Strategic Development Committee - Thursday 10 September 2026, 6:30pm

Strategic Development Committee
Thursday, 10th 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

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

Share this agenda point

5 a) PA/26/00765/A1 - Land at Wansbeck Road, Fish Island, London, E3 2NF

Share this agenda point

PA.26.00765 - Land at Wansbeck Road - committee report

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

Share this agenda point

DC and SDC 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.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Welcome to the Strategic Development Committee meeting this Thursday, September 2026.

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

Before we start, I would like to remind members that they have committed through the members pledge to treat one another with dignity and respect,

to give others the opportunity to speak, to listen to different viewpoints and ensure that challenges are constructive and inclusive.

I look forward to seeing all attendees demonstrate this committee through their conduct this

evening.

I would also like to give some briefing reminders and protocols for the meeting, including virtual

meeting procedures.

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

meeting remotely.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as the Chair.

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

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

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

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

Francis, do we have any apologies?

Thank you, Chair. We don't have apologies for this evening. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Please can you also state any declarations that you may have in the agenda items and

the nature of interest.

Before you guys, committee, before you present yourself, I'd just like to say I've had no

declaration of interest.

Nothing to declare at all.

Thank you.

Okay

Everyone council equal saying for less very good. Thank you. Nothing to declare

Council Agulam Kibbe a children nothing to declare but I have received a lot of email, but I don't respond

Because we still come with and that's what you declare

Thank you.

Councillor Shubbo, you have said nothing to declare.

Thank you, members.

Welcome to Councillor Foysell and Kamal, welcome to the committee.

I would like to introduce our new principal planning lawyer as well.

Hello, my name is Suzanne Yelders.

I will be planning advisor to committee for this evening.

Thank you and welcome.

Can we confirm as a correct record the committee meeting minutes held on 21 July 2026?

Thank you.

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

I will now ask Paul Beckinham, Head of Planning, Development Management Control, to present

the guidance.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening to yourself and members, members of the public and officers who are joining

us this evening.

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

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

Development Plan policies and material planning considerations.

When we come to the main item reports on the agenda, the process for considering those

reports will run as follows.

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

Officers will then present the report and then those that are registered to speak in

objection can address the committee for up to three minutes each.

And those who are registered to speak in support, including the applicant, can address the committee

for three minutes each and then any councillors who are registered to speak can address the

committee for the same time. The committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers

and the committee will then go on to consider the recommendation including any further questions,

debate and advice from officers and then the committee will go on to reach their decision

based on the majority vote. If the committee proposes changes to certain aspects of the

planning conditions or obligations,

and the task of formalising those changes

is delegated to the Director of Planning and Builder Control.

In the event that the committee did not accept

the officer recommendation,

it must give their planning reasons

and then propose and agree an alternative course of action.

Committee may be adjourned briefly

for any further planning or legal advice,

and the task of formalising the committee's

alternative decision is also delegated

to the Director of Planning and Builder Control.

And in the event the committee proposed to make a decision

that would seem to go against the provisions

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

be deferred for a further report from officers dealing with the proposed course of action.

There is no update report this evening, Chair.

So I think that's all I have to say at this stage.

Thank you, Paul.

We have one deferred item to consider this evening.

PA forward slash 26 forward slash 00212 -255 -279, Cambridge Road, London, E20EL.

Agenda item 4 .1 is planning application that was considered by the Committee last 21st

July 2026.

As a member, we are aware we had some concerns and we were minded to refuse the application.

We then voted for it to be deferred so officers can have some time to set out the reasons

to refuse it along with others' policy implications, which is as set out in the report in front

of us tonight.

I now invite Paul Beckenham to give us a more in -depth look at the report.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So the Chair has set the scene for us in terms of this application.

It was considered at the last meeting, the officer's recommendation was to grant planning

permission and the committee were minded to refuse and indicated their reasons for refusal.

Just to recap, this planning application affected the former LEB building on Cambridge Heath Road

and it was for the demolition of the existing buildings and it was for the redevelopment of the site to provide

a purpose built student accommodation scheme.

From four storeys to eleven storeys with some commercial and community floor space at the ground floor

and have alongside public realm improvements, car parking and other associated works.

Members I'm sure are very familiar with the site and there it is on Cambridge Heath Road

opposite Bethnal Green Gardens with the railway line running behind.

This is a view that just gives you an overview showing the existing building that's on the

site which is a former office building sort of set back in the middle of the site with

some ancillary accommodation.

Just a reminder of some CGIs of the proposed developments.

So you can see there from two different angles what was actually proposed on the site.

As the Chair explained, a reminder of the resolution that the resolution was to grant

planning commission on the basis that our assessment was that the development would

accord with the development plan and there were no material considerations to indicate

refusal.

The committee considered the recommendation but ultimately disagreed and provided five

possible reasons for refusal and allowed the application to be deferred to bring back the

supplemental report that we have today.

Should have said at the beginning that the original report is also appended for you.

It's a cross reference.

I just wanted to mention something that has happened since your decision last time.

So on the 17th of August the government published a new national planning policy framework.

We've had a look at that because it is a new material consideration that obviously wasn't

available to us last time.

And in particular policy S4 of the national policy says that development proposals in

settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially

outweigh any adverse effects when assessed against the national decision making policies

in the framework.

The reference to settlements is a bit of an interesting one but it essentially means urban

areas.

So in an urban area we should be approving developments unless there are clear disbenefits

to doing so.

So it's important that we, before reaching our final decision, are satisfied that we've

taken that into account.

From an officer perspective, it doesn't really change our recommendations, our recommendation

remains.

If the committee is still minded to refuse permission, then you must satisfy yourselves

that the adverse effects associated with the development would outweigh the benefits of

granting planning permission.

So turning to the five reasons for refusal, so the committee indicated that the proposed

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

cause harm to the surrounding area in terms of amenity in character.

Just a comment, you'll see this in your report, so in terms of amenity, if we think about the impacts traditionally associated with amenity,

such as overlooking daylight, sunlight impacts and loss of privacy, this particular development actually performs quite well

in terms of those and arguably better than a previous scheme on the site that was refused.

So we think it would be very hard to run a reason for refusal that linked to neighbours' amenity.

However, I'll come on to the point about amenity in a more general sense and character in a moment.

The second reason for refusal, the development would prevent the site from contributing to the supply of conventional housing,

including much needed family homes and affordable housing.

The site hasn't, we said last time, hasn't been allocated for a particular use or indeed

conventional housing.

However, we recognise the strategic need for conventional housing, affordable housing and

family housing.

So we think there is potentially a reason for refusal that could be sustained if the

committee are minded to do so.

Failure to fully comply with net zero policies.

you'll see from the report that our assessment

and indeed the GLA's assessment is the scheme

has done everything it can do to comply with those policies

and indeed if permission was granted,

there would be a net zero carbon uplift payment

that would be secured through the 106 to bridge any gap.

So we feel that that as a reason

wouldn't really be sustainable.

Reason four was the failure to demonstrate

the need for student accommodations through a robust nominations agreement. You'll see

in the report, and we heard last time, that Queen Mary University have indicated their

desire to take on a nominations agreement. The belts and braces around that would be

in the 106 agreement, so if we were granting planning permission, then the section 106

agreement would not allow the development to go ahead until the nominations agreement

was fully in place, and that's quite the standard approach for this kind of scheme.

Finally, the over concentration of student accommodation

in this location, there are actually,

when we looked at this in a bit more detail,

there are three sites adjacent into the rear

of this application site that are already in use

for student accommodation.

Between them, they have just over 500 individual units,

bed spaces, this particular development is proposing

an additional 520, so you could argue that this is

is sort of doubling the amount of student accommodation in the area.

On that basis, as I said, the officer recommendation hasn't changed, but if the committee ultimately

is minded to refuse planning permission, we think there are three reasons that you could

potentially adopt, and we'd ask you to consider these carefully and then ultimately vote on

them.

The reasons are kind of set out in full on the screen here and in your report, but if

I was to summarise them.

The first one is about the failure

to optimise the site for housing and recognises

that a highly accessible brownfield site like this

is in a good location to support the delivery

of conventional housing to meet the borough's wider need.

You'll see the final paragraph includes

the list of all the various policies

that we think would be relevant in terms

of this reason for refusal.

I've just, if I may, just added in through consultation with my colleagues, is Policy

D3A of the London Plan, which talks about optimising developments on sites, and it talks

about appropriate land, it talks about design, but it also talks about appropriate land uses,

and I think the committee were concerned about whether this was an appropriate land use,

so I think that's the reason why we've just added that in.

It wasn't actually your report, but if you agree ultimately then we would look to include

that reason.

Reason two, over concentration in the local area.

This goes back to what I said earlier, the provision of 520 student bed spaces would

cause quite a significant clustering of student accommodation in this location.

That would itself would affect the character of the area.

and in terms of residential amenity there may be some effects but they would not necessarily

be absolute so we wouldn't be talking about physical effects, we'd be talking about the

concentration of students coming and going and all of the associated impacts around that

in the wider area. And again we've listed the various policy reasons for you there.

The final reason is a little bit of a belt and braces reason and we usually put this

on whenever the council refuses a planning application where planning obligations are

required but there isn't currently a signed 106 in place.

It's almost like a device that indicates that in the event of an appeal, the planning inspector

looking at the appeal understands that those particular obligations have not yet been secured,

so the 106 hasn't yet been signed.

If notwithstanding the merits of an appeal, if there is a signed 106 or indeed a unilateral

undertaking, that reason would fall away.

So it's there just to secure the council's position on that.

So finally, if I just talk about the implications arising, I think as a committee I'm sure you

you'll be aware, well I know this, but it's just worthless,

just going over again.

So if ultimately you do resolve to refuse planning permission,

what could happen next?

Well, we would still have to do the stage two referral

to the mayor of London.

And the mayor of London has 14 days

to decide whether they wish to call in the application or not.

We don't know whether that would happen.

But that's just alerting you to the next stage of the process.

If it's not called in by the Mayor and we go on to refuse planning permission, then obviously the applicant has a right of appeal,

they can appeal to the Secretary of State but in reality it would be dealt with by a planning inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State,

so there could be a public inquiry, a hearing or it may be dealt with on written reps.

I think the scale of the development is far more likely to be at the very least a hearing or possibly a public inquiry.

And then of course the third option is that the applicant could consider the reasons for

refusal and submit a new application that seeks to address them.

I think our assessment is that that possible course of action is possibly the least likely

and that's because the reasons that the committee have indicated are more about the principle.

So it's not for example that you've indicated a particular element should be redesigned

or anything, it's more about the principle of the land use.

So we're not confident of that, but I've just put it there as, you know, those are broadly

the implications of the decision.

So Chair, I think that's all I was going to say at this stage.

I hope that's clear.

Obviously, professionally, we don't wish to change our recommendation, but we acknowledge

that the committee felt otherwise, so we've looked really carefully and we think that

But those reasons for refusal are ones that you could consider adopting if your mind did to refuse.

Chair, if I may, I don't know if Suzanne wanted to add anything to that or...

Yes, I think... thank you very much. Chair, I think it would be useful to members if I highlight how to approach the decision I'm conscious that

It is somewhat unusual in that new things have arisen since the matter was deferred.

So what you have before you is a supplemental report that in section 4 puts the vote back

to members.

And I'm advising that it's appropriate to vote on both whether to grant, sequentially

taking them in turn and whether to refuse with the reasons that have now been presented

to you.

So essentially, members are taking a new decision and we are going to vote on two recommendations.

The reason that we are doing it like this is because as members know, under the legislation,

Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsive Purchase Act, for example, we take the decision

in accordance with the development plan and any material considerations that might arise,

any relevant material things. What occurred is after this resolution was made by members

and they indicated their reasons for refusal, officers took it away to give detailed justifications

around those reasons but something new came up, the MPPF, specifically policy S41. So

in light of that we are recommending to you to take the decision afresh and I want to

grant by officers remains and shall be voted upon and the case for that is in support of

that is in Appendix 1. I trust all members have read the material. I will say at this

point I understand that the last committee, perhaps a couple of the members were not present,

so if you do not feel for those members that you have a grasp of the material, then you

issues have read the material are able to participate and vote. It's open to you to abstain, but I trust the papers have been read.

So members are advised that we are taking a new decision. I encourage you to ask any questions.

You know, you may have points of debate.

So that's the, you know,

Appendix 1 supports the case to grant and a 4 .2 chair, as my colleague, Head of Planning,

Paul, has been highlighting, officers have looked at three reasons for refusal which

they feel that, albeit their opinion and advice was different, that might be sustained.

So I then advised that a decision, you know, a vote is taken on that after a vote is taken

on whether to support officer recommendation.

Last but not least, obviously members are coming to a new decision and they should have

an open mind to that decision and the new MPPF policy that's been put before you.

That's all, Chair, unless you have anything for me or other members who wish to ask me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you Paul for explaining everything and Susan for explaining everything.

Do members have questions for officers?

Yes, of course, you've got questions, you've got to ask questions.

Thank you. So question just from your speech, did you mention that the two new members,

they have a choice of whether they will stay or they will take care?

I think so. What I'm advising is Ed, I think all the material policies, facts, are before you, both to support grant or refusal.

The papers are there. If those members don't feel that they don't have all the facts in their minds or are unable to vote, then that's up to them.

So it's a judgement call.

Can you ask them something?

So yes, do members have questions for officers?

Yeah, thank you chair.

Thank you for explaining Suzanne. I am one of the new members.

I'd just like to clarify has there been any material changes to the actual applications?

Since it was

Last term, deferred.

Thank you, Councillor.

So the application itself is exactly the same as the committee considered previously.

And the only thing that's changed, which is why my colleague has said it is open for all members to take part this time,

because normally with deferred items it isn't, is this new material consideration,

which is where the government published its new planning policy in between the deferral and now.

So that's the only thing that's changed materially, but the actual application is exactly the

same as previously.

Mr Buckingham, I wanted to ask, you mentioned about urban areas.

What determines it being an urban area?

That's a very good question.

I think we would say, I mean obviously this is quite close to the centre of London geographically,

it's in a very built up area, it's not outside, so for example this is not development, bear

in mind the National Pine Policy is exactly that, national, so this is not for example

development in the countryside, there's a second bit to this policy that I haven't put

and there's talks about development outside of settlements and what that's aiming at is

where it doesn't really sort of affect London or Tower Hamlets, but it's where perhaps a

development might be occurring, say in the green belt outside of the main urban area

or outside of the main settlement.

So in a way this is, I'll interpret it like this, this is about the government sort of

making its planning policy align with its sort of wider growth agenda I suppose is what

it's saying and then it gives slightly different advice to where developments are proposed

outside of a settlement or outside of an urban area.

As I say for example, a more isolated site in the green belt might be an example of that.

Any more questions?

No questions?

Okay.

Good members.

Yes.

Time Arthur

Let me

turn the podium

Chancellor of systems.

any nomination

been agreed with any local university

the post -student accommodation.

Yes, so at this stage, the chair is just responding to Councillor Harsane's question.

So there isn't a formal nominations agreement in place, but in the event that the permission

was granted, the section 106 agreement would have that condition and that clause within

it requiring a nominations agreement to be entered into for the majority of the development,

which can be as little as 51 per cent, but as long as it is the majority. And that approach

is quite common, and it's there in the London Plan, I think we talked about this last time,

it's trying to ensure that when student accommodation does come forward, it doesn't come forward

in a speculative way comes forward because there's a genuine need linked to a university.

So it's not common in my experience to have the nomination agreement signed and sealed at this stage,

but the planning commission would be subject to the 106 and then it's the 106 agreement,

legal agreement that controls the nomination agreement.

If I might, it's not dissimilar to, if you think about conventional housing where at

the time that we consider the planning application, there isn't always a registered provider on

board but the 106 requires affordable housing to be provided so by definition a registered

provider might have to come on board in order to do it.

So it's a similar analogy I suppose in terms of the stages that we're at.

So, no, there isn't at the moment, but there would have to be before the development could

be built if permission was granted.

So whether members voted to grant or refuse either way, the outcome is, you know, it will

be conditional on the appropriate section 106 agreement being signed, which will include

nominations in favour of a particular university or more than one of them. In this case I understand

there is an identified party and there will also be terms, obligations, binding obligations

in the 106 around the degree of affordability, support for students of that accommodation,

So whichever recommendation members voted with, that would be the expected outcome.

In terms of reasons for refusal, it's there because if the decision went that way, the

same as the local planning authority, an inspector would have to ensure those things are in place,

in which case we wouldn't object on that issue.

I think that's a good question.

belt and braces reason that highlights in the event of an appeal that there are still outstanding matters that need to be addressed through the

106 so it just puts that marker in the sand in the event that there is an appeal so that and that's quite common for

this council to use

in any

Refusal where you would normally expect a section 106 to be signed

Thank you again chair so from understanding that there are currently no nominations

but it would be conditional on them.

So I note from the report this provision for 520 student spaces,

the current proposal, and I think you said there's three other buildings adjacent

with equal number of students around 500.

You said it's going to double, so I'm guessing it's around 500.

So that's the blocks immediate to the proposal.

What about within, like let's say a mile radius,

how many other student provisions do we have?

Are you aware?

We haven't assessed that because,

when the will undoubtedly be certain,

because I would imagine within a mile radius

you would probably be getting quite close to,

for example, Queen Mary University,

which has its own students accommodation.

What we were looking at based on the debate last time was around that very localised impact.

So there are 504 student bed spaces in three blocks immediately adjacent.

So this would create, if you like, a fourth development which would also have, sorry,

which would have 520 bed spaces.

So you can see that quite, and the point that was raised, I think, by one of the members

last time was a concern around concentration.

Because they mentioned concentration, we didn't really go further.

They were concerned about the impact on the local area.

Any more questions?

Okay.

Would members like to share their thoughts or debate on the report?

I would now like to ask Paul Beckin to share final advice before we move to vote.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't really have too much more to say in terms of this one.

I would just maybe ask, Chair, that you, through your sort of voting process, your decision -making,

that you confirm that you have acknowledged that there is the new NPPF in place and that

you've had regard to that, whatever your decision, that you've had regard to that in terms of

your decision making.

But otherwise, unless members have any other points, I don't have anything else to add.

Thank you.

As the Committee has taken a fresh decision on this application, I will call on Lee Wood

advise in case she has relevant advice to relay.

Thank you, Chair. I think I have covered all the points I wanted to make and it is clear

to me the way members are responding that Delo factor them in. As we said, I ask members

to also have regard to, there were a couple of items reported verbally rather than in

the report by the head of planning, Paul Buckner, just earlier.

And the key new consideration is the new MPPF policy that essentially says, you know, unless

the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effect, you might consider

So that's relevant to the recommendations, but essentially members are taking a new vote

and the totality of the material factors are both in Appendix 1 and the supplemental report.

And I think that's all from me, as long as they approach it with an open mind.

In light of advice from the legal and nothing, the new material consideration, we will vote

on both recommendations in turn.

In respect of the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission for the application

at KPG fraud, subject to condition and planning obligation as set out in the original officer's

report and update report.

Can I see all those in favour?

All those against?

Yes.

Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision?

So thank you, Chair.

So on a unanimous vote, officers, I beg your pardon, committee members have voted unanimously

not to accept the officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

So Chair, you would now sort of move on to the next stage of the procedure, which is

to confirm whether you wish to refuse planning permission and in doing so, whether you wish

to adopt the three reasons that we set out in our report and in my presentation.

So I think on that point, Chair, there's just some advice for you there.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Paul.

I propose to Refusal Planning permission for the application at KMB G4 on the grounds of

refusals set out in Section 4 of the Officer's Report.

Can I please have a seconder?

Can I see all those in favour of the motion?

Remember we are voting to refuse the planning application with the reason set out.

Can you please confirm the committee's decision and the reason for refusal?

So the committee has voted unanimously to refuse planning commission and to adopt the

reasons set out in section 4 of the report.

And chair, I probably just need to confirm, Suzanne probably said that it would be helpful

to do this, is just I indicated two minor changes.

So in Reason 2, to include the word May, Ralton and Wood, which is highlighted yellow on the

screen.

And in Reason 1, we've identified additional London Plan policy that we would like to include

as well.

So again, perhaps just a quick show of hands to confirm the Committee are happy for officers

to make those minor amendments.

They weren't in your original report.

Can we see everyone to take the vote for the change from Wood to May, isn't it?

And also that policy D3A, sorry it doesn't show very well, it's in the final paragraph,

just in the middle there underlined.

It's a policy D3A.

D3A of the London plan.

Okay.

Chair, just for the record, I'm observing that those policies were referenced in the

introduction to the report and members had them in mind because they would have heard

of them.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Councillor, would you like to introduce yourself, please?

I'm Councillor Martin Parker.

I'm late because of medical condition.

I apologise for being late.

Can you do you have any declaration of interest?

I have no interest in Claire.

Thank you very much.

We have one planning application to consider this evening.

5 a) PA/26/00765/A1 - Land at Wansbeck Road, Fish Island, London, E3 2NF

5 .1 PA forward slash 264 slash 00765 forward slash A1, land at West Beck Road, Fish Island,

London E32NF.

Agenda item 5 .1 is planning application to redevelop the site to deliver purpose -built

shared living accommodation and affordable housing units class C3 with associated public

relay improvements compromising hard and soft landscape and other associated works.

I now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

So as the Chair mentioned, this is a planning application affecting land at Wonsbeck Road

in Fish Island.

And it's a redevelopment proposal to redevelop the site for purpose -built shared living accommodation,

which is sometimes known as co -living accommodation, along with a separate affordable housing block

and then all of the associated public realm and improvement work described there.

The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning obligations

secured in Section 106 agreements.

There is no update report with this one, Chair.

However, just a reminder to everybody that because this falls within Fish Island and

the Council's local plan as currently adopted doesn't cover that area because it was formerly

in the London Legacy Development Corporation area, for the purposes of the law, the Development

plan comprises the LLDC's existing local plan which remains in force until such time as

the Council's new local plan is adopted.

So therefore our assessment has been against those policies.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Paul.

I will now invite Planning Case Officer Fran Hyness to present the application.

Thank you, Paul.

Thank you, Chair.

So the proposal is for the construction of two buildings comprising 44 social rent homes

and 280 co -living units.

There will be associated child play space, residential amenity space, cycle parking,

blue badge parking on site.

Centrally within the site will be a new landscape courtyard.

The development site is within Fish Island.

The site is bound by Wonsbeck Road to the west, Monier Road to the south, Remus Road

to the east and the recently completed residential developments delivered as part of the earlier

phases of the Neptune Wharf master plan to the north. The A12 is located immediately

west of Wonsbeck Road. The site is L -shaped and currently comprises of open hard landscaping

used for storage and car rental operations with minimal built structures. This is the

site layout of the proposed development. The affordable housing block will be located in

the northern part of the site and will be a seven -storey building.

The co -living block will be located in the southwestern part of the site and will be

a ten -storey building.

A landscape courtyard will be located between the two buildings and vehicle access will

be taken from Remus Road for servicing and deliveries within the site.

Here are some site photos.

On the left, the site is located centrally behind the roundabout junction.

On the right is the view of the site from Monier Road located behind the blue fencing.

Here are some photos from within the site. The site contains storage containers and vehicles associated with a car rental company.

There is also a small food vendor operating within the site.

In terms of designations the site is located under the former planning jurisdiction of the London Legacy Development Corporation.

therefore the LLDC local plan applies. The site is located within the Olympic

Legacy Opportunity Area as designated by the London Plan which expects growth to

be accelerated. The site does not lie within a conservation area nor does it

include any listed buildings. The council statutory consultation

involved displaying site notices in the local area, a press notice and sending

letters to neighbouring properties. The Council received 180 letters of objection and four

letters of support. The main objections raised relate to the design and scale of the proposals,

the daylight and sunlight impacts, as well as the additional pressure on local infrastructure.

A more detailed summary of the objections is listed in the committee report. The applicant

has carried out their own pre -application, non -saturated consultation, including resident

engagement events, exhibitions and leaflets.

The site form is part of the wider Neptune Morph Master Plan, which received outline

planning permission in 2014.

The application site boundary is that of Phase IV, where a primary school is expected to

be delivered.

In July 2023, the Council decided not to proceed with the free -form M3 primary school on the

proposed site, due to insufficient demand based on pupil forecasts and migration trends.

Following this decision, the developer paid the agreed school site sum of £2 .68 million,

activating provisions in the Section 106 agreement that allowed alternative uses for the site

to be considered.

In terms of the proposed land uses, the redevelopment of a vacant brownfield site in the opportunity

area is supported.

The development provides 280 co -living units, which is equivalent to 156 traditional homes

in housing delivery terms.

Co -living is a newer form of rental housing.

It is made up of individual rooms

with additional shared facilities.

The proposed co -living has been assessed

against the London Plan and LLDC local plan policies

and is considered acceptable in land use terms.

The scheme would help meet identified housing needs

by increasing housing choice

and providing an alternative accommodation option

within this area.

Alongside this are 44 affordable homes, 100 % of which will be for social rent, which is supported in principle.

Purpose -built shared living, also referred to as co -living, is a type of non -self -contained housing made up of private individual home rooms and communal amenity spaces and facilities.

It is not student accommodation.

This slide shows a typical floor plan of the co -living block on the left and typical studio layouts on the right.

Each studio is provided with a kitchenette and an en suite bathroom.

The co -living building includes 30 wheelchair accessible units.

The scheme provides a good standard of co -living accommodation for a wide range of communal

facilities.

These include shared kitchens, dining areas and laundry facilities as well as internal

and external community spaces.

The communal facilities are located at ground floor and ninth floor, helping to support

resident wellbeing and community interaction.

The scheme would deliver 44 affordable homes

at all social rents alongside 280 co -living units.

This equates to 40 % affordable housing by habitable room

and 34 % by total floor space.

Although the total floor space is below

the standard 35 % threshold,

the GLA considers the 100 % social rent scheme eligible

for the fast track route for an equivalency test

and has confirmed that the proposal meets this criteria.

The proposed housing mix is outlined in the table here.

The proposal would deliver 22 family -sized homes.

While the scheme does not provide an intermediate affordable housing product

and therefore does not fully meet policy tenure requirements,

significant weight is given to the delivery of a substantial number of family -sized social rent homes,

directly addressing an identified local housing need.

The residential units are generally compliant with or exceed national space standards, providing

a good quality living environment for future residents. A small number of homes fall marginally

below the private amenity space requirements, but these shortfalls are offset by larger

internal living areas and convenient access to communal play spaces and amenity areas.

In addition, all homes are dual aspect, maximising natural light and ventilation.

Given the site's location next to the A12, a detailed air quality and noise assessment

has been undertaken.

These confirm that future residents would experience acceptable air quality and noise

levels supported by the building's design, acoustic glazing and mechanical filtration

measures.

The Council's air quality and noise officers have raised no objections, subject to conditions

securing the detailed mitigation measures.

The scheme provides a range of communal amenity spaces.

A central courtyard accessible to both residents and the wider community complements the co -living

communal facilities and private amenity spaces.

The scheme provides a policy -compliant amount of play space on site for nought to 11 -year -olds.

The play space is located in the garden behind the affordable block as well as within the

central courtyard.

While no dedicated play space is proposed on site for children aged 12 +, the development

benefits from being a short walk to Victoria Park, which offers a range of recreational

facilities for older children and teenagers.

The scheme also includes a co -working space at ground floor within the co -living building.

Positioned on a prominent corner frontage facing into the site, it will be accessible

to residents and the wider community.

Moving on to the design, this image shows a computer generated image of the co -living

building when viewed from the Monier Road approach to the roundabout.

This image shows the proposed development when looking west down Monier Road.

The co -living building is shown on the right of the road in orange brick.

The proposed building heights are considered appropriate within the evolving townscape

of the area. The development has been carefully designed to respond to its prominent corner

location, creating a strong landmark building that improves legibility and reinforces the

area's emerging character. Through articulated massing, high quality architecture and the

contextual materials, the scheme would integrate successfully into the surrounding townscape

without appearing out of scale or incongruous. Importantly, the proposed height enables the

delivery of 44 social rent homes, providing a significant public benefit and making a

meaningful contribution to identified affordable housing needs. This level of affordable housing

could not be achieved for a lower scale development and therefore provide strong justification

for the proposed building height. The proposal has been assessed against the nearby heritage

assets and will have no impact on their significance, character or setting.

Here are some further CGIs. On the left is the proposal when viewed from Wonsbeck Road.

On the right is the affordable housing block when viewed from Remus Road.

The impacts to neighbouring properties are outlined in detail in the Committee report.

The application has been assessed against the BRE Daylight and Sunlight Guidelines,

with the applicant's assessment independently reviewed by the Council's consultants.

The image here demonstrates the development in yellow in context of the neighbouring properties

which have been assessed against the guidelines labelled in blue.

The results show that the impacts are generally concentrated on the buildings closest to the

site and are most noticeable on lower floor properties and windows located behind in -set

balconies.

While some rooms experience reductions beyond the BRE targets, the majority of neighbouring

residents will continue to receive levels of daylight and sunlight that are typical

of a dense urban environment. The most noticeable impacts occur to the Suntrack Port and 33 -35

Monier Road, reflecting their close proximity to the proposed development. Whilst these

impacts are acknowledged, the impacts should be considered in the context of the wider

benefits of the scheme. The proposal is consistent with the established and emerging patterns

of development in this area. Whilst there are some impacts on neighbouring sites, officers

are satisfied that these are not uncharacteristic of a regenerating urban area and are considered

acceptable on balance. In terms of highways, all servicing and deliveries

will take place within the site. The development will be car free except for the provision

of free blue badge spaces, two for the affordable block and one for the co -living block. There

There is space on site to accommodate additional blue badge spaces should the demand arise.

The scheme proposes a policy -compliant quantum of cycle parking.

In terms of environmental considerations, the scheme has been designed to include various

energy and efficiency measures to reduce carbon emissions, including air source heat pumps

and solar panels.

The scheme will exceed biodiversity net gain targets and will be air quality neutral.

The development includes sufficient refuse and waste capacity with bin stores proposed

at ground level of each block.

This slide includes the list of financial and non -financial obligations which will be

delivered by the proposed development.

These obligations secure the affordable housing and management of the site.

Other obligations relate to employment during construction and transport matters.

The development will be liable for seal payments totalling approximately £1 .8 million and

these funds will go towards local infrastructure improvements.

The application has been assessed against the development plan policy framework and

other relevant material considerations.

Whilst there are some departures from planning policy, the proposals are considered to comply

with the development plan as a whole and significant weight is attributed to the provision of 44

affordable social rent homes.

Officers are therefore recommending that the application is for approval, subject to any

direction by the Mayor of London, the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions as

set out in the committee report.

Thank you Fran for your presentation.

I now invite Lauren Jane Parker Honeywell to address the committee in objection to the

application.

You have up to three minutes.

Good evening, I'm Laura Jane Parker -Honeywell.

I ran the local residents opposition campaign website through which many of the 180 objections

to this application were submitted.

We want to see more social rent homes built, but do this proposal's benefits justify the

admitted breaches of the planning policy?

Paragraph 22 of the Greater London Authority's strategic planning application stage 1 report

finds that the adopted LLDC local plan does not identify this site for tall buildings,

So the proposal fails London plan policy d9b the emerging plan has limited weight

Yet the report of the corporate director of housing and regeneration for the strategic development committee claims d9 compliance at paragraph

7 .159 without resolving that conflict

LLDC policy BN 5 requires that tall building proposals answer this crucial question

Could the claimed public benefits be achieved with a lower development?

The corporate director's report identified three, each needs closer examination.

First of the 44 social rent homes, a significant benefit.

Paragraph 7 .158 of the corporate director's report says the 44 social rent homes could not be achieved through a lower scheme.

But the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that claim.

The design documents do not test the lower height option retaining those homes.

And the affordable housing statement only establishes eligibility for the fast track route.

It does not test whether the 10 -storey co -living development is needed to fund the separate seven -storey social rent building.

If cross subsidy is the reason, that is a viability claim and we haven't seen any viability appraisal that demonstrates it.

The conclusion is asserted, not evidenced.

Housing quality also matters.

The committee is being asked to accept severe permanent daylight harm to existing homes while giving significant weight to the quality of the new ones.

The Director's report describes good levels of daylight and sunlight in the proposed development,

yet the independent review of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment found only 57 % of habitable rooms

meet the recommended daylight target, falling to 47 % in the social rent building.

It calls that relatively low. These results do not support the significant weight given to housing quality.

The second benefit is redeveloping brownfield land. Nobody is arguing that this site should remain unused,

but nothing shows that putting it to good use depends on a 10 -storey building.

The third is the publicly accessible landscape courtyard that is welcome,

but it has not been shown to require this height,

and must be weighed alongside the high impact loss of sunlight

to the existing courtyard shared by four neighbouring buildings.

This is not a choice between providing social homes and protecting existing residents.

The policies require the benefits and the harm to be properly considered together.

The benefits are important, but the evidence does not show that they depend on development of this height.

Thank you.

30 seconds.

They are not enough to justify the admitted harm or override the adopted plan.

I ask the committee to refuse permission on these grounds.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

I now invite Russell Honeywell to address the committee.

In objection to the application, you have three minutes.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, committee.

Good evening.

I'm Russell Parker Honeywell.

I'm chair of the Fish Island Village Residence Association representing neighbouring residents.

This site should be developed but not on a scale that permanently harms existing neighbours.

The London Plan Policy D9 and LLDC Policies BN1 and BN5 protect neighbours from unacceptable losses of daylight and sunlight.

BN5 rejects tall buildings that cause significant harm to surrounding homes.

This plan fails on the above counts.

In the report of the corporate director of housing and regeneration for the strategic

development committee, paragraph 7 .361 accepts that this proposal would harm neighbouring

residential amenity and does not fully comply with the relevant policies.

The independent review of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment shows how serious

this harm would be.

Every surrounding property assessed experiences impacts outside the recommended guidelines,

including impacts classed as medium or high.

Now, officers may tell you that window measurements overstate the picture and that the better

test is daylight distribution, how much of a room can still see the sky.

So let's take that test.

At 33 to 35 Monier Road, only 30 of 73 rooms, that's 41%, pass it, fewer than half.

And on the window measure, only 39 of 121, 32%, meet the recommended level.

On both measures, most of the windows and rooms assessed in that building fall short.

The shared courtyard serving Capital, Groveley, Lambthorn and Murdoch courts currently meets

the recommended March sunlight levels across its entire area.

This would fall from 100 % to just 21 .95%.

The review describes this as a high impact change.

A better June result does not remove the failure on the recommended March assessment date.

The applicant suggests existing balconies contribute to the Monier Road results, but

the independent review tested the buildings without them.

It said there would still be a lot of impacts outside the guidelines and concludes that balconies are not the main factor

This development is of course developing this site will bring some change

But expecting some change is not a reason to accept any harm or any severity

These are not small or isolated effects

They affect every surrounding property assessed most of the rooms considered at Monier Road and a courtyard shared by four existing

Residential buildings the directors report concludes the scheme benefits outweigh this harm

Those benefits should be considered but so should the true scale and permanence of what

residents would lose.

I ask the committee to refuse this application because of the excessive height of massing

that would cause significant and lasting harm contrary to D9 BN .1 and BN .5.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now invite James Armitage Hobbs to address the committee in support of the application.

You have up to six minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

My name is James Armitage -Hobbs, I'm a Director of DP9,

and we're the Planning Consultants acting on behalf of the applicant, McLaren.

I've worked closely with the applicant team throughout the evolution of this project,

and I'm pleased to be here today in support of the application.

I'd like to begin by thanking officers for their time and constructive engagement

throughout the evolution of this proposal.

Since planning powers were transferred from the LLDC back to Tower Hamlets, we have worked closely with the Council's officers, the GLA and the Quality Review Panel,

presenting the scheme to the Design Review Panel on two occasions and refining the proposals in response to feedback.

We are therefore pleased that officers have concluded that the applications should be approved and we respectfully ask the committee to endorse that recommendation.

This proposal has also been shaped through extensive community consultation.

We undertook two rounds of public engagement, including exhibitions, workshops, a dedicated consultation website,

and direct engagement with local residents, businesses and community groups.

Feedback received has influenced the final design, including changes to the massing, landscaping, public realm and community facilities.

Members will know that this site is the final undeveloped parcel within the wider Neptune Wharf, which is now the Fish Island Village masterplan.

It is currently vacant and under use lines of the Branford site.

Bringing forward this last piece of the masterplan represents an important opportunity to complete the regeneration of the area and transform a cleared site into a thriving new neighbourhood.

A key benefit of the scheme is the delivery of 44 new social rent homes, all of which will be provided at the social rent levels.

Social rent is the most affordable housing tenure available and plays a vital role in meeting the needs of households on the lowest incomes.

The scheme will therefore deliver genuinely affordable homes for those in greatest housing need within the borough, a benefit to which offices have attached to significant weight.

Importantly, 22 of the homes are family sized homes, including a significant number of three and four bedroom homes,

helping to address the acute need for larger, affordable family accommodation in tower hamlets.

Just as importantly, these are not simply policy compliant homes, they are high quality family homes that have been developed through extensive engagement with officers, the local community and affordable housing providers.

The homes have been designed with more traditional family layouts including separate kitchen

and dining areas, dedicated living spaces, two bathrooms in many of the larger homes

and generous private balconies. They are intended to provide long -term high -quality accommodation

that meets the needs of families and responds directly to identify local housing demand.

Alongside this, the scheme will deliver 280 professionally managed co -living homes. Co -living

The new home provides an increasingly important housing option for single people who may otherwise struggle to access housing in London.

These homes are designed around a community -focused model with shared facilities, co -working space and communal amenities that help foster social connexions and combat loneliness, while offering a high quality and professionally managed form of housing.

Taken together, the development will provide 324 new homes, making a significant contribution

towards meeting housing need in the borough. Beyond housing delivery, the scheme will create

a high quality residential environment that integrates successfully with the surrounding

neighbourhood. It provides a balanced approach, combining much needed affordable family housing

with accommodation for single person households, helping to create a mixed and inclusive community

consistent with local and London plan objectives. The development will also deliver substantial

wider public benefits. These include a new publicly accessible landscape courtyard at the heart of the site,

significant new planting and biodiversity enhancements,

children's play space and improved pedestrian routes, a co -working cafe open to the wider community,

high quality public realm improvements and a biodiversity net gain of more than 500 % over the existing site condition.

The scheme also delivers exceptional sustainability credentials including a 73 % reduction in carbon emissions compared with building

and regulations at the target of Bream Excellent.

This is a proposal that makes effective use

of a long standing vacant brownfield site

and it delivers much needed social rent housing,

completes the final phase of the Fish Island

village master plan and provides significant public realm

and environmental benefits.

For those reasons, in line with the officer recommendation,

we respectfully ask you to support this scheme tonight.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Do members have questions for officers, applicants and objectors?

Councillor Campbell -Hussain. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, officer, for

your hard work in presenting the report here today. This proposal of the report acknowledges

some of the properties will be significantly harmed by the daylight sunlight.

Can you kindly tell us how many properties will be affected outside the BER guidelines

and how can you justify these losses?

Also, did you explore and design changes to mitigate this daylight sunlight effect?

Also, I understand, this is a, previously this port was originally reserved for a school.

And now we are building a house, although we need houses, I understand, we don't want

to leave it alone. So the decision, has the decision been data driven, do we have the

the right data with these number of house building and the children will move into these

houses, do we have enough spaces for that scheme is future proof?

Also some of the residents raised concern regarding the schools and the GP practises,

the local amenities, so can you kindly elaborate a little bit more on those things?

Thank you.

Yeah, so I'll start with the school that was outlined on this site.

So in July 2023 there is a cabinet report that outlines that there is sufficient capacity

at local schools for the additional populations, projected demographics for the area.

So it was considered that there is sufficient capacity.

With regards to comments made about GP practises and other infrastructure, that doesn't form

part of this application, but there is the community infrastructure levy, which developers

have to pay when they build developments, and the money from that goes, the council

still team kind of delegates it appropriately to the local services and to provide additional

capacity for stuff like that. Turning to the daylight sunlight impacts, I don't

have a breakdown of how many flats as a whole across the neighbouring properties.

I've gone through in the committee report the neighbouring blocks kind of

breaking down how many rooms will comply and how many will not. I don't have those

figures right now in my head but they are in the committee report. We do fully

accept that there are impacts and we've not shied away from that, but we consider that

the benefits of the scheme, which in this instance is the delivery of social rent homes,

does outweigh those impacts in the planning balance. With regards to a smaller scheme

that wasn't presented to us, if there was a smaller scheme that would be fewer social

So kind of taken in the round, we've considered the height and massing and the impacts acceptable

on that basis.

In terms of the question about the number of failings, as Fran has said, there's not

a total number that we've put in the report, but each property we've set out how many windows

fail and how many rooms fail.

And as the objective pointed out, the objective actually went through the details for Monier

in particular 33 to 35 and that is one of the most effective properties.

And again as Fran said we're not shying away from that but just to reiterate that so it's

clear and as it's set out in 7 .218 of the committee report, so 121 windows were assessed

at that property 33 to 35 Monier Road.

39 of those windows that were assessed, so they only assess the windows that are facing

the property. So 39 of those would continue to meet the BRE VSE guidelines. So that essentially

the flip side of that is, doing a quick arithmetic in my head, 82 would fail. So basically talking

about two thirds would fail or not meet the BRE guidelines but then within that you have

the BRE sets out sort of criteria as to what is a minor failure and what is a medium failure

and what is a major failure.

So not all of those will be considered minor failures.

Basically what we're saying is there is a scale of change

there that would be significant that the people in the room

would notice the impact.

And as we've set out in the report, those that would most

likely, or the windows and rooms that are most affected

are going to be at the lower parts of the building that

are in closest proximity to the proposal.

And again, I mean, fully understand

the concerns of objectors that there will definitely

be an impact on the daylight within their properties.

Our ultimate recommendation on this is based on,

firstly, as we've already set out,

the benefits of the proposals,

in particular the social rented units,

but we're also taking into account considerations

of the existing built form, and by that I mean

the gaps between neighbouring blocks

and how they've kind of been developed

and whether this is excessively close, if you like,

in terms of the gap between the actual property

and the new development in the windows.

And we don't think that.

We think that the blocks, the way they've been set out,

are coherent and align with the emerging urban pattern.

And therefore, and again, as the applicants, sorry,

the objective themselves said,

there will be change when you develop this site.

The objective obviously feels that the scale of change

is too high and too significant.

We're of the view that yes, there will be change,

but ultimately this site has come forward.

We think in a reasonable way

and it's delivering 44 social rented homes.

So that forms part of our ultimate recommendation, I think.

I just wanted to just add on the school as well.

So just to be absolutely clear

when with that cabinet report that Fran referred to.

So at that time, basically in the previous section 106

for the wider outline consent, it said if the school is not taken up then 2 .68 million

pounds, or I think at the time 2 .61 million pounds will be paid to at the time the LLDC.

That has been paid and that has been paid onto Tower Hamlets and that money is for

capital improvements or other improvements to the existing school stock. So that they haven't just

like not provided a school, the money that potentially would have gone into building

that school has come to the council for investment in other schools if you like.

And again as Fran said at the time of that decision and as you can read in the cabinet

report which is on the council's website, it looks at all of the existing schools in

the area.

I think it looks at six schools and five of them are under capacity and there's also an

assessment of risk, future implications, planning forwards and will, is there a possibility

that the overarching theme that we see across London of declining fertility rates, would

that change and would there be a risk? The cabinet report essentially summarises that

no, they don't think that that's going to happen and then the cabinet decided to take

that decision that the school was not needed and that's why we are in this position today

where no school is coming forward and an alternative form of development is coming forward.

Thank you.

I'll come back to you.

Councillor Chabot is in.

I want to ask, I think you mentioned some of the properties are going to be adversely

affected.

What do you mean by that? I'm trying to visualise how badly are those properties going to be affected?

And do we know the number of percent of those properties or how many of those?

So hopefully this image helps kind of illustrate the impact on 33 to 35 Monier Road which is

kind of directly to the east of the site.

So the windows that are outlined in red, that's where the greatest impacts are with regards

to daylight distribution.

Where there's kind of yellow outlines,

that's where there's medium impacts.

I don't know if that helps visualise.

Just to clarify, I think when we say high,

usually we would probably mean that there's

going to be in excess of 40 % change to the existing levels.

So I guess 40 % worse.

And then when it's medium, we're talking about 30 % worse.

and then we would have a minor which is about 20 % worse.

I think it's incredibly hard to actually like verbalise how the change is, but these are

just accepted metrics that are used industry -wide in terms of the scale of change.

And I think what we do as officers is we look at the total number of windows that are going

change, the total number of rooms that are going to change and I guess ultimately what

we're saying here is again acknowledging that there will be changes that we just think that

for a scheme that is being delivered in this location with the way that it's been designed

and the benefits that are being proposed that this scale of change isn't unacceptable.

Also just to add to that, sorry, Councillor, we're talking about windows that have been

tested and whether those windows are affected or to what extent they're affected, but a

number of the windows that have been tested serve rooms which serve flats that also have

outlook away from the development, so the impacts are to particular rooms but not necessarily

to whole flats or they won't be to entire flats that have windows to the directions.

And when you talk about immunity you also talk about outlook and whether there's an

increased sense of enclosure.

I think as Simon mentioned earlier there's a good gap between the proposed buildings

and then you've got the open space in the middle and then you've got the closest property.

So there would not be any significant or adverse effects in terms of outlook from any neighbouring

windows or sense of enclosure either.

Just to add on, does it meet the policy standards?

It's an interesting test of policy because it basically says this is the immunity policy

of the local plan which is D .DHA and it...

Oh, sorry, the LTC plan, apologies.

But basically, I'm getting confused because it's LLDC.

But basically the policy is asking for us not to have

an unacceptable level of harm.

And when we define what is an unacceptable level of harm,

that's, it's a very subjective term.

And I think what we're saying is that the threshold

that is not met in our view, whilst we acknowledge there is harm and adverse impacts.

We don't think the threshold is crossed on that point.

Councillor Salih Ahmed.

Thank you, Chair. I've got a couple of questions.

I understand that the development is, proposed development is being between two buildings,

one separately, the affordable housing is a separate one which is seven storey and ten

storey.

In terms of 280 units, which also be contributed towards the council's housing targets.

I just want to clarify in what terms the council is benefited from the other 280 units.

That's my first question.

I'll go on to the second one.

Thank you.

In terms of housing targets, Councillor, the 280 co -living units equates to 156 homes.

So the proposal would deliver 156 homes in terms of the co -living units and then an additional

44.

So overall towards the council's housing delivery, that's

a delivery of 200 homes towards the council's housing delivery target.

So you were saying that those 280 or so units is also being, is going to help the council's

residential living target as well. And I also want to clarify one thing is the hackneying

and Fish Island, since it is basically established 20 metres above the ground level,

which is at the moment, and we are about to discuss or give permission for a house,

which is the building that which comprises of what, 10 storeys, 7 storeys.

So how do you justify these big changes within the same, and as my colleague asked the question

before that, is there any impact on the local other houses nearby, apart from sunlight or

in terms of blending the area?

Yeah, so the LLDC local plan does specify that the established building heights are

kind of around the 20 metre mark. However, the policy does allow kind of further heights

subject to certain criteria and we're confident that it meets that criteria in terms of the

former massing. The council's play shaping team are happy that the heights are acceptable

and it helps to blend into the established local townscape.

In the committee report I've drawn upon a few views where we think it sits comfortably

in the local area, particularly it's on a prominent junction so we think that the ten

storey heights sit well on the edge of this cluster of Fish Island.

And then aside from that, it contributes positively in terms of public realm at ground level.

There's a new public, free accessible landscape courtyard with play space for the wider community

as well.

And importantly, that policy does allow us to consider building heights that enable significant

public benefit.

So in this instance, the 44 social rent homes are, it comes from the building heights that

So we are comfortable that it meets the policy in terms of design and building heights in

this instance.

Councillor Aicbau was in.

Thank you, Chair.

A lot of objection point out by the objector is related to the height and mass of the building.

So I just wanted to know, has the applicant demonstrated that the site is within an identified

toll zone building as required by the Law and Law Plan D9?

If not, how do you justify an elementary development within the site?

Yeah, so kind of similar to my last answer, we think it's comfortably within the townscape,

the tallest building is positioned on that corner junction, so kind of away from the

wider cluster.

We are attributing significant weight to the delivery of the 44 social rent homes, which

is enabled through these building heights, essentially.

Just to add, Councillor, the policy specifically allows the provision of tall building outside

of tall building zones. As Fran said in the LDC local plan, in this specific area, the

prevailing building height is 20 metres, so anything tall and 20 metres is considered

to be a tall building and then we have to assess against policy DN .5 as the objector

referenced and then that policy talks about the building being of very good design in

proportion, scale and matting in terms of the character of the area and also the proposal

overall providing significant public benefits which this proposal does, it provides a significant

It is a significant number of homes towards the council's housing target and a significant

number of social rented homes and family homes.

It is also in an opportunity area where dense urban development is intended to be delivered.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, chair.

My question to the officers.

Objector also mentioned in her speech, mainly the public transport exit is in the area of

accessibility, which has public transport accessibility level of two.

Could you clarify this, please?

Yeah, it is a PTAL rating of two.

The site is located right next to two bus stops and it's kind of an under 10 minute

walk to Hackney WIC station.

So whilst it is a PTR rating of two, we do consider there to be sufficient transport

links in this area.

Thank you, Chip.

May I ask the objectors?

So thank you for coming and presenting your arguments.

My sister lives in Fisheylin, so I know the area well.

And I know the crux of your argument was the loss of daylight, local residents and also

toloda.

Considering that we have such a high waiting list, shortage of homes in the borough, 30 ,000

or 31 ,000 people on the waiting list, and considering that this proposal is offering

100 % or 44 social homes.

I mean, have you, do you not believe that the harm, you know, or the benefit outweighs

the harm?

And also, have you considered kind of or spoken to the applicant in terms of providing alternatives,

alternatives plans or designs that can mitigate some of the harms that you've mentioned?

Thank you for the question.

So we are very pro social housing and offering social housing.

Obviously it's an important benefit and we are very aware of the need.

That's not what we are objecting to at all, if anything more social housing.

But what we are objecting to is that it's not actually only the harm to the existing

buildings that we object to, which has been covered by your questions, but also we believe

that there is harm from that huge block to the proposed social housing.

The social housing doesn't have good daylight impacts from that building either.

So we would argue actually yes it's delivery of social housing but not fantastic quality social housing.

In terms of alternatives, we haven't seen any, there's not been any that I've seen.

Admittedly I wasn't able to go to any of the engagement events because I have a young son, I work full time,

it wasn't a time that I could do but I know other residents who did and any concerns they shared at those meetings.

My anecdotal feedback back to me was that they weren't really offered an alternative

or anything meaningful in terms of compromise.

So I haven't personally, I know other people have asked, we haven't seen an alternative proposal.

It's just kind of, it's got to be ten storeys otherwise the social housing doesn't work.

I've seen no evidence to suggest, to prove that basically.

I've not seen any other alternatives offered.

Just to follow up very briefly on that, there were multiple events held that were and information

shared but as far as I can tell the plans submitted don't deviate in any way from the

height that was shared initially in consultation before the plans were submitted to Council.

So I'd like to follow that up, Chair, with a question to the applicant.

What kind of consultations have you held with the local residents?

Were there any proposals put forward by them in terms of alternatives?

Were they taken into account or consideration?

I'd like to hear from you.

Thank you, Councillor.

As I said in my speech, there was an extensive community consultation process undertaken with residents.

This included two rounds of public consultation through an exhibition where members of the public community could come down and visit, speak to the design team.

We had the architect there, we had the landscaping consultant, we had the client there.

So there was an opportunity to view the plans and share comments and feedback.

There was a live website that we had that gave people who weren't able to come to the exhibition the opportunity to submit comments, which again we were able to review and digest.

and there was an open engagement process with the community consultant who was acting on behalf of our client.

In terms of alternatives, we went through a thorough design process with offices with the design review panel who we saw twice.

I think what we establish is there's a balance on this site to achieving policy objectives

in terms of delivering housing and also establishing a scheme that can fit in with the environment

and the context. As officers have indicated in the report, there are some challenges,

there are some pinch points, but I think overall on balance this delivers a very high quality

scheme that importantly delivers homes for the borough. So I think we have to assess

today what's in front of you. We did show the design rationale through the submission

documents, particularly the design and access statements, which looks at how the schemes

evolved over the period of engagement with offices and the GLA and the quality review

panel. So I think we've been through a very thorough process.

See the consultation events you held. Do you have a record of how many people were telling them of the events?

I don't have that to hand, but there's somebody in the audience who might be able to answer that question.

Were you there yourself?

Would you like to introduce yourself?

With your permission, Chair.

Kaya Chadwe from Quattro.

So we've had enough of the consultation work.

So in round one, the two exhibition events, we had 50 residents.

In round two, which was in February this year, we had 36 residents attend.

I think in total we had more than 100 feedback forms submitted.

Thank you.

And question to the officers.

You said you had around 200 objections.

Was it all from the island or other parts?

Do you know?

Yeah, there was 180 objections and they're all from residents very local to the site.

Thank you.

Councillor Martin Parker.

Thank you.

I'd like to sort of understand how this equates to, as it says, that it would provide sort

of well -lipped sunlight in the summer months, because 21st of June is the summer and two

hours of good night doesn't sound like good sunlight.

I think that the requirement for the two hours is based on the BRE guidelines and that's

So I think that we've drawn the conclusion based on what the BRE guidelines have set

out.

Yes, that's what it says in the report, but I don't really, sort of like, two hours doesn't

No, the BRE guidance seems to be very limited then, if it's saying that two hours is acceptable.

So how come that...

Do you know the basis of the BRE guidance?

Is that two hours is that sort of full sun and then there's sort of partial sun the rest of the time?

because that's the amenity space being affected would seem to be very important.

The BRE guidelines, they are set up by the building research establishment.

They produce a document, the BRE guidelines, and they set out what they are.

I mean they are, I guess, industry leading experts on daylight and sunlight

and the implications of development on daylight and sunlight.

And I mean I can't claim to be an expert myself,

but they are industry experts and they've taken that measure,

I understand they've taken that measure as what they consider to be

good levels of sunlight in immunity areas so that they've based that off.

They've said that's what they think satisfies good daylight.

So having that two hours on over 50 % of the area on certain dates within the year.

That's, I mean we, our policy, not the LLDC policy, but our policy specifically refers to the BRE guidelines

and it's accepted, I think, industry wide, like across London, that the BRE guidelines are the leading guidelines.

And we don't, I don't think people typically challenge the BRE guidelines.

I think people are generally, I mean developers work towards them, planning officers work towards them.

We don't generally have people say they're not fit for purpose, but I haven't heard that said very often.

Okay, thank you. I have another question which is to do with the co -living.

I noted that the kitchens are actually shared kitchen spaces on different levels to the

accommodation so you would actually have to travel to use the kitchen.

I'm not familiar with co -living so I don't know what sort of standards that there should

be, for example, should there be secured lockers in the kitchen spaces, how are the kitchen

spaces used, so are there criteria that need to be met, the co -living spaces, do we have

some standards or guidelines by which we can say, well, this is good or this is bad or

this is indifferent?

Yes, so there's a London plan guidance on purpose -built shared living accommodation

and this proposal does follow that guidance.

So there's kitchenettes within each studio unit, which obviously within the private units,

but then yeah, occupiers would travel I think it's to the ninth floor where the kitchens

are, the shared kitchens, and there would be storage space.

I guess it's more of an operational management question about where utensils would be stored, for example.

That's not something that we have that information at the moment, that's more of a management of the building question.

To be clear, I think the occupants would have the option, because they've got a kitchenette, of cooking in their room,

even eating in their room or using perhaps for a bigger meal or just to socialise using the shared immunity space.

The size of the shared immunity spaces including the kitchens is effectively governed or dictated by the guidelines that Fran mentioned.

So each individual unit accrues a level of immunity or an immunity requirement which goes into these bigger immunity spaces like kitchens and other immunity spaces.

and the proposals meet those guidelines and that criteria.

But we, as Fran said, a lot of the considerations about do you have a locker and how that would work,

that would come down to the operator and it's not something that we would control in planning.

Okay, thank you. That raises the question, like if somebody had, if this was Studio Flats,

there would be a certain sort of London Plan space requirement.

So are you saying that part of that space requirement is then sort of taken away and

then given to the shared kitchen?

So how do you determine what the minimum space requirement is for the co -living unit?

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works.

I would say, Councillor, the units themselves are smaller than a standard one bedroom flat,

for example. There is guidance again in that London Plan guidance on room size, which I

think is somewhere between 18 and 24 square metres, and that this proposal complies with

the room sizes in the guidance. And yes, as you say, there's a provision of amenity spaces

for people to come together collectively, either to eat or to cook, and there are co -working

spaces and a variety of different types of amenity spaces throughout the building, and

external space as well, so that people have choice as to where they cook and where they

spend their time.

Thank you.

Councillor Kambu -Hussain.

Thank you, Chair.

I have got a question for the officer.

In the report, paragraph 5 .4, the Environment Agency raises concerns regarding potential

contamination in the water.

On 5 .5 the report has been submitted by the applicant or the council.

They disagree with that report.

And then comes on 5 .7, the environment agency raises no objection, subject to some conditions.

So I can see these conditions, but no one says have we agreed with the conditions

and how we're going to impose this condition to the applicant.

Can you explain on this, please?

Yeah, so the conditions that the Environment Agency have recommended,

we've given the headlines of conditions at the end of the committee report

that the applicant is aware of and has agreed to the wording in principle.

So whilst they have, the Environment Agency has concerns about land contamination,

They think that if further details are provided through condition when they get to the relevant stages of the build

Or before the build then their objection

they don't have an objection if we secure these further details later down the line essentially and

Yet the applicant has agreed to those conditions and the wording recommended by the environment agency

Understand so the planning permission is subject to these conditions. Am I right?

Yeah, and all the conditions are listed at the end of the report.

And we would re -consult the Environment Agency on their specific conditions.

Chair, just to come in, thank you, Councillor, for your question.

So I was just having a quick look.

So in the recommendations, conditions 10, 11 and 12 cover the Environment Agency matters

and we've also referenced that when the permission is granted, the process would be that they

would have to discharge those conditions by submitting the relevant information and then

as Fran explained, we would go back to the environment agencies to cheque that they were

happy with what was submitted before those conditions were finally discharged.

So they are in the recommendation.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Sulu -Kamad.

Thank you, Chair. Just quickly, I just want to go back to the objection letters.

Obviously, you just mentioned 180 objection letters you received from the local residents.

What was the actual issues that they're objecting to?

Because it could be various different reasons they're objecting,

but what is highlighted in the process?

Yeah, so the committee report sets out the full summary of all the objections.

I would say the main ones that were reoccurring were the impacts of daylight and sunlight

The proposed building Heights and the impacts on local infrastructure

That's kind of the main free that will reoccurring

So it's just a basic the build -up of the

development nothing else

yeah, so I think the main comments were that the

the area are generally around four to six storeys in height and there was concerns that

this goes up to ten storeys, so comments that it wasn't in keeping with the surrounding

building heights.

Councillor Aichalowo.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going back to the question asked by my colleague, Councillor Ahmed, about consultation.

Consultation is just not the number.

People came in and listened to you.

Meaningful concentration means listening and making adjustment.

So I am sure that some of you are certain that you attended your consultation sessions.

So how did you feed their concern into the planning process?

Just wanted to know, thank you.

I think as I said we undertook a very extensive consultation process with residents.

There were concerns around things like the height raised, but we felt that it was acceptable.

and importantly was delivering on the objectives of local policies and regional policies.

There are some moves we did make to ensure the scheme would fit in with the local context.

I think I touched on in the presentation there, there's a community cafe that's available

that would be open to the public. That provides an important amenity because a lot of the feedback was

around many amenities, there aren't many cafes available,

there's a lot of redundant commercial space.

So that's something we focused on,

we felt whilst weren't that many design moves

that could be made, we could focus on something

at ground level place making,

and trying to bring the community into the scheme.

So that was probably one of the key moves we made.

Any more questions?

Yep, Mr Parker.

Thank you, Chair.

What was the viability assessment like on this scheme?

So the scheme doesn't include a viability assessment because it was considered to meet

the GLAs fast track policy that the amount of affordable housing provided met the threshold

to not require viability scrutiny.

Thank you.

Councillor Ahmad O 'Khan.

I don't know.

Probably I missed it.

I looked on the I couldn't find it.

Please help me with that.

Those 44 affordable homes familiar homes because nowadays people who move into the affordable homes

They find their

big

like four or five bedroom and two bedrooms are

where you collect

They have kitchen and everything is open open. Sorry. Thank you very much open plans. So I would like to

know from the

a developer or the officer that is these 44 homes will be the open

platform it will be separate kitchens and separate sitting room as well.

So the family units will have separate kitchen and dining spaces?

So the larger family units, the three and four beds will have the separate kitchen and dining facilities?

Their living room and their kitchen will be separate.

And also their dining will be within the kitchen.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

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

Councillor?

Thank you, Mr Chair.

This proposal will result in material reductions in daylight and sunlight received to some

neighbouring properties and also this proposal will not comply with other policies within

the development plan.

However, in this development, a significant weight is attributed to the provision of 40 %

affordable housing, at least by this proposed development we will get some housing.

And it will reduce some overcrowding in housing in our borough, so I am supporting the recommendation.

Thank you.

Councillor Lecce -Lagame.

Thank you, Chair.

I think the proposed development, although there are some

dos and don'ts, you know, like some objections there,

but in overall I think the official's recommendation is why,

because if you weigh between the objectives and the need of this development for our bar,

I think the research recommendation is is valid and quite

pleased to support the

Application to go ahead. Thank you. Thank you

Mr. Parker consular Martin

Thank you chair I

also

concerned about the sunlight and

daylight impacts and I feel that the

fast track process has been used here to actually in effect present us with a very difficult decision.

There doesn't seem to have been much attempt either to engage with the residents from what was said with regards to consultation,

with regards to the heights of the co -living block which had it been shorter may have lessened

those impacts.

So I'm considering abstaining on this application.

Thank you, Chair.

I think it's a good application.

It will deliver the homes that some of our residents need but at the same time I'm worried

that the social housing homes are squeezed into the most darkest part of the development

and I fear the residents are going to be boxed in so on that note I believe as much as we

I don't think I can justify supporting it.

Thank you.

Mr Igua or anyone else?

Thank you, chair.

Listen to the objections and regarding loss of sunlight to the proposed homes as well

as the neighbouring blocks.

Also residents' concerns with the height of the block.

But considering the housing situation that we have and the proposal, the provision of

40 % for social housing.

On balance, I just think, you know, significant weight should be given to that regard by the

provision of social housing.

So I'm minded to support this application.

Thank you.

Councillor Hegwalasen.

Thank you Chair.

It's a very difficult one because the people who are living there, the sunlight impact will be lasting impact.

It's not just for days or years, it's going to be lasting impact.

And on the other hand, the council is struggling with dealing with a huge shortage of housing

in the borough.

So it's a very difficult one.

On the balance, I'm reluctantly supporting this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair. After listening from the officer, from the applicant and from the objector,

I share some of the concern raised by the objector and some of the residents who participated

in the consultation. Ideally we don't want to live in a property where not a slightly

amount of sunlight loss. Ideally we don't want to live where no amenity has been compromised.

But 29 ,000 people, my Councillor colleague just mentioned, 31 ,000 people are on the waiting

list and some of the people we do go to, the people come to our surgery, we go to the hospital

when we do door knockings, some of the people are so desperate, they want some of the property,

some seven, eight people living in a one bedroom property and when I see these children that

don't have any space, forget about the study space, they don't even have a space to sleep

properly. So when I think about those kids, I think this outweighs the harm presented

presented already acknowledged by the officer as well.

So I think I'm supporting this proposal.

And this is 40 % affordable homes, not just affordable,

40 % social rented homes.

So this is a brilliant example,

and I will be supporting this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

As I agree with other colleagues,

as we are election manifestos that will build more home for social rent and as he said that

nearly 30 ,000 people are waiting list and some of them are outside the borough and denying those

for home delaying this for them that delaying them coming back home so I do agree with the

sunlight and other issues that objective have raised I expect that I do agree that but I think

the people need homes. As a counsellor, people come into our surgeries every day and say

they need to leave alone bed space. They don't have a private space for them and their parents.

So this is why I'm going to support this development. Thank you.

Thank you to all for sharing your thoughts. I would now like to ask Paul and Susan, our

to vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to yourself and the committee members for really scrutinising this application quite

deeply and listening to the concerns of residents and also looking at the officer assessment.

I don't really have too much to add, Chair.

I just wanted to mention one thing that didn't quite come up in the discussion, but it just

may be worth articulating why we've put significant weight on the affordable housing.

and I think Councillor Hussain actually touched on it.

The LLDC development plan policy requires 35 %

affordable housing, similar to Tara Hamlet's book

with a different split of 60 % rented and 40 % intermediate.

What this development has been able to do

is to optimise the affordable housing in a different way.

so it's more than 35 % and it's 100 % social rented.

So it's sort of going beyond the minimum

the policy would require,

and that's why we have placed weight on that.

The scheme is not without its challenges,

and we've heard detailed discussion

about the impacts on daylight and sunlight.

That's an important planning consideration,

but in our assessment, we've looked at it

not just in terms of the numerical effect,

but has the scheme been designed in a way

that is intensifying that impact or has it been designed in a way that tries to make the best use of the site

without incurring the most adverse impacts and I think we've fallen on the latter

so we think it is a sustainable approach to development

in terms of the height, absolutely that there is a prevailing building height in Fish Island

but the strategy for this site is to move the tallest parts of the building to the end of the urban block

so it does seem an appropriate location on that corner

So I guess in summary that's just in a way dealing with some of those issues that members

have raised during the discussion.

But other than that you can see the recommendation.

I don't have anything else to add, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't actually have any legal points to raise.

I think it's really good to see members scrutinising the scheme and they've had very healthy debates

and points that you may move to a decision.

Thank you, everyone.

I now propose the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission for the application

at Westbrook Road, subject to planning condition obligation and any direction from the Mayor

of London.

Can I see all those in favour?

All those against?

Any abstention?

Paul, can I ask you please to confirm the committee decision?

So to confirm, the committee has voted with seven members in favour, one against and one

abstention.

Our majority vote to grant planning commission for the redevelopment of the site at one spec

road in accordance with the detail set out in agenda item 5 .1 of the agenda.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you.

Agenda item 6 .1.

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

Requesting for development committee and strategic development committee to note the introduction

of national scheme of delegation and the proposed changes to the Committee terms of reference.

I now invite Paul to introduce the application.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for bearing with me while I just got the presentation up.

So this is not an application for decision.

There's no decisions to be made.

But there is an update which you might recall that we referred

to this briefly during committee training.

This is referred to as the national scheme of delegation.

So to give you some background and context,

this is part of the government's ongoing reforms

of the planning system.

and you may be aware that local planning authorities vary quite considerably in their arrangements

for which planning applications are decided by officers and which applications come to

a committee. So each planning authority, so Tarahum, has its own local scheme of delegation.

However it varies quite considerably across the country. So the government started work

on introducing what they're calling a national scheme, which provides a framework as to which

applications should be decided by officers and which should come to committee.

They've now introduced those through regulations.

Those regulations come into force on the 31st of October this year, and they're supported

by statutory guidance as well.

And in the presentation, I've just put the links to those.

I can send the presentation around afterwards, so you've got that.

So I guess the question is what's changing?

So what the regulations do is they have two different schedules of application types.

Schedule one are applications that have to be determined by officers and they are largely

what you might call the more sort of minor scale development.

So for example, household or extensions, minor development and when we say minor that's where

there's fewer than 10 new homes or less than a thousand square metres of floor space.

and then other technical things like discharging planning conditions,

lawful development certificates and other what you might call routine applications.

Schedule 2 are the applications that can be referred to committee but there's no obligation to.

And that includes major planning applications.

It also includes listed building consents,

adverse tree preservation order consents,

which is a bit unusual, I'll come on to that in a minute.

But the referral has to be through what's called a gateway test.

So there's no obligation to refer them to committee, but there is a process if the council

wishes to.

So the schedule two applications can go to committee if, and bear with me because I'm

using the terminology from the regulations, a nominated officer, a nominated member agree

that the proposal raises issues of economic, social or environmental significance locally,

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

If agreement isn't reached then the assumption is the application must be determined by officers.

So the key change for us is the regulations and the guidance are really clear that you can't have in your constitution anything that says that an application will come to committee just because x number of people objected.

or that there's a call in arrangement to the committee.

We do actually have both of those.

The call in arrangements, I have to say in my experience,

I can't remember the last time they were ever used,

but you will be aware, and it's not so much for this committee,

it mainly affects the development committee.

The development committee sometimes deal with quite small -scale developments,

but they're there because our constitution says if 20 or more representations in objection have been received.

And that's the bit that the law is quite clear that after 31st August you can't have that as a reason in itself.

It has to be through that gateway test.

It doesn't mean you can't have regard to what people are saying and you can't have regard to the objections.

Of course you can. They will still be reported. It's just that the volume cannot be the trigger.

That's the main thing that changes.

There's also some arrangements for what are called own interest applications, and those

are applications where the council as an organisation is the applicant, or it could be a counsellor

is the applicant, or it could even be an officer who lives in the borough is the applicant

as well.

Now, they can be referred to committee whether they're either in schedule one or schedule

two.

That's a slightly different test, and that's more to do with supporting transparency and

public confidence in the process.

There is a bit of a nuance there around how we would make

those decisions to whether it's referred to committee.

So at one end of the scale you can probably accept that

an application that's part of the council's house building

programme where the council is the applicant,

maybe a major state regeneration programme,

it would be good for that to be referred to committee.

At the other end of the scale if the council's applying

to replace some outdated windows in a school block, which is quite minor, whether that

genuinely would need to come to committee for transparency reasons.

So we will need to prepare some detailed guidance to help us to make those decisions.

The regulations sort of leave it open to us, and it's up to us how we kind of apply that.

So there needs to be some, I suppose, proportionality there.

I mentioned earlier that Schedule 2 includes advert trees and listed building consent applications.

Now as a committee member you've probably not really seen any of these and that's because they're almost always delegated in Tower Hamlets.

When the government was consulting on these arrangements we questioned that because in the last five years Tower Hamlets has determined over 1700

of these very minor kind of applications.

They tend to be quite technical.

They go through the process and they don't tend

to raise any particular planning issues.

You can imagine if we had to take every single one of those

through the gateway process, I think the officers

and members would probably just be sat there forever churning

through paperwork.

So the regulations allow you

to have what are called triaged applications.

And you can set out in your constitution

that some applications, they may be in schedule two,

but they're not gonna go through the gateway process

because they just don't raise any issues.

So the proposal that will be put to full council in October,

and having sort of looked at this across

other London boroughs, is that those three types

of applications will be called triaged applications,

they'll stay as officer delegated because they don't

really raise any particular issues.

unless members disagree and would like to see lots of applications for shopfront signage and things like that.

But it's just a pragmatic approach.

So what are the implications for Taohamtland?

So we and every other planning authority have to update our constitution because if we didn't we would be at risk of judicial review or challenge.

We have to designate who the nominated officer or nominated member of carrying out that gateway test.

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

or other officer with significant experience and normally the nominated member would be

the chair of the relevant committee with the vice chair perhaps stepping in if there was

an urgent decision to be made or they weren't available.

So again in the report to council we're recommending that the nominated officer or member that

decide that gateway test would be the director planning, building control and the chairs

of the two committees along with my role and the area planning manager roles which is Simon

Westmoreland and Gareth Gwynne as having those roles. So there can be a bit of deputising

that goes on if somebody is away. What would be the impacts on planning committees? We

that mean all scales, are delegated to officers

in Tarihama, and that's, it might sound a lot,

but it's not necessarily uncommon.

It averages about 96 % nationally, so it's good practise,

and it means that as a committee, you are scrutinising

the most important applications.

Where we think the impact might be would be

on the development committee, and it would be

those very small -scale applications that have been referred

in the past because of the level of objection

and won't be allowed to do that going forward.

And that's where the impact could be.

However, those of you who've been on committee

for a little while will know that the SDC agendas

often come under quite a lot of pressure.

You often have quite a lot of reports.

Development committee has been slightly different

and has had quite the same pressure.

So as a result of this, we've looked at an opportunity

to try and rebalance that a little bit.

And we looked at three different options.

So option one is just keep everything exactly as it is.

Option two, keep the two committees, same membership, same frequency, but just look

at the terms of reference slightly.

And option three, we did consider, like some councils do, we just have a single planning

committee, but we just felt that that was quite disruptive because we'd have to do a

lot of constitutional change and it would mean very different arrangements.

So the report that's going to full council in October will recommend option two.

And one of the changes we're looking at, if I give you a really practical example,

so you may be familiar with the council's cliche estate regeneration proposals,

which have about roughly 400 new homes in them.

Interestingly you would think that might be a strategic development committee application,

it wasn't, it came to Development Committee purely because the way that our current constitution

is written, this committee deals with schemes of more than 500 homes or where there's a

30 metre height threshold and none of the buildings in that scheme exceeded 30 metres

and that's why it went to Development Committee.

Other end of the scale, I recall an application on quite a small site in Oldgate which had

There were roughly 70 new homes in it, so far less than the Kleshe Estate, that came to SDC purely because of the height.

So that 30 metre rule that's currently written in there, which comes from the Mayor of London order,

is, we think, is a bit peculiar in the Tower Hamlets context because we have our fair share of tall buildings,

and height isn't necessarily the only determinant of whether something is strategic or not.

So we're looking at changing that arrangement to try and get a slightly better balance so

that the two committees are sharing the load a bit more.

So if I was to sum up what do we currently do and what will the law require us to do

after 31st October so that currently each council has its own locally defined scheme

delegation, we have various referral criteria including the 20 objections and we do have

member call -in arrangements.

After 31st October we'll have this national scheme.

It will set these nationally set criteria, albeit they are not, hopefully it's come across,

I think they're more of a framework, they're not prescribing because they can't do on a

national basis, they're a framework to allow us to decide what comes to committee.

We have this gateway test and certainly the chairs and vice -chairs are probably going to be involved in that quite a lot.

It should provide greater consistency between local planning authorities.

So the next steps is only the full council can change the constitution.

So we'll be taking a report through to full council on 7th of October, I believe it is.

Yeah, 7th.

That will recommend adopting the mandatory changes.

It will recommend retaining both committees as they currently are, but just slightly tweaking

the threshold between DC and SDC.

We will also have to update our own internal scheme of management for what applications

officers determine. Probably what I should have put on here as well, I've admitted to

mention, is the regulations require us to publish all of those gateway tests, so it's

really clear to, not just to us but to members of the public, how those decisions about whether

to refer or not to refer were made. And then this is just a practical recommendation that

we have a triage arrangement that we don't take all of our

many, many listed building consents and tree preservation

or the consents all the way through the gateway test

because that's not a great use of everyone's time.

And I guess we will be reviewing and monitoring

how it affects our community case flows going forward.

So thank you for bearing with me,

lots of information in there.

I know some of you have heard it before

if you're on development committee.

I'm happy to take any comments or questions.

I say no decisions made, it's just an update made so you're aware of the situation.

Thank you Paul.

Do members have any questions?

One very simple question Paul.

So say like for development committee, you also sit on development committee, so is an

are allowed to request their application should be

go to the committee or not?

No, an applicant can't themselves request,

whether it goes to a particular, no, it has to,

if their application falls within schedule one,

then it has to be delegated to officers,

unless it's one of those open interest applications,

in which case we are allowed to take it

for transparency reasons.

And if it's full and in Schedule 2, then we go through the gateway test.

What I would say, though, if you look, and we can apply it, it's written in quite an

open -ended way.

So the gateway test is, does the proposal raise issues of economic, social, and environmental

significance locally?

And does the proposal raise any significant planning matters?

Now, if you think of the kind of things that do tend to come to committee in this council,

you could imagine that most major development is going to tick one of those boxes.

So in some ways the larger scale major developments I would envisage will still come to committee.

It feels unusual that they wouldn't do.

And in what we've been looking at in how we do the schedule to gateway test is we will do it

after the first closing dates for any neighbour notifications

and any statutory consultees.

So whilst we can't refer something just because 30 people objected,

what we can do is look at whether those objections are talking about

economic, social and environmental issues.

And also we can look at what statutory consultees say.

So for example, in the last application, we talked about the environment agency who are

a statutory consultee and they'd raised some issues. So if we get comments back that raising

particular issues, notwithstanding at this point, it doesn't matter, we haven't got a

recommendation at this point, we're not saying whether we're going to approve it or refuse

it, we're just saying are there issues to be considered. And if a statutory consultee

that there are issues that need to be addressed, then we are allowed to take that into account

in the gateway test, whether there are economic, social and environmental issues of significance

that would mean that it should go to committee.

So it is a different way of working and I think a lot of people, I think we're not alone,

there's a lot of email traffic as you might imagine between local authorities, how do

we best make this work?

Thank you very much.

Thank you, chair.

So one of my questions was

actually going to be about how we actually do

the economic, social and

environmental significance,

because it's sort of

what does that actually mean?

It's sort of like

one of those legal things

of sort of

where do you

draw the line on that.

And the other point was on the triage test,

and was with respect to listed building consent,

is that there could be listed building consent which

could be linked to things that would actually fall under the,

come into the gateway test.

So we would need to make sure that when we triage,

that the triaging process didn't sort of triage out

the listed building consent separate from the main application.

Thank you. Two really good questions. So I think the first one, we are still finding

our feet a little bit and we're looking to try and develop some local guidance around

what significance means. In a way, the gateway tester, it only has to tick just one of those,

it doesn't have to tick all of them. And I just feel from instinct and experience that

particularly major developments in Tower Hamlets are probably going to raise at least one of

those in some way.

I think it's probably a judgement call, but I think we're also having regard to the Planning

Advisory Service, who are part of the Local Government Association, and also an organisation

called the Planning Officers Society, are starting to produce some ideas for local authorities

to help them navigate that.

So we will start to develop our own local guidance and then publish that so it's really

clear to everybody. Your point about listed building consents, yes absolutely and when

we have reported this building consent committee is because they've been submitted in parallel

with a planning application that does that. I probably kind of skirted over it a bit,

we still propose to do that so if it's a listed building consent just to make some internal

alterations to a Grade 2 listed building, there's no planning application etc, we wouldn't

and visited that committee.

If it was a listed building consent that was submitted jointly with a large major application

that triggered the gateway test, then yes, we would report that in parallel.

So apologies, that was a really good point and I'll clarify that.

And that actually just reflects our current arrangements.

Thank you Councillor Agb

Thank you Chair Paul

Very quick one

So as a Councillor, we're going to see changes in the town hall

Can I put in the application?

To make changes?

Sorry, to suggest changes to

The town hall, this is the chamber

I think you just need to come out.

Yes, well I mean it's, well I suppose, yes, oh well in theory, yes, I mean what I would

say, just to be clear, these regulations don't change anything about how you submit an application,

they don't change anything about how an application is assessed, they don't change anything about

policy, it's purely about the route to the final, who makes the final decision, that's

all it's about. And yes, in theory, you could, because you probably know from your training

that you can actually, anyone can submit an application on any land as long as you give,

there's a formal notice that you have to do, isn't there? And then whether, if you've got

your permission, whether you can actually go ahead is a completely different question,

because you might have secured the permission, but you might not be able to do anything with

it because you don't own the land.

After this question, we're going to take in no more questions.

If anyone do have any more questions, feel free to email Paul or team.

Thank you, Chair.

I won't be long.

It's just an observation or clarification, I'd like, Paul.

So where it says a member and an officer cannot be in agreement whether it should be referred

to committee, then the officer makes the decision.

Is that part of the guidance from the government?

Or is this something that we've,

is this how we've interpreted the guidance?

Yeah, really good question and interested Suzanne

and I have been looking at this really, really closely.

So the regulations are silent on it, but the statute of guidance

that you have to have regard to, which is not our guidance,

the government's guidance includes that particular bit if agreement is not reached.

We are actually, as I speak, in the process of taking some council advice around what

regard has to be had to the guidance and also what can we put in place to say, I mean at

moment I would say that in terms of the relationship with this committee chair and Councillor Waheed

on development committee, I sort of feel that we would work together and we would always

try and reach agreement. But I think your question is quite pertinent because obviously

this isn't just about current offices or current councillors, it's about future proofing going

forward. So that's why we instructed Council, had a really productive meeting with her on

Tuesday and we're hoping that her advice will come back around this particular point.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for everyone's questions.

Like I said, if anyone do have more questions, feel free to email Paul.

With that, we note the introduction of national scheme of delegation and proposed changes

of the Strategic Development Committee terms of reference.

Thank you very much.

The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 22nd October 2026.

As we have no further reports to consider, then I close the meeting at time, 9 o 'clock.

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 CommitteeThursday, 10th September 2026 at 6:30pm

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

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

5 a) PA/26/00765/A1 - Land at Wansbeck Road, Fish Island, London, E3 2NF

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

Strategic Development Committee
Thursday, 10th September 2026 at 6:30pm