Share this agenda point

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

Share this agenda point

Part 6 Deferred Items Master

5 a) PA/25/01155 - Theatre Building, 1 Paton Close, London E3

Share this agenda point

6 a) Reform of Planning Committees and National Scheme of Delegation

Share this agenda point

National Scheme of Delegation briefing

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 Development Committee meeting, Tuesday 1st September 2026.

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

Before we start I would like to give some reminders and briefing confirming the protocol for this meeting,

including the virtual meeting procedures.

This meeting has been webcast live on the Council's website

and the public and the press may follow the meeting remotely.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as the Chair.

If you are participating online and addressing me,

you must switch on your microphone

and you may also switch your camera on at that point.

You should keep your microphone and cameras switched off at all times.

Please do not use the meeting chat facilities.

Any information added to the facility will be discarded.

If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic Service Office as soon as possible.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

On to the agenda item.

Do you have any apologies for this meeting?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I can confirm that we've received apologies from Councillor Martin Parker, with Councillor

Mads Church House as his substitute.

Thank you.

Councillor Abu Talha is supposed to be joining us.

He is running late for my another meeting but he has told me it is coming.

So, we're doing...

We, we, I know we started a bit late.

We're going to, today we're going to cross the meeting for another five minutes,

wait for Councillor Talha's childhood to join us.

So we're just going to delay another five minutes.

I do apologise for the late start and also delaying the meeting again.

So please be able to bear with us.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Good evening once again. We're going to resume with the meeting.

Unfortunately, Councillor Abutalha, there's an apology he won't be able to make this evening's meeting.

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

Please also state any declaration that you may have in the agenda item and the nature of interest.

I'll start with myself, Councillor Abdul -Wahid, I'm the chair.

I don't have any declaration to make, although I have been contacted by email regarding this actual application.

So I just want to make that known.

I think, chair, that was copied into officers as well, if I'm right in saying.

I think she sent me an email.

So I'll move to my right.

My name is Councillor Ahmadur Khan.

My name is Councillor Ahmadur Khan and I've got nothing to declare except I received a few emails as well regarding this planning.

This agenda.

Thank you.

Good evening chair, everyone.

I have nothing of interest to declare, but as my colleagues receive email, I also receive

email which I didn't respond. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Shanelle Amir, Councillor Shanelle Amir. Here I have

can we include an email copy that brings you the Architecture Office website at the moment?

Sorry, my name is Diane Phillips, I'm a senior planning lawyer for Terrence Legal Services.

Good evening everyone, I'm Frances Recto and I lead the service officer for this meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to the next item on the agenda, minutes of the previous meeting.

Can you confirm that as a correct record of the minutes of the meeting of the development

Committee held on the 9th of July, 2026.

Thank you.

Next item, number 3, recommendation and procedures for hearing objections and meeting guidance.

The next item is the recommendation and procedures for hearing the objections and the meeting

guidance.

I will now ask Paul Buckingham, Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control

to present the guidance.

Thank you, Chair.

So this item on the agenda sets out standing advice determining planning applications,

including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

development plan policies and relevant material planning considerations.

The process for considering reports, recommendations and the procedure for public speaking will

go in the following order.

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

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

address the committee for up to three minutes each.

And then anybody registered to speak in support, including the applicant, can also address

the committee for the equivalent time.

And then followed by any councillors who are registered to speak.

The committee may ask points of clarification of the speakers and the committee will consider

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

and then the committee will go on to reach their decision based on a majority vote and

I'll confirm that back to everybody in the meeting.

If the committee proposed changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for

example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or planning obligations, the task

of formalising those changes is delegated to the Director of Planning and Building Control,

and in the event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation, they must

state their planning reasons and then propose and agree on alternative course of action.

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

And again, the task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to

the Director of Planning and Building Control.

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

of the development plan or if it might have any other legal implications, then the item

might be deferred for further report from officers dealing with the proposed course

of action.

Chair, there is an update report this evening just covering a few brief issues and I'll

come to that when we get to the items.

You very kindly asked officers to introduce themselves and I was just thinking that perhaps

the officers who are participating in the agenda items maybe could introduce themselves

as they get to that point.

So thank you.

I do apologise.

We will get to you.

You're going to play a significant part in the meeting.

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

Item 4 is any deferred items. Can I confirm that we have no deferred items to consider?

5 a) PA/25/01155 - Theatre Building, 1 Paton Close, London E3

Number 5, we have one planning application to consider this evening.

5 .1 PA 25 -0115, theatre buildings 1 Pentham Close, London E3.

Agent item 5 .1 is a planning application to provide a two -storey roof extension to the existing theatre building,

one pattern clause comprising of nine dwellings with associated works and improvement.

Can I now ask Paul to introduce the application, please?

Thank you, Chair. So the Chair has explained an application affecting theatre building, one painting close.

The planning application description is set out there in the report and chairs summarise that for everybody.

The recommendation to the committee is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning obligations.

Just in terms of the update report, just a few corrections on behalf of officers.

So we've noticed that paragraph 1 .1 and paragraph 7 .35 and 7 .36 talked about the heights of

the building and also the location of the bin store, in particular the bin store we

described as being located at the basement level, but that is incorrect, it should read

the ground floor level.

We have received an additional representation which also describes some inaccuracies within

the committee report, having reviewed that representation in the context of the report

other than the matters that I've just described, we're satisfied that there aren't any other

factual inaccuracies.

And so on that basis, the recommendation to committee is to grant planning commission

subject to conditions and obligations.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

I will now move on to the presentation.

I will now invite planning case officer Kaye Cook to present the application.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair, members of committee and members of the public.

I will now share my presentation, the scheme.

So this plan here on the screen is the location of the site with Patton Road,

road pattern close to the north, Fairfield Road to the east and Bow Road to the south.

And on this slide we can see the site which is outlined in red just here and it's located

within the Fairfield Road conservation area which is shaded in blue on the map. The site

is adjoined to the Bow House site which is Grade 2 listed which is just to the south

shown in the hatched yellow.

And there are a number of locally listed buildings within the vicinity of the site,

as shown in the yellow shaded blocks surrounding.

Here we can see the application site with the adjoining Bo House to the rear.

Fairfield Road runs along the eastern frontage along here, and Paton Close to the north.

And the main entrance to the building is on the corner here on Paton Close.

and further along is the vehicular and cycle access, further along pattern close.

And then we can see in the photos over here on the right,

the existing communal amenity space at ground floor level,

which is to the rear of the site.

And as we can see from the pictures,

the theatre building is a purpose -built residential block

that's become externally degraded

and is in need of external refurbishment.

And here we can see a CGR proposal.

It comprises a two -storey roof extension to the existing theatre building which will provide

nine units as well as internal and external alterations to bring the building in line

with fire safety standards.

By way of background, the proposal remains unchanged in terms of scale, external design

and unit mix from a scheme which had a resolution to grant by members at Development Committee

in 2021.

This slide here shows a proposed eastern elevation and how the proposal would sit adjacent to

the Bo House building to the south, which is just here to the left.

In terms of the proposed mixed, as can be seen from the slide, there is an underprovision

of one and two bedroom dwellings against the policy targets set out within the local plan.

But there is an over provision in the three -bedroom dwellings.

All units are to be provided by market rent and in line with policy SH1 of the local plan.

As the scheme is providing nine new residential units, it is required to provide an affordable housing contribution of £622 ,337 .34.

As part of the council's consultation, 86 letters were sent to neighbouring properties,

a site notice was displayed as well as a press notice, no letters of support and 47 letters

of objections were received.

This slide shows the key issues raised through the consultation process, concerns primarily

related to the construction phase such as fire safety and construction timeframes being

optimistic and operational phase concerns such as cycle parking, inadequate bin storage

and poor design of the proposed scheme, as well as other matters which are addressed

within the committee report.

In terms of the design, the proposed two -storey rooftop extension has been designed to complement

both the existing theatre building and the adjacent Bow House.

As part of the development, it is proposed to improve the building's appearance and bring

in line with the latest fire regulations.

Proposed works include repainting the render, windows,

and balustrades.

And in terms of the heritage,

impacts of proposed development is considered

to make a positive contribution to the surrounding townscape

whilst at the same time preserving the character

and appearance of the Fairfield Road conservation area

in which it sits.

And here on this slide, we can see two proposed visuals

of the proposed development.

The setback design of the additional floors mitigates the visual impact of the proposed increase in height and massing as could be seen in both these two sketches looking north and south.

This slide shows the proposed sixth floor which will have nine units, three of which are masonettes, and in total comprise two one beds, four two beds and three three beds along with their associated private amenity spaces.

And here on the seventh floor we can see the second floors to the masonet blocks of units

six, seven and eight.

In addition to private amenity, the proposed development includes a communal rooftop garden,

which is accessible to both existing and future residents and is accessed by this western

stairwell just over here.

The existing amenity space at the ground floor level is not used to its full potential due

to the lack of planting and greenery.

To make this use more interesting,

the scheme will add more planting and outdoor seating

to provide an improved view for existing and proposed units,

and also just to encourage its usage as a communal area.

And here is a visual representation

of what this area could look like.

And should planning commission be

granted, further details of this space

would be secured by condition.

In terms of the standard of accommodation, all units meet the size of the minimum internal

space standards set out in the London Plan, as well as meeting the private and community

space standards set out in the local plan.

With regards to the proposed unit mix, given the small size of the scheme and given the

fact that a number of, a mixture of units will be provided, including family sized dwellings,

which is required and there is a clear need within the borough,

the proposed mix is supported.

In terms of daylight and sunlight for the proposed internal units,

90 % would satisfy a strict application of the daylight guidelines

and 100 % would satisfy the guidelines for sunlight.

In terms of overlooking,

There is existing overlooking from the theatre building to the residential buildings along

the northern side of Pattenclothes with a separation distance of approximately 9 metres.

And there's also existing overlooking from the theatre building to the residential buildings

along the eastern side of Fairfield Road with a separation distance of approximately 16

metres.

In order to reduce harm to the residential amenity, the roof extension has been designed

with a setback of approximately one metre from the existing roof edge along pattern

close and Fairfield Road at sixth floor level and seven to seven and a half metres at seventh

floor level as shown by these red lines in the slide.

Private outdoor amenity space in the form of balconies is proposed at sixth floor level

facing both Patton Close and Fairfield Road.

This is mitigated by the placement of the setback

balconies away from the edge of the building.

And as mentioned, the communal amenity space

is proposed at the seventh floor level.

And this will have no impact on the surrounding

residential occupiers.

This has been located away from the street facing elevations

of the building.

In terms of daylight and sunlight

to the surrounding properties, the proposed development

will be fully compliant with the relevant development plan

policies with 100 % compliance rate.

In terms of car parking, should planning permission be granted tonight, the proposal would be

car -free and secured by way of a legal agreement.

And the existing access to the lower ground floor level is via pattern close, whereby

cyclists and cars would come down the ramp just here as shown by the blue and the red lines to access the lower ground floor car park.

The proposals do not seek to change this.

And over here on the eastern edge, this building currently has

20 cycle parking spaces within a storage room.

And in order to improve the access to the cycle store the doors to the existing lift, which is located just here,

will be altered to create an unobstructed way in and out.

In terms of the proposed ground floor,

as mentioned earlier, the main pedestrian entrance to the building is off -pattern close, just here.

And you would enter the site and there are two stair cores, just here and here,

and an existing lift, all of which will be extended to reach the two -floor extension.

And we have the existing rear community space, communal amenity space here at the rear of the building.

And in terms of the changes to this space, not only would there be landscaping,

the proposal seek to provide 11 Sheffield bike stands,

accommodating a total of 18 long stay cycle spaces and four short stay spaces,

all of which will be covered.

And cyclists for the new units will be required to push their bikes up a bike ramp,

up a small set of stairs just here.

from the lower ground floor up to the parking facilities on this level.

In terms of waste, the proposed development seeks to include additional bins to cater

for the nine -year units within the existing bin store at ground floor level.

Concerns have been raised by residents that there's insufficient capacity for the proposed

bins.

However, the Council's Waste Officer has been consulted and is satisfied that this matter

can be dealt with via a pre -commencement condition requiring the applicant to submit a waste management plan, which accords with

planning policy and

Development would not be able to commence until these details have been submitted and approved accordingly

Should planning Commission be granted the following matters listed on the screen would be secured as part of the section 106

so in terms of the financial obligations

A 622 ,337 pound 34P plus a monitoring fee would be secured for the financial contributions.

And in terms of nonfinancial obligations, it would be a car -through and code of construction

practise checklist.

As such, it offers recommendations that Planning Commission is granted subject to conditions

and the completion of a Section 106.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

If I can get the other two officers just to introduce yourself.

Hi there, Chair and members of the committee and members of the public.

My name is Simon Westland.

I'm the East Area Planning Manager in Development Management.

I'll try again. Hello Chair, good evening members, members of the committee and those in the public gallery.

My name is Nila Pamelik, I'm an East Area Team Leader. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we move on to the presentation.

First will be, can I ask Stuart Robinson to address the committee in objection to the application.

You will have three minutes to make your presentation.

When it's 30 seconds, I know it's, when you're in the flow I don't want to, I'll just say 30 seconds and if you can wrap it up.

Thank you. So, Stuart Robinson.

Thank you, Chancellor Waheed, with your agreement.

Could I invite my fellow objector, Owen Fox, to go first, and then I will follow him afterwards.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name's Owen Fox. I'm a leaseholder in one of the 57 flats in Theatre Building,

and also a member of the director of the resident management company

responsible for its maintenance.

This application seeks to put an extra two storeys on the block,

making it 18 total.

For whatever reason, when this block was originally considered in the 1990s,

nobody thought it wasn't desirable to have eight storeys then,

and quite frankly it's not desirable to have eight storeys now.

The problem that it causes in particular is that all the available space

was used in the development in 1990, meaning that other than the space on the roof, there's nothing anywhere else

that will accommodate the ancillary items necessary to make a decent living environment for the people who live there.

Two examples, waste storage, current bin store is full and full of bins. Some of the bins are inaccessible,

the way you put the rubbish in the bins is by throwing a black bag in there and hoping that it reaches a bin.

I've sent you pictures of them, there's no more usable space.

Last year, the Council's officer agreed the existing provision was inadequate for existing purposes

and they needed to be reviewed before considering any new provision.

In November last year, he expressed concern as to how realistic Buxton's proposal were.

It's now ten months later and there's no solution.

And so a drawing up there that just flashed through, I've not seen that drawing before,

I don't think it's on the portal, it's certainly not the most recent drawing that's been produced,

by Buxton for this. So I can't comment on that but what I do know is that that drawing failed to,

well it showed the steps, but it failed to recognise that the location where the three new bins were being proposed

was four feet above, three feet above the adjacent ground level. Those bins can't be wheeled out to be emptied.

Existing bins can be wheeled out to be emptied but the new bins that are being proposed, they can't be emptied.

It's ill considered. Now is not the time to, and I know you want to deal with all this condition, but people have been looking at this since 2020,

in the first application, why is it going to be possible to resolve this as a condition in the future?

And the answer is, I don't think it will be possible to resolve it. What will happen is, Buxton will say,

well we've done the best we can and it'll all be a big fudge and everybody will be left

with a very unhappy and unsatisfactory situation. That's the first issue I want to raise as

a highlight. The second one is cycle storage. As has been mentioned there's space for

22 cycles. There's a reference to a ramp up a slight set of stairs. That set of stairs

is 16 stairs long, it is a proper staircase, I wouldn't push a bike up that ramp, I wouldn't bring a bike down it as a cyclist,

I'd want to have two hands on the handlebars, one hand on the handrail, and that doesn't work, it's not going to happen.

I'm, the council has sought advice from TfL about that arrangement, and TfL says it doesn't comply with the London Cycle Guide Standards.

Your time's up, thank you.

And it doesn't comply with the development standards.

Thank you.

May I ask Stuart Robertson.

Councillor Waheed, if I may, before my three minutes begins,

two small, two items if I may, before my three minutes begins.

Like Owen, I'm a leaseholder and a member of the board of BTML.

BTML for the benefit of the Councillors, BTML is the resident management company that since

the blocks were built has been responsible for the day to day collection of service charge

and the entire maintenance of the building. We are known as BTML, Bow Theatre Management

Limited, with signatories to all of the leases in the building. So that was my first point.

And Councillor Waheed, if I may, I think you will all agree that this is a unique development, it's a rooftop development.

And so with the great... and I think there are, given it's quite controversial, there are 47, there are 47 I think letters of objection and zero in support.

I would like to ask with respect if my three minutes could be extended by a minute or so.

The reason for that is the consultation period.

Can I just stop here? We're going to start the time.

We have started the time.

I just wanted to say...

Sorry, you are allocated a certain amount of time for your representation.

So you have to fit all that in within that time.

Unfortunately I don't have any scope.

I understand, I appreciate that.

I was asking, Councillor, because I do understand that you do have discretion.

and I was asking if you could exercise that discretion.

On this occasion I will ask you to...

We're going to start your time if you can get it to your representation please.

So my three minutes begins.

Thank you.

The foundations for Buxton's Penthouse 9, it's not a hole in the ground, it's 57 existing homes.

If something goes wrong or the money runs out, we can't just fence it off.

It's on our roof.

Are the 57 even structurally capable of two extra floors, water tanks and pumps?

Buxton doesn't know.

But don't worry, that's not a planning matter.

But I do worry.

Might be different if I was a bat.

When do multiple errors in the Planning Officer's report become a planning matter?

Or approving inadequate additional bin stalls, that are bins that can't be accessed or even emptied, matter?

Or excusing bike storage that offends the policies it's supposed to be based on, matter?

Buxton's 2025 application is not the 2020 application with a few tweaks.

Amenity lost during the build will be off the scale.

In the common parts, door changes, dry risers, sprinkler systems, fireman shafts, new AOVs, staircases and lobbies,

noise, vibration and dust, internally and externally, no escape.

And we'll lose the lift. Six floors plus basement, not five as in the report.

If you've got a mobility issue, tough.

Back to Buxton's Bix storage caper.

At the moment we have an airlock. This is important.

This year there were 40 days over 30 degrees in this country.

Ten of which were over 35 degrees.

Buxton's proposal removes that airlock.

So every time that door is opened, the ground floor, the lobby, the flats will get bin stench.

Now if that isn't impacting on our amenity, I don't know what is.

What about the building management? At the moment, Buxton cannot compel BTML to manage or ensure the Penthouse 9.

Nor can we legally even collect that money.

So you have a building with two completely different management systems for one building.

Does that serve the amenity of the 57? I don't think so.

So here's a quick morality tale for you about 1 .5 million that we BTML have managed to secure

to cure the problems with the inflammable cladding which is on our building,

which we did without Buxton.

Buxton interestingly failed to sign its section 106 agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Thereby, their previous planning commission failed.

But in the meantime, we, BTML, secured £1 .5 million to cure our facade,

which would deal with the issue about it now looking timed.

Thank you, your time's up. Thank you very much.

Could I just read you, thank you for your time and your attention.

I now invite Andrew Mills and Nazir Hossain to address the Committee in support of the application.

You have six minutes, three minutes, are you both going to be speaking?

We're not, no. I've prepared a speech. I'm going to give that speech and then Nazir is

here, should you have any questions, essentially. Good evening, Chair, members, members of the

public. My name is Andrew Mills. I'm the agent for the application. I'm a planning consultant.

Sat alongside me is Nazar. He's the project architect and we're both available for questions

at the end, should members have any. Members will note from the committee report that the

The proposal has previously been considered by Development Committee.

The previous application was recommended for approval by officers and members resolved to grant planning permission in April 2021.

The current application is in substance the same development previously considered by members.

The proposed two -storey RIF extension remains fundamentally unchanged in terms of its overall scale, form and quantum of development.

There have been some amendments and additional details through the course of the current application,

including changes arising from detailed consideration of fire safety matters

and consultation with the building safety regulator.

These changes have been assessed as part of the current application

and do not materially alter the planning conclusions

in respect to the key issues such as principle of development,

design, heritage and residential amenity.

The application before members is therefore in planning terms

substantially the same proposal which members previously resolved to grant.

That previous resolution remains an important material consideration

in determining this current application.

The principal development is strongly supported by the Planning Policy Framework.

The site has previously developed land in a highly sustainable location with a PTAIL

of 6A and in close proximity to Bowchurch DLR.

The new MPPF and Development Plan strongly support the optimisation of previously developed

land and the efficient use of existing buildings to deliver additional housing, reflecting

the wider objective of significantly boosting housing supply.

In particular, the new MPPF gives substantial weight to the benefits of creating additional

homes through the use of airspace above existing residential premises, including appropriately

designed up -wood extensions.

The proposed development would therefore directly accords with this national policy approach,

making effective use of the existing building and optimising the development potential of

a sustainable urban site.

Against that policy context, the application has been subject to detailed consideration of relevant technical and planning matters.

As set out in the committee report, the application has been subject to consultation with relevant statutory and specialist consultees, including relevant council officers, all of whom have raised no objection following amendments to the scheme.

Of particular note, the building safety regulator's contempt for the fire safety design satisfies the requirements of Planning Gateway 1.

The officer's assessment finds the proposal acceptable in terms of height, design, scale

and appearance and in relation to heritage and residential amenity.

No harm is identified to the Fairfield Road conservation area or the setting of Bow House,

while the daylight and sunlight assessment demonstrates that the proposal would have

no unacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

The proposal will deliver nine additional homes on previously developed land, together

with a contribution towards affordable housing.

The proposed homes would provide good standard of accommodation, including family size units,

and meet relevant internal and external space standards.

Overall, the current assessment, including consideration of amendments and additional

matters arising through the application process, has not identified any planning considerations

that would lead to a different conclusion from that reached by members in 2021.

On that basis, I respectfully ask members to support the officer recommendation and

We would be happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you to the objectors and the applicants for your presentation.

We will now move to members. If members have any questions, please, this is your time.

I understand from the officer's statement that the planning, the same scheme had a resolution

to grant in 2021.

That application included listed building consent for work to locate the change to restore

the frontage of the building.

But this one doesn't.

So I would like to know, has the history of England been consulted again?

And are we satisfied that the frontage of the building improvements of the theatre building alone be preserved?

Thank you.

Yes, we've assessed our Conservation and Heritage Officer, Design Officer has reviewed the proposal and satisfied that there are no impacts on the heritage assets.

So I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

for the Bow House building and this building consent was granted, I believe, earlier this

year for changes to the fenestration and that was granted and those works are being carried

out currently. They're currently underway so we've just separated out the applications

essentially.

Thank you, do you have any follow up?

Just before I go to any other members,

just if I'm correct, the access to the...

there's a 16 stairs access to the cycle parking.

But on the actual application, it says step three.

So what can you just say, Trista?

So sorry, where does it say step three?

To go from the lower ground to the ground floor.

It's not a step through, you have to navigate the stairs, but there would be a ramp parallel to the stairs that the cyclists would push their bike up.

Sorry, no, that wouldn't be allowed. We'd have to rely on the...

We've asked officers to bring that particular picture.

Did you want to see a plan or an actual picture?

A plan.

We ask you to please please thank you

Whilst we look for that if we if we go to other members

I just wanted to ask the presenters, I do believe there's a Phoenix School there, so

in terms of if the work was to take on, what have you put in place in terms of minimising

the noise and everything during the work period?

Yeah, so obviously with respect to actual construction impacts and the impacts relating

to noise and impact on highways and any other matters that would arise or inconvenience

if you like that would arise during the construction impacts.

We have a condition on there which relates to pre -commencement which relates to a construction

management plan.

That basically would be a separate document that the applicant or their contractor would

prepare and it would set out details of all kinds of matters with respect to the construction

in terms of routes to and from the site, how the building itself or how the extension itself

would be constructed and then relevant safeguards with respect to noise and other impacts like

that.

And then that is assessed internally by a council team which essentially specialises

in that.

And they will have to adhere to essentially the council's code of construction practise,

which is basically, it sets out what kind of hours of working should be and also when

noisy works in particular can take place.

and there's very strict guidelines as to how that can work.

And if you need to do anything that goes above certain levels,

you have to apply for certain dispensation.

There's a whole separate process which is separate to planning,

it's via environmental health legislation,

where they'd have to apply for essentially for noisy works.

That would go through a separate process

with our environmental health team.

But essentially there are, if you like, safeguards

and further assessments that need to be undertaken

and to determine and essentially ensure that the works will not be unduly noisy to surrounding

properties including the school.

Councillor Lachman.

Sorry, Chair.

I managed to share the image of what the proposed ramp could look like.

That's the access to the...

This is just a marketing image of what the...

It's just a concept.

So basically the stair will have the similar arrangement

where you have this kind of slim kind of ramp

parallel to the staircase to take the bike up.

That's just an example of what it could look like.

It's just the plans, it doesn't show that level of detail,

it just kind of maps out where the ramp is.

But that's essentially what's being proposed.

We have them out the front of the town hall as well.

In the cycle parking to get into the town hall, as you'll be aware, is in the basement.

And there's these little gullies in the side of the steps there

where you put your bike in the gully and walk alongside the bike.

So it's the same concept as that.

Okay, thank you.

Kasa, how about the fan?

Thank you, Chad.

My question is that conditional planning was given with some recommendations.

So I would just like to know from the officers, those recommendations, which was that recommendation

and is this planning, is those recommendations being implemented?

That's what we would like to know.

So I would just like to know, those recommendations will be implemented on this planning or not?

So the conditions, yes, they are reimposed on this.

It is a separate application.

They're just two separate plain applications, but the essence of them are the same.

So this will have its own set of conditions, which pretty much mirror what was on the previous

application.

And we've actually expanded some of the conditions on this application.

The planning permission was never issued.

And that was because the Section 106 agreement wasn't completed.

It looks like the last one is different than this one.

This one is a separate one.

similar, a different planning.

Yes, it's similar, it's not 100 % the same,

because since then you'll be aware

that the environment, regulatory environment

around certain matters, for example,

fire safety has changed, so this scheme incorporates

some additional elements that the previous one

wouldn't have done at that time,

but otherwise the general kind of form

of what's being proposed, its position on the building, its height, those things are

very, very similar to the previous application, but obviously some of the details around fire

safety have been incorporated into this application.

They wouldn't have been in the previous one because the regulations were different at

the time.

So it was last time it was the cycle bay, 16 steps to go to the cycle bay.

So I cannot see a clear evidence that it's been implemented, this planning that that

and the second one is also the fire access, the fire access and all the public access

was the same, is it different than before or same as before?

The second part of that question was about fire access, did you say that?

So obviously as Mr Bekundam just set out, when the application came before this committee

previously, the legislation that basically covers fire safety wasn't the same. There

wasn't a requirement at that stage to go through or to consult the Building Safety Regulator.

So essentially details like that would not necessarily have been considered or even planned

for in that previous application. Now because of the extra safeguards if you like, they

do have to go through this extra regulatory hurdle and they have to or we have to consult

the building safety regulator, the applicant has to prepare a fire statement by a qualified

fire safety professional and then that gets assessed by the building safety regulator

and they come back to us and sometimes it can be they come back to us and say this is acceptable

or sometimes they come back and they're seeking additional clarifications or amendments. In this

case we had some back and forth but then eventually got to the point where the building

safety regulator said for the purposes of planning this is now acceptable. So

last time with the application that went to committee in 2021 that stage just

didn't happen so those kind of additional safeguards would not have

been in place with that one they are now. With respect to the cycle that you

that you spoke about. The steps are still there and you said there will be a

to go to the cycle way.

What would you call it?

So this is for the new area of cycle parking

in the amenity area. To access that

you have to go up steps.

It's not at grade, it's not on ground floor level.

Given the constraints

of the buildings that we're all talking about

the only, I guess, achievable way

that they've considered that they can do that

is by putting this gully in

the stairway. The objectors are making

representations to say that they don't think that's

adequate or serviceable.

Wherever the viewer our highways colleagues are of the view that they're given the current circumstances. That's the best possible solution

Obviously it's for yourself as committee members to make the determination on them

Cladding was mentioned on the objectors council once it yeah, is it follow up is it related? Okay. Okay. Yeah

This question is the cladding was mentioned from the objectors. What have you done to mitigate the cladding issues?

cladding cladding issues

So there's a separate application or a certificate of lawfulness application, which has been approved which would remedy the cladding essentially

Obviously, we're well aware that there is issues with the cladding at the building and we would not want to be in a scenario where

The works proposed tonight

go ahead without any remediation taking place

to the existing building in terms of updating the cladding.

So essentially what we're recommending is that

there'll be a condition, what we call a Grampian condition,

which essentially ensures that something else happens

prior to basically this application being implemented.

And that, in this instance, what we want to see

or what we are ensuring will happen

is that if they want to develop

as what's proposed for here tonight,

They're going to need to do the cladding first, essentially.

Thank you.

Councillor?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the applicant and the objectors for your representations to the committee.

I have a couple of questions for the applicant, the first being that you did speak, I think,

very appropriately about the importance of using existing sites to develop more housing

in the borough, which we obviously desperately need, and the fact that this is an existing

space.

Given that, I do find it interesting that the decision is made to develop nine units

here, which notably is one short of what would require affordable housing provision, which

is something that I'm particularly concerned about.

And given particularly that you do speak about the importance of, and how it is reflected

in the local plan of using existing space. I very much share that concern. We do need

more housing. To me that feels like a bit of a contradiction, so I would like to ask

why the number nine flats was come to if we are actually here to maximise the available

space within the borough for more housing. My second question is that I am concerned

although we have spoken about a couple of conditions here for the bins and the cycle

space, if TFL have said in the report that they don't think that this cycle situation

that we've just spoken about is actually adequate, they don't think that's an appropriate solution.

TFL aren't happy with that.

So I want to ask the applicant, what is the alternative?

How would you remedy that?

And finally, I do really appreciate that there's clearly been a lot more thought into the cladding,

which is a massive issue and I'm sure for the residents is very high on their minds

because of the horrible fire at the Bo Business Centre back in 2023.

So I also want to ask the applicant, particularly given we've heard that there's going to be

this condition regarding cladding, I welcome that, I think that sounds like a good condition.

But my concern is that if we've heard from the management company that it was residents themselves that had to raise those funds rather than

Buxton's what have Buxton's actually done?

firstly to be proactive in that respect and secondly also to

potentially

Consider the fire next door apologies

I'm not aware who the freehold owner of the both business centre flats is but have I would like to know whether

the applicants or the developers are in talks with the reports and inspections that came

out of that fire to ensure that we don't have a similar issue happen next door.

So I appreciate that's a number of questions back to back.

And just to tack on to the end of that, it does mention in the report that there's concerns

about where sprinklers will be placed in the building.

I think particularly with the concerns of the fire, that feels like a really serious

thing that should be within the plan prior to it being granted rather than trying to find some way to squeeze it in afterwards.

Thank you for, I appreciate that that was quite a few questions at once, thanks very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. I guess we'll deal with them one at a time.

So your first question was why nine units, why not more?

I think there's probably a good design reason why there's nine units, so I'll handle that.

All I would say on the affordable housing is in town, you do have a small site's contribution,

so this will be making a contribution towards affordable housing.

I think in terms of why the nine units, it's definitely a design consideration, I'm sure.

Yeah, project better, yeah.

Thanks, committee chair and public and councillors.

Yes, there's a very good reason.

The massing in the form of the building

was required to be cut back in order to allow it

to be less obtrusive and in doing so,

that dictated the amount of available space

for the number of units.

In addition, the provision of immediate space

at that top floor level meant the building

needed to be adjusted to allow for that.

So all the available space that we had was maximised

and the nine units resulted from that quantum.

So that's the reason why we have the number of units we have,

if that answers your question.

I could touch on the fire you asked about,

the revision of sprinklers.

Well, the Gateway 1 measures that the BSR require,

the report sets out what the measures will be,

but obviously then it's subject to detailed design

the next process that happens post planning, but the general suggestion is that sprinklers

are utilised within the communal areas, the staircores and the corridors, and that's what's

set out in our report, so I hope that answers your question on that front.

Yeah, I guess in terms of the, sorry, trying to remember your questions, in terms of the cycle vision,

it was to do with TR Phil's comments, wasn't it, and they're not satisfied. Tower Hamlets, Highways Officer, is satisfied with that solution.

We did originally put the cycle in the car park area where it would not require going

up the stairs. I believe the highways officer at Tower Hamlets had an issue with that in

terms of accessing it and conflict with parking spaces. The suggestion was that we perhaps

remove parking spaces. The applicant isn't in control of those parking spaces so we had

to find an alternative solution.

And the best solution was an unused piece of mini C -space

that seemed like the best solution.

And yes, there will be a ramp that needs to go up,

but that was the solution we came to.

Yeah, it was seen as the best solution,

given the circumstances and the condition

of the building that we have.

Councillor Liu, is there any follow up, Councillor?

Yes, I think I would just like to question what the provision might be for, you say that

obviously the applicant doesn't have control of those parking spaces, is that something

that can be considered within the application or with the council in order to make sure

that that cycle provision is actually fully compliant? Is that something that could be

relooked at potentially? Yeah, sorry, when I said that they don't

have control of those parking spaces, I mean the actual parking, the existing parking spaces.

So the suggestion was where we had the cycle provision previously was adjacent to a parking

space and the suggestion was that that parking space was removed so there's no conflict between

putting your bike in the cycle storage and someone trying to park next to it. So yes,

they, yeah, does that answer the question?

Sorry, I might have slightly misunderstood.

So I thought you were saying that the initial plan for the cycling was not appropriate because

the applicant does not have, I believe that what you were saying was the applicant does

not control those parking spaces, that they're provided by different, that they're under

the care of a different freeholder or something.

That's what I understood.

I might have misunderstood that.

Could I just add to Andrew's comment that yes, but in addition to that, the issue was

also raised by the council.

I believe that placing cycle storage next to parking bays that were active would create

other issues in terms of the usage of those bays and a conflict between cycle storage

and parking.

So after much discussion, it was decided that actually the solution that was put forward

ticked all the boxes in terms of being the best solution given the circumstances.

So, yeah.

Thank you. Sorry, just to follow up then to clarify my earlier question.

In that case, would it be possible to potentially take that back to TFL and for that decision to be made jointly given that they're also not happy with the alternative,

just to make sure it's really been looked at fully?

Is that a possibility at all?

Sorry, can you just come in? I just wanted to just flag up. TFL don't normally comment on these type of applications.

Their remit is usually more strategic, so on any other application they wouldn't have provided that level of detail.

and they were commenting on their their remit on this application was really in relation to

whether it impacts on the bus the bus

Sorry the bus the bus stop and off the back of that they added some detailed comments

but we on an application like this it

Typically, we wouldn't have those levels of comments and it would be down to our highways team to provide that

that assessment

Sorry, any members?

Councillor Lecma.

Thank you, Chair.

So, nine family homes on the top of the existing building is quite an intensified addition.

What was the impact of this new residential use of the existing tenants or the commercial

units or commercial users?

So what assessment has been done to the impact on the immunities, noise and servicing?

Yes, so as set out in the officer report we've obviously considered where they are material planning considerations, the impact of this proposal.

So for example, as we've been speaking about, we've been talking about the impact on highways, the impact on waste.

In terms of the impacts during construction, there obviously will be significant impacts to the occupiers of the building during the construction period.

It will, without a doubt, be a noisy experience for those residents.

This isn't necessarily something that we can directly control.

As I said before, we do have safeguards around construction management plan and code of construction practise,

but there's no escaping the fact that this will be a noisy experience for people.

There's no way of building this without necessarily causing noise and disturbance.

But we are principally concerned with what will eventually be there in terms of the nine units

and the operational phase, if you like, of this development in terms of how will these nine new units impact.

And so in making a recommendation to approve it, we're saying to you that those impacts in terms of impacts on the highways,

impacts on what was out in Katie's presentation in terms of overlooking or daylight sunlight

on neighbouring properties, in terms of the waste that we are of the view, that they are

acceptable in planning terms and accord with the relevant policies and that there wouldn't

be an undue impact on the amenity of the existing occupiers or those in surrounding properties.

focus?

So, how are you reporting as feedback

from that or from t

ed amount?

Development?

So yeah, it's a good question and it's a point of contention with the objectors.

So the, I'll have the figures in front of me in terms of what's there at present versus

what is going to go there.

To confirm though, we did consult our internal colleagues in the waste team and they said,

they visited the site and they said they were concerned about the practicalities but that

this could be dealt with via a condition.

And as Katie said in the presentation,

the intention is for us to have

a pre -commencement condition,

which basically says they need to submit

a waste management strategy to the council,

which would again be assessed

by the waste team essentially.

And that had to be approved

prior to any development taking place.

I'm sorry, I just...

Have you got it?

Yeah.

So you wanted to know what the capacity

So it needs seven times, sorry.

So at present, there's seven 1 ,100 litre bins on site

for recycling, oh no sorry.

At present, apologies, there are six 1 ,100 litre refuse bins

on site and two 1 ,280 litre recycling bins on site.

The council's environmental services team have said

that there should be additional, this is at present,

they've said that based on best practise,

there should be additional bins on site,

not with regard to the proposal.

They've just said at present, the existing bin store

isn't functioning as it should be.

With respect to the proposals that are in front of us,

they are seeking to rework the area

by making physical alterations to the internal space.

They are not seeking to make the space itself bigger,

but they are of the view that there is redundant space

that they can do work to, to accommodate additional bins.

And so they are looking to provide

a 1 ,280 litre euro bin for rep use.

the same again for recycling and the 240 litre wheel bin for food waste and the 240 wheel refuse bin.

So those are in accordance with what is required for this uplift in terms of the proposed nine units.

They are providing what is required for the proposed nine units and we are going to put a condition on,

which says they need to provide full details about how they're going to, for example, work out this internal space.

then importantly how things like this are going to work on collection day specifically

because what objectors are concerned about is that the space itself doesn't work and isn't functioning

and there's redundant space but importantly how are bins even going to be collected?

How are they going to get out to pattern close and be collected?

So all of that detail is going to have to be provided to us

and we will get assurances or we will secure that all the bins as set out in the application

will be provided and that they will be serviceable and collectible and we will not essentially

approve the condition until such time that we're satisfied with that.

Any other comments? Sorry I can't accept any questions. Any other members? Okay if there's

There's no questions would do members have any comments to make before we move on

Sorry, I could not understand anything from the gallery

I just want to say a few words before we move on

When planning

Applications comes to the council

We we as members

We know the needs, the severe need for more homes within the borough.

It's always a priority that we deliver, it's a top priority.

And also in terms of when we make a decision as members,

we take into consideration all the information that is put to us by officers

and we make an informed decision on that application.

And this is something that we as members, we do.

So I just want to put that out there before we move on to the next part of the meeting.

Can I ask Paul and Diane to share their final thoughts before we move on to the vote, please?

Thank you, Chair.

I'm very grateful, as always, to yourself and committee members and everyone that's

participated this evening in terms of the scrutiny of the application.

Maybe just a few summing up points.

You've heard about the planning history and you know that there was a very similar proposal

some years ago, albeit that it didn't reach its final stage with a decision notice being

issued.

That is a relevant consideration, albeit that, as we said earlier, the policy framework and

some of the regulatory framework has moved on a bit since.

So obviously this application is assessed in accordance with the correct policy framework

in place at this time.

The National Planning Policy Framework does,

as you've heard, sort of emphasise using brownfield sites

for redevelopment where possible, and that can include

if it's appropriate to extensions to existing buildings.

This is what this application is trying to do in terms

of optimising that proposal.

I've heard comments around the affordable housing,

which again is a really pertinent point.

However, what we do tend to find that even if this scheme had been designed with more units and triggered the the 10

10 or more on -site affordable housing policy the likelihood of a registered provider coming along and taking up what might be one or two

Affordable housing units might have been quite slim anyway

And that's why the council has this small sites policy for schemes which are less than then 10 units in which case

the applicant hasn't sought to challenge the

financial contribution, they're willing to sign up to the required financial contribution

which then can be used by the council to deliver its own affordable housing.

There have been some, I suppose, design challenges in terms of incorporating waste storage and

cycle storage and you've heard that the applicant has explored different options in those cases

and come to a view which they think is workable

and practicable in the circumstances

given the constraints of the site.

So, and sorry, my final point was just

on the fire safety issue.

You've heard that the building is subject

to some issues, fire safety issues concerning the cladding.

The council's issued a lawful development certificate

which effectively means that the cladding can be replaced

without needing planning permission.

So there's no planning impediment to do that.

So that's why we've recommended that if you are minute to grant planning permission, a condition to say that this particular development, the extension, shall not go ahead until the planning works have been done,

because there's no other impediment that we're aware of as a planning authority.

I think that's all I have to say to Ayrto. Thank you.

Sorry, other than the fact that in terms of mitigating the impacts of the development

I think the set out and the reports and officers have more or less achieved that whether it

be by condition or by planning obligation. In terms of TFL as explained earlier they

I think limited weight basically is to be given to their comments.

Other than that, I have nothing further to add.

Thank you very much Paul and Diane.

Now I'm going to turn to the next speaker.

Now we will move on to the Member's vote.

I propose the Officer's recommendation to grant planning permission for PA 25 -0115 subject

to planning conditions and the Section 106 Agreement as set out in the report.

Can I see all those in favour of the application, please?

Can I see those against?

Okay.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The committee has voted on a majority vote of four in favour and one against to grant planning commission for the application

of action in the theatre building at one place and close as set out in item 5 .1 of your agenda

subject to planning conditions and planning obligations. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you

Chair, sorry, would it be possible just for the record to state why I did object in this case?

Is that about it?

It's been, yeah.

I just, in this particular case,

I just feel that given,

I am very concerned about the lack of affordable housing

and I really appreciate that clearly the officers

have gone to an enormous length to mitigate

some of the really difficult concerns

with the lack of space and the waste and things in the area.

I would be much more minded, I think,

to approve this application had it come

with the affordable housing provision in.

I think that would be more in line with the plan,

It would be more in line with policy D .H .2 of the Talhamlet's local plan which really

prioritises a mix of genuinely affordable housing as well as actual housing.

So I just wanted to note that for the record that's the reason for my objection in this

case.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

Okay.

We will move on to the next item which is other planning matters.

6 a) Reform of Planning Committees and National Scheme of Delegation

introduction and presentation.

Agenda item 6 .1, request for the Development Committee and Strategic Development Committee

to note the introduction of the national scheme of delegation and the proposed changes to

the Committee terms of reference.

And I invite Paul to introduce the application.

The meeting is finished.

Respectfully, can I ask you to leave the chamber, please?

Thank you.

Thank you for listening to my impressive few months.

contribution. Good evening.

Thank you for all this, yes.

Okay.

Committee, this is really more of an update for you about some changes which are on the

horizon which we did actually sort of touch briefly on in the committee training session.

So it's commonly called the national scheme of delegation.

And the background to it is that the government has been looking about how to provide more

consistency across planning authorities around which planning applications are delegated

to officers to determine and which are delegated to members of a committee to determine.

It varies quite significantly, as you might imagine, across different planning authorities

under their own different constitutions how they organise themselves. So regulations have

now been made and they will come into force quite quickly on the 31st of October. So we

will need to ensure that our council's constitution is up to date with those regulations when

they come in. I will send the presentation round afterwards and you'll see the links

there are two things. So one is the actual regulations themselves, but the other is what's

called statutory guidance, which sits alongside the regulations and tells us how to implement

them. So what's changing? So the regulations divide

planning applications into what's called two schedules. Schedule 1 includes relatively

minor applications. So for example, household or extensions, minor developments of less

less than 10 homes, or less than 1 ,000 square metres

of floor space, applications to discharge conditions

that are already on the planning commission,

lawful development certificates, which I mentioned earlier,

and other what you might call routine applications.

Those applications will always have to be delegated,

so they have to be delegated to officers.

And then there are Schedule II applications

that may be referred to a committee.

I put may in capitals because there is a process

that we have to go through,

first they don't automatically get referred.

And those are really sort of all major applications and other significant applications.

Somewhat interestingly, depending on your perspective, Schedule 2 includes applications

that probably if you're experienced committee members you've never really seen before.

So listed building consent applications, advertisement consent, which is really like signage on properties

or billboards, and works to protected trees are also in Schedule 2, which is something

that we questioned at the consultation stage.

Nevertheless, they are there.

And referral to committee is possible

through what's called a gateway test.

So the gateway test requires what's called,

this is the technical terminologies in the REC,

so a nominated officer or a nominated member

must both agree that the proposal raises issues

of economic, social, or environmental significance locally,

and the proposal raises significant planning matters having regard to the development plan.

Now that's not about coming to a view about whether permission should be granted or refused,

it's not about that, simply does it raise those issues.

And if the nominated officer and nominated member agree, then it can be referred to committee.

There is a provision that if they don't agree, then it falls back to officers,

so we'll have to sort of think about how we deal with that.

What's the biggest change then for Tower Hamlets

is at the moment you will know that if we receive

20 or more representations on any type of application,

it's referred to committee.

The regulations and the statutory guidance are very clear

that planning authorities won't be able to have

those kind of thresholds in their constitutions

going forward.

but it has to be that it's referred

because it meets one of those two tests on the screen.

So that's probably the biggest change.

Or call -in arrangements.

We do actually have call -in arrangements in Tower Hunters,

but in my experience, not very often used.

So they basically say that within four weeks

of the application being registered,

if four or more members of a committee feel

the application should be determined by a committee,

then they can request that.

I think historically members have not really exercised that,

but nevertheless it is there, and going forward,

we would have to remove that part

from our constitution as well.

There's also provision for what's called

own interest applications, so that's where

either the council is an entity,

or an officer of the council, or a member of the council,

is the applicant.

And this is more to do with just recognising

transparency and public confidence in the decision making system.

Now those can be referred to a planning committee, again going through a similar process with the

nominated office and a nominated member, looking at it to decide whether it's in the interest

of transparency and probability to be referred to committee.

It doesn't have to be, but it can apply actually to both schedules, so schedule one or schedule two.

There's probably a bit of a nuance there because I suppose,

I don't know whether you may have your own views on this, but that could include anything

from a councillor, you know, submits an application to extend their home through to the council

submitting an application to regenerate an estate and everything in between.

Now you may not feel it's a good use of the committee's time to deal with something that's

not particularly contentious, hasn't really generated any planning policy conflicts, whereas

the Council's own proposals to redevelop its own land, you may feel actually that's slightly different

and probably is worthy of committee scrutiny, so we do need to develop some guidance there.

And an organisation called the Planning Officer Society and also another one called PAS, who are part of the

Local Governance Association, have started working on some guidance that local authorities might want to introduce,

so you deal with own interest applications proportionately

where they genuinely do need to come to committee

rather than simply referring everything.

I mentioned earlier about we were slightly perplexed

as to why things like advert consent applications

and all works listed buildings

and tree preservation orders were all captured

within schedule two.

We did some research and in the last five years

Tower Hamlets determined over 1700 of those kind of applications.

So it's around about 500 a year.

You probably don't know about them because they're quite routine, they're quite straightforward.

They're currently delegated to officers.

We would prefer they continue to be delegated to officers.

So we have an option to introduce what's called triaged applications.

So you can say that certain type of applications which aren't, which might be in Schedule

or two, don't have to all go, because you can imagine

trying to take all of those through the gateway test

all the time, would just completely block the system up.

So we can decide from the outset that those kind of

applications will remain delegated as they currently are.

So I guess in terms of the implications for terahamlets,

we will have to update your terms of reference

for this committee and also for SDC.

will have to designate who are the nominated officers and members for carrying out the gateway test.

We need to introduce procedures for recording and publishing those decisions,

so how have we made those decisions in line with those tests and the regulations,

and establish some operational arrangements for implementing that.

So through discussion with obviously the corporate director, the director of planning and building control,

the lead member and the mayor and having in regards to the guidance.

The guidance says that the nominated officer would normally be the chief planning officer,

but it can be other officers with significant experience.

So in this case the chief planning officer is the director of planning and building control,

so we're recommending that Sree, who's the director, along with myself and Simon and Gareth,

who are the area managers, fit into that column.

It doesn't mean we'll all be doing this at the same time, it just means that there's cover should someone not be there.

and similarly the guidance recommends that the nominated member is the chair of the relevant planning committee

and the vice chair to act if there happens to be a way or an urgent decision needs to be taken.

So that's how we are recommending it, which again is in line with what the guidance says.

The impact on planning, because we do deal with lots of planning applications in tower hamlets

and a lot of them are quite routine, around about 98 % of planning applications in the

town are already delegated to officers, so that leaves the committee dealing with the

most complex or contentious ones. That's just slightly above the average for England, it

hovers around 95 to 96 % generally, so nothing particularly unusual, in some ways we're already

deploying quite good practise, so it means your attention is focused where it needs to

rather than on the routine stuff.

However, for this committee in particular,

it was interesting, we did some research,

we looked back over five years,

and over half the applications that were referred

to this committee were not referred because of their scale,

they were referred because of the level of objection,

and as I said earlier, that's something

we won't be able to do in the future.

So that does create some implications

around committee caseload and how that works.

However, I have put there, we have got a pipeline of the council's own housing proposals coming forward

and it's quite possible that they might actually fill the gap a little bit, depending on how the gap that gateway test is applied.

So, to try and get a bit more balance, we thought, well the committee structures haven't been reviewed for a very, very long time

So we sort of looked at three broad options, keep going exactly as we are, keep going as

we are but look at a slight rebalancing of the threshold between the SDC and the DC,

or merge the two committees into a single committee and that committee just deals with

everything.

That final option hasn't really emerged as a preferred option at this stage, we just

felt it would be too disruptive, it requires quite a lot of constitutional change. As members,

it's not actually that long since you were appointed, so it could be quite disruptive.

We felt that option two is probably the easiest one, so we retained both the committees. The

frequency would stay as it is, the membership would stay as it is, all the arrangements

around public speaking, everything like that, would not have to change. But what we could

do is just look at that balance and the terms of reference for SDC because in our experience

over the last few years SDC has actually been relatively busy compared with DC so and there's

a few anomalies there and one of the things we think is driving that is there is a in

the current SDC terms of reference there's a criteria that any building sorry any application

with one of the buildings over 30 metres in height, which is actually only really about 10 storeys,

goes to the SDC and that creates some really interesting, you know, in the office, people are looking for the heights of the cleaning,

the cleaning, the bangs and all those sorts of things, or anything on the roof to see whether it's been more than 30 metres.

The reason it's there is because that's actually in the mayor of Londonwood, and now don't forget that's of course across the whole of London

And in Tower Hamlets, if you think about it,

something being more than 10 storeys high

doesn't automatically make it strategic in that sense.

There's lots of other things

that could make something strategic.

And one of the things I remember,

I think, Councillor, you were chair actually

the first time around, is the council's own application

for the redevelopment of the Clichy Estate in Stepney,

which had over 400 homes.

Because of that 30 -metre rule,

and because the SDC is still at 500 homes which hasn't kept pace with the Mayor of London order,

it came to this committee. Nothing wrong with that, both committees are doing their job.

But conversely, an application for 70 homes on a site in Oldgate came to SDC

because it was more than 30 metres high because it was a very small site in Breitel.

So we were starting to think, well that might be a good starting point.

If we took that away, it just might sort of rebalance things a little bit.

And then the next logical thing was then to just look at the other criteria in the current

Mayor of London order and just use those as a very simple basis for SDC.

And that I think will probably balance the agendas a little bit between the two committees.

But it might be something we just need to keep under review and see how that goes and

we can always look at further changes in the future.

So, if I was to sum up with a before and after, so the current arrangements, we have our local

scheme of delegation as does every planning authority.

We have our own local criteria, we have our objection thresholds, and we have member calling

arrangements.

After 31st October, everyone has to align with this national scheme of delegation, with

these nationally set criteria.

We've got that gateway test to decide if the Schedule 2 applications can go to committee

or not and the intention is to create a greater consistency

between the way playing authorities operate in England.

So, sorry, final slide.

How will we, actually I've covered this sometimes.

So yeah, so this is, we will have to adopt

the mandatory changes.

We're proposing that we keep the two committees

just in terms of reference and we have some triage

arrangements in place for those relatively minor,

what you might call technical consents,

which are those three groups there.

In terms of next steps, obviously briefing tonight,

we'll do a similar briefing to SDC on the 10th of September.

There's an update to the Mayor's Advisory Board tomorrow,

in fact, but ultimately it's the full council

who makes the decision, so any recommendations submitted

to full council in October and then we'll have to start using the new arrangements from

the 31st of October for any decisions after that. There was a thought process around it

going to the General Purposes Committee but Matthew who runs Democratic Services has confirmed

that we don't have to go there and the reason being is it didn't quite work. In terms of

time scales it would have been on the 8th of September and there isn't another one before

committee and we were quite keen that the SDC was briefed before the General Purposes

Committee. So he's quite comfortable that we can do it that order and then just take

the final report to committee in October. Sorry, there's a lot to take in there, so

I hope that's been helpful. We're not asking you to make a decision, but if you do have

any comments or thoughts on that, then please let me know and I will send round the presentation

afterwards. So just to reiterate, it won't change anything about the way you make your

decisions, it won't change planning policy, it won't change material considerations, all

of that will stay the same. It's just the route that an application takes, whether it

goes to committee or whether it goes to offices. So that's the main change. Thank you.

Sorry, Councillor, before you come in, thank you Paul for that. I know I've already had

a briefing regarding this and I know Paul's already said there's a lot to take in, but

But I think, so members don't need to make any kind of decision that they've got time to sort of like look at it and reflect.

So, your counsel.

So, I just wanted to know, so under currently 98 % of the planning decisions goes under delegated power.

So with the changes, how this structure and the new structure, how will it change?

Will you get more delegation or what's the change?

There's likely to be a slight increase in delegation.

It's mainly around those smaller scale applications where they don't...

Don't forget, your threshold actually starts at 35 homes.

As a committee you see things which are like tonight for example, that are a lot smaller than that in terms of their scale or floor space,

but they're triggered to committee because of the level of objection and that's the main bit that will change,

is those smaller non -major applications.

And this I think we will be interested to see how this is received by our residents and other residents elsewhere,

because people are used to the idea that a certain level of objection triggers a committee

irrespective of how large the application is.

And I think that is something that I guess local residents will over time sort of come

to terms with.

What I would say, however, is that doesn't mean that even for those delegated decisions

that we ignore people's representations, we can't.

if people are raising material planning considerations,

we still have to address those.

And even in an office of delegated report,

yes it might be a bit shorter than a committee report,

but we still have to explain how we've dealt with those.

Also I think when it comes,

if I just go back really, really quickly,

so when it comes to the gateway test,

if you see, so it's those two points

around whether a proposal raises issues

of economic, social and environmental significance locally and whether it raises significant

planning matters. Now that first one, whilst we're not allowed to take into account the

volume of objections, it's perfectly reasonable that if local residents are raising any of

those issues, then we think about those issues when we're deciding whether it should go to

committee or not. So for example, if residents have said something to do with the planning

with the environmental impacts of a particular development.

And that environmental impacts could be things

like the impact on daylight into somebody's home.

If that's the subject of lots and lots of objections,

then that doesn't automatically mean it has to go

to committee because lots of people objected.

But if it's the point they're raising,

it can still be considered, it can still be factored in

by the officer and the member when they try to come

to a view as to whether it should go to committee or not.

My personal feeling is that I can't imagine that there are many major applications in

Tower Hamlets that probably don't raise those sorts of issues, irrespective of what we're

recommending.

So, that's why I think that there won't be a massive impact on the larger applications,

it's just those smaller ones.

However, where it might be offset is because Tower Hamlets is probably one of the, I don't

know if it is the leading one, but certainly has one of the most ambitious sort of own

house building programmes and we've now got the applications coming into us as a planning

authority. And if you remember, we can also consider own interest applications, so it's

possible that even some of those, they range in scale from very large developments to relatively

small sort of infill developments that probably would not normally be in Schedule 2, but it's

perfectly reasonable for the Nominated Officer and Nominated Member to say, well actually

this is a known interest application, it may only be eight flats but it's part of the Council's

housing programme. In terms of the transparency and probability, we believe that they should

to the committee because the council is actually the applicant.

So it's quite hard to know precisely, Councillor Hussain, exactly what the final impact would be

because I think some of those own interest applications could potentially end up filling the gap,

if you see what I mean, as they come through.

But that's a very, it's an issue, well it's not unique to Tower Hammers, but it is pertinent to Tower Hammers.

So the council's obviously doing similar programmes, but it's just that we're seeing them now coming through

sort of a pace into the into

The climbing department. So eventually they'll be

You know ready for a decision

Other members have any comments

And I'm sure if you if you don't you can contact Paul

Any time to clarify?

Yes

If the planning arrangement instead if council, full council think that they're going to stick

with the planning arrangement right now, what council practise, if they decide that they're

going to keep it instead of the new one, is that possible?

No, in summary, so, well, there's a nuance there.

So in terms of the regulations,

no we have to abide by the regulations

and if we didn't we're liable to legal challenge.

What the fall council could do though is,

obviously we looked at slight tweaks

to the committee terms of reference.

The call council could say they actually prefer

not to do those or indeed suggest something different.

So I think that's, so there's flexibility there

but we're in the same position

as every other planning authority in England.

So that's, yeah, we will have to, yeah.

But it's a fair question to ask.

And I think it's, it is a different way of working.

And it does create a different role

for the committee chairs as well.

Earlier on in the process about looking at,

you know, applying that gateway test

and deciding if the schedule two application

should come to committee or not.

And that's something that's, I think it's fair to say

committee chairs have not had to do before, although I was advised by David Joyce, who

is the corporate director now, that when he worked in Camden they actually did have something

a bit like this apparently already.

So as I say, each planning authority does things slightly different.

We've always had a very good balance between what comes to committee and what doesn't.

but there will be some further changes going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that this is something

that's happening nationally.

There's not much we can do about it.

I find this legislation incredibly concerning.

The fact that it removes the ability of residents

to force an issue to come to committee

due to the scale of the objections,

I think is deeply concerning.

I think we already exist in a planning environment nationally

that is heavily weighted in favour of developers

who generally speaking bring applications to the table

that actually don't meet conditions

and have to be brutally knocked back essentially time and time again

to enforce that they're compliant.

That's actually the system is already weighted in favour

of incredibly non -compliant property development companies.

So I feel from the council's point of view, we have a duty of care to residents to ensure that there is a way for their voices to actually be heard.

Planning is probably the most contentious aspect of council business in the first place and I think it would be really, it could impact very negatively on the council

if the council is seen to quite correctly become less transparent

because residents have less access to objecting to these kind of applications

and fewer applications are coming to this kind of committee.

So I just wonder if there's scope here, since this 20 objection threshold

is going to be removed, thank you Andy Burnham,

can we as a council provide some sort of provision for residents,

even if it's in terms of something as simple as a potential guidance document to resident objectors

to facilitate their ability to still have their voices heard in that position, that would be my first...

Or is there another way around it? That would be my first concern, is that actually I think local communities

need to be able to take part in the decisions that impact them and should not just be roughshod over by legislation.

And secondly, I would say that on that basis as well, I see that option two has been recommended

by yourselves at the moment.

Definitely option one and option two, I would just say I strongly prefer either of those

because I'd be really concerned that option three would reduce the number of members on

the committee as well, which actually further decreases the oversight.

We're elected by our residents, so we speak on their behalf and I'd be so concerned of

any further changes that reduce the ability of people to actually manage the development

that is already happening in this borough in a way that is actually not always sustainable

and not always compliant, despite the obvious best attempts by the council to ensure that

things happen in a really positive way. Particularly given that the Schedule 3 gateway test, I

entirely up to personal interpretation.

I just wonder, you know, the issues of economic,

social environment significant, I mean,

that could mean anything.

I think it would be really important for the,

I'm sure this is already in the works,

but for the council to have our Tower Hamlets guidance

on what that Schedule 2 actually means.

What did that break down to?

What do committee chairs and officers

specifically have to look at?

Because I could just say, you know,

anything's an economic issue.

Thank you, again, that's quite a long comment,

But I hope that that's something that can be considered

and in the works.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Buckingham.

Thank you, Council.

Really personal points.

Just really quickly on that last point.

Yes, we do need some guidance on that.

You're absolutely right.

Because otherwise it won't be clear or transparent

to everybody kind of how that's being applied.

Because we also have to,

so we actually have to sort of publish

how those decisions are made as well.

So that decision has to be capable

standing up to scrutiny, never mind the actual

final planning decision.

In terms of residents having a say,

and I do appreciate the points you've made,

others have made some of the points around

does it sort of disenfranchise residents

to a certain extent.

People will still be able to object

and they will still be taken into account,

but I think there are things that we can do.

And some of the things that we've been thinking about

is updating what's called our statements

community involvement which is a document that planning authorities, we're not actually

required to do them anymore but we have one and we thought it would be an opportunity

to review it and incorporate some clearer advice on how to focus representations appropriately.

Some other planning authorities do have that kind of guidance around what, for example,

or help residents to understand what are material considerations and what aren't.

And then the other area that we could do a lot more on is historically we have brought proposals

at the pre -application stage to committee.

Now there's nothing in these regulations that covers those because those are not formal decisions.

but that might be a way of the committee and indeed ward members because our procedure

allows ward members to speak on pre -application proposals to influence schemes at a much earlier

stage before they even get to a planning application and to kind of set the kind of direction of

the things, the type of things that members would expect to be addressed through the planning

So I think there are things that we can do that whilst they won't necessarily, you know,

say we can't reinstate something that the law says we can't have, but there are perhaps

creative ways around that to ensure that residents still continue to have their voices heard.

And as I said earlier, if something is coming to committee, the rules around public speaking,

that won't change.

So all of those people will still be able to come to committee and address you exactly

as they have now.

Thank you.

Sorry, what was the name of that document you mentioned?

Statements of Community Involvement or SCI.

So it's kind of on the website.

Thank you very much for the introduction to the National Delegation and the purpose of

to Development Committee terms of reference.

I want to thank all members and officers for your contribution this evening.

We will conclude the meeting now.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday, the 8th of October.

And we'll see you then.

So I officially close this meeting today.

Webcast Finished - 1:49:41

Thank you.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hCaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Interactive webcast player

Development CommitteeTuesday, 1st September 2026 at 6:30pm

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

4 DEFERRED ITEMS

5 a) PA/25/01155 - Theatre Building, 1 Paton Close, London E3

6 a) Reform of Planning Committees and National Scheme of Delegation

Webcast Finished - 1:49:41

Development Committee
Tuesday, 1st September 2026 at 6:30pm