Interactive webcast player

Development Committee
Thursday, 5th November 2026 at 6:30pm

 

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you. 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Good evening, everybody.
Welcome to the Development Committee meeting, Thursday the 5th of November 2026.
I am the chair of the Development Committee, Councillor Abdul -Wahid.
Do apologise for the late start.
We had a very important Young People's Award happening in the town hall.
So that's why we're a bit delayed.
So I do apologise.
Before we start, I'd like to remind all members
that they have committed through the members' pledge
to treat one another with dignity, respect,
and give others opportunity to speak,
and listen to different viewpoints,
and ensure that challenges are constructive and inclusive.
I look forward to seeing all attendees demonstrate
this commitment in their conduct this evening.
I would also like to give some brief reminder in regards to protocol of the meeting, including
virtual procedures.
This meeting is being webcast live on the Council's website and public and the press
may be following this meeting remotely.
So participants must address the meeting through myself, the Chair, and if you are participating
Please address me and you must switch on your microphone and your camera once you are addressing the meeting.
You can keep the microphone switched off at all times, other times.
Please do not use the chat facilities as it is not going to be monitored in the meeting.
So if there's any technical difficulties, please do contact the officers from the Democratic Services.
Thank you.
I also understand that our daylight and sunlight
overshadowing consultants from BRE are
online
and also from JJV
who have both joined us, I believe, online.
I want to welcome you to the meeting as well.
Can you hear us?
Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.
Thank you and welcome.
Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
Let's move on to the agenda.

1 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND OTHER INTERESTS

First, do you have any apologies for this meeting?
Thank you, Chair. I can confirm that I have not received apologies for this evening. Thank you.
Brilliant. Thank you very much. I will now ask all the members to introduce themselves.
And also, please state any declaration of interest that you may have in any part of the agenda.
I'll start with myself. As I said before, I'm Councillor Abdul -Wahid and I'm the Chair.
and I don't have any declaration for either item.
I'm going to pass it on to my right.
Good evening everyone, my name is Chanel Imea,
I'm the cabinet lead for Job Skills, Enterprise and Growth,
and I am the Councillor for Sandunston Ward,
and I don't have anything to declare of interest.
Thank you Chair, my name is Amina Ali,
I'm counsellor for Weaver's word and I don't have anything to declare today. Thank you
Thank you chair, I'm counsellor Martin Parker I from Bo West I have nothing to declare
Thank You chair council I will child read from Bethlehem West nothing to declare
Good evening chair if you want this counselling but Hussein and I have no interest to declare. Thank you
Thank you chair, my name is Ramod Raman Khan, and Black will keep it down, and I've got nothing to declare.

2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

Thank you very much, and when officers, when you're presenting, if you can also just introduce yourself, when you do present. Thank you very much.
Moving on, next item. Can we confirm the correct record of the meetings of the last development meeting, which was held on 8th of October, 2026?
Thank you. Okay. Item 4 on the agenda.
Development Committee revised terms of reference and amended summary description 2026 -2027.
I will now invite Frances, the Democratic Service Officer, to present the report, please.
Thank you, Chair.
So the report sets out the revised terms of reference, or the TOR, of the Development Committee as agreed by full Council on the 7th of October.
So as to align with the new national scheme of delegation introduced by the government,
Following approval by Council, minor amendments had been proposed to update the agreed DOR
to clarify and update the summary description.
The revised DOR plus the amendments are on Appendix 1 of the report.
For good governance practise, we therefore recommend for the Committee to note the revised
Development Committee terms of reference and agree the proposed amendments as set out in
Appendix 1.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Frances, for that.
I will now ask Paul Buckingham, head of development management planning and building control to
present the guidance for this meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you, chair.
Good evening.
Good evening, committee members, members of the public and officers who are joining us
this evening.
So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,
including legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant development
plan policies and relevant material considerations.
The process for considering the reports with recommendations and the procedure for public
speaking will run as follows.
So I will introduce the agenda item with a brief description of the application and the
summary of the recommendation.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE

Officers will then present the report and then anyone registered to speak in objection
can address the committee for up to three minutes each.
And anyone registered to speak in support, including the applicants, can also address
the committee for up to three minutes each.
We can also then hear from any councillors who have registered to speak for an equivalent time.
The committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers.
And then the committee will go on to consider the officer recommendation,
including any questions or further debate or advice that they would like to receive.
The committee will go on to reach their decision based on a majority vote,
and I'll confirm that back to everybody in the meeting.
If the committee propose any changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation,
for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of
formalising those changes is delegated back to the Director of Planning and Building Control.
In the event that the Committee do not accept the Office of Recommendation, they must give
their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action.
The Committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice, and
the task of formalising the Committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the Director
of Planning and Building Control.
If the committee proposed to make a decision that would appear to go against the provisions
of the development plan or could have any legal implications, then the item may be deferred
for further report from officers dealing with the proposed course of action.
There is an update report that's been circulated and tabled this evening and published online,
so I'll deal with those matters as we get to the individual items.
Thank you.
Thank you, Paul, for that.
Sorry, I've missed an item.
You can see how excited I am.
I've just won two, my young people have just won two awards, so I'm very excited.
So I've just missed, I'm going to go back to agenda number four, which Rekha has spoken
about the report.
Can I ask members, are they happy and agree with the officer's recommendation?
Next item.
application number five, deferred items.

5 DEFERRED ITEMS

Do you have any deferred items this evening to consider?
Thank you.
We have two planning applications to consider this evening.

6 a) PA/26/00559 - 2-20 Tomlinson Close & land to the East of 33-63 Tomlinson Close, London E2 7LJ

The first one, 6 .1, application PA 26 .00559 -2 to 20, Tomlinson Close, and the land to
the east of 33 to 63, Tomlinson Close, London E27LJ.
The item agenda is 6 .1, is a planning application for redevelopment of the site to provide five
storey and six storey buildings containing self -contained residential flats, class C3,
along with associated works.
I will now ask Paul to introduce the application.
So as the chair said, this is a planning application affecting the sites at 220 Tomlinson Close
and 3363 Tomlinson Close.
The planning application proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide a five storey and a
six storey buildings containing self contained residential flats, associated amenity areas,
refuse and recycling and cycle parking stores, landscaping, including the reconfiguration
of the existing allotments and public realm works.
The application is, sorry, the recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant
Planning Commission subject to planning conditions and obligations.
I should say the regulations that my colleague referred to just before came into force on
Saturday just gone.
So this report has been brought under the Council's previous constitution, but also
So we have confirmed that it meets the test for referral under the national scheme of
delegation as it raises significant environmental, social and economic issues and it is also
an only interest application because the council is the applicant in this case.
Just in terms of the summary report, Chair, if I may, so just a few things there.
It covers some additional representations that we received since the agenda was published.
So we received four additional representations covering some issues that were already raised
but also raising some concerns about the robustness of the viability appraisal and absence of
independent scrutiny.
A quick correction, we noticed that when we went through the original objections there
was some duplication there.
So having taken account of that and taking and adding in the four additional ones, we
We have 30 representations in objection.
We have also received some amended landscape drawings
and they deal with two particular issues.
So they deal with the food growing plots.
The original drawings showed a slight reduction
in the number of food growing plots.
They've now found a way of configuring those
to include 37 in total, which is what is present.
And also dealing with an access route
through to Curtin Gardens.
In terms of the recommendation, recommendation stays the same
to grant planning commission, but we have,
you'll see in the update report,
recommended two additional planning conditions.
So one is that the food growing plot shown
on the amended landscape drawings should be provided prior
to the first occupation of building two
and maintained as such thereafter.
And the second condition is that no demolition of the properties
at 220 Tomlinson Close
until building 2 has been completed and is ready for occupations.
That just deals with the phasing of the development.
That's all I have to say for the moment, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Paul, for that update.
We will now move on to the presentation.
I will now invite the Planning Case Officer Kirsty Gilmore to present the application,
please.
Thank you, Mr Buchanan.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm presenting the case today.
I'm Kirsty Gilman, one of the team leaders in the West Area team.
I'm joined by my colleague today, Gareth Gwynne, who is one of the West Area managers.
Just as a reminder, the scheme is part of the Mayors Accelerated Housing Programme.
So this is the application site in front of us.
The site is located to the east of Brick Lane and to the north of Padbury Court.
To the west, the site includes a two -storey residential building at 2 to 20 Tomlinson
Close.
That's just located here.
This contains 10 self -contained one -bed flats and is known as Site 1.
An area of open space is also included, and that is to the north here.
The site also encompasses land to the east of 3363 Tomlinson Close, and this includes
to Sunkum Ball Court, seven garages, food growing areas, and areas of open space.
This is known as Site 2 and is located over here.
The site is not in a conservation area, however the Redchurch Street conservation area is
located to the south, and that is just here to the south of Patbury, sorry, just on Patbury
Court to the south of Tomlinson.
I'm just going to give you a few slides of the existing context.
This slide shows 2 to 20 Tomlinson Close at the corner of Brick Lane and Tomlinson Close
with the two -storey properties currently on site one in the foreground and the four -storey
building in the background.
The four -storey building in the background just located here and here does not fall part
of the application site.
2 to 20 Tomlinson Close will be demolished as part of this proposal.
Just a few more slides of existing context.
This is at 33 to 63 Tomlinson Close and it is site 2.
Here's just an aerial view looking towards the east.
We have site 1 to the bottom of the screen and site 2 at the centre of the screen.
The proposal provides 55 self -contained residential dwellings, 22 market homes at site 1 and 33
affordable rented homes at site 2. Those homes will be at social rent levels. I'll now present
a few images of the proposed development before moving to consultation and key issues. Here
is building 1. This is facing south towards Pabbury Court and that will replace the two
storey block at 2 to 20 Thomason Close. This is the private block. And this is building
This is a six -storey residential building.
This is the affordable block.
The proposals also include a package of a statewide public realm, landscape and open
space improvements, including replacement food growing areas.
And just to give you a flavour of how it will appear in CGI, here's the proposed development
with building one, the private block, and building two, the affordable block.
With regards to consultation, the applicant team engaged in pre -app consultation with
the council and community in 2024 to 2025.
In terms of statutory consultation, the application has been advertised by way of letters, site
notice and press notice.
In total, 30 individual letters of objection and one petition was also received in objection
with 54 signatures.
The key issues are on the slide, but they include principle of development, demolition,
affordable housing, loss of open space, public realm allotments, design and heritage, amenity
impacts, transport and servicing, biodiversity and environmental impacts, and also the pre -application
consultation.
The key issues relating to this development include land use and housing, loss of the
existing ball court, the Mooga, open space and food growing, design and conservation,
amenity, transport and environment. As I've mentioned, the proposal involves the loss
of 10 one bed dwellings at 220 Tomlinson Close. The proposal will provide 22 market
units in building one and 33 affordable units at social rent in building two, as you can
The proposal will provide improved accommodation and will provide a substantially greater number
of homes, including affordable homes, as required by policy, that's specifically H8 of the
London plan.
In line with policy, the applicant has considered alternatives to demolition and this has been
considered within the submitted quality impact assessment.
The decant arrangements will be secured through the section 106 if permission is granted.
Turning to housing mix, as you can see from the slide, the proposal will deliver 72 % of
proposed habitable rooms as affordable housing at social rent and that constitutes 60 % of
homes.
The 10 existing homes with all one bed will be re -provided in this social rent tenure.
22 homes across the scheme will be family sized units and within the social rent tenure.
This equates to 66 % of homes as family sized accommodation.
An FBA has also been submitted and reviewed which demonstrates that any additional affordable
housing would result in the scheme being unviable.
As the chair has introduced our viability consultants, JJV are available on the call
should you have any specific questions in relation to viability.
Whilst not meeting the tenure mix set out in policy, the proposal delivers a range of
dwelling sizes, provides a high quantum of family units in the affordable tenure and
through the section 106 will secure a high affordable housing offer of 72 % by habitable
room at social rent.
For these reasons the proposal is acceptable in terms of housing.
Just touching now on wheelchair homes, the proposal will deliver seven wheelchair homes
and those will all be in the social rent tenure.
Three of these will be provided at ground floor as shown on the slide, one unit here,
unit here and a further unit down here.
Offices are of the view that the proposal delivers really high quality living accommodation
for future residents with good layouts and majority of units being double or even triple
aspect. Turning now to layout and open space, the proposal will result in the loss of the
multi -use games area, the Mooga, located where building two is proposed, and that is just
existing and proposed. This compromises 540 square metres of space, and given that it's
a ball court, that would be primarily space for 12 to 18 -year -olds. Mitigation for the
loss of the MUGA is proposed by way of financial contribution. That would be £90 ,000 and that
would be towards improvements to the existing facility on Brick Lane and Shacklewell Street.
The proposal will also involve the loss of some open space and would involve the reconfiguration
of the existing food growing areas. And here's the food growing areas in existing and here
they are in a more linear format in proposed.
Following feedback, officers have engaged
with the applicant team to ensure the number
of allotment plots remains at 37 plots,
and I've just shown you this on the slide.
That will be secured by condition.
The proposals involve the loss of one tree,
but 27 new trees will be planted across the site.
Again, this can be secured by condition.
The development will deliver new play space
for younger children aged 0 to 11 in three areas as shown on the slide. It's a little
bit faded so we've got an area over here, an area down here and an area up towards the
top. Contributions of £28 ,680 for play space and a maintenance cost would be secured in
the 106 for children of the older ages that are not catered for within this proposal.
Whilst the loss of the existing ball court, Mooga and Open Space weighs against the proposal,
officers are satisfied that the proposed mitigation, together with the substantial wider public
benefits of the scheme, are on balance acceptable.
Turning now to design and heritage matters, building one as shown to the left of the slide
would be five storeys and occupy a footprint broadly similar to the existing building.
Building 2, as I've shown on previous slides, would be six storeys.
While the scale of the proposal exceeds that of some of the surrounding estate buildings
and the terrace properties opposite on Padbury Court, as we can see on the slide,
the proposal has been carefully designed to reduce their visual impact and is appropriate in context.
Officers are of the view that the proposal would result in some low level of harm
to the significance of the Redchurch Street conservation area and nearby heritage assets
through changes to their setting.
However, the proposal would not materially detract from the key elements that contribute
to their significance and the proposal is acceptable in heritage terms.
I just wanted to give you a flavour of the appearance of materials.
High quality design has fed through this proposal and how it appears and this is building one
that's been, it has, it relates to the existing context
by using a red brick palette that is visible
in the Redchurch Street Conservation Area.
And this is building two, which is the affordable block.
It's a lighter buff brick, and more in line
with the existing estate.
High quality design features include architectural
detailing, window recesses and reveals,
very brickwork treatment, the balcony design,
and also the entrances that are articulated
to provide visual interest and depth.
In terms of amenity, building one would be largely positioned
on the existing footprint.
However, the mass will increase to five storeys
and that will obviously have some impact
to neighbouring amenity.
Separation distances are 11 .4 metres
to Padbury Court is its narrowest and that is compared
to 10 .6 metres in the existing condition.
And this increases to 15 .7 metres further to the west.
We know that this falls below the 18 -metre guideline.
However, there are similar relationships that exist
within the estate and given the proposal sets back,
it would not differ too significantly from the existing.
There may be a bit of impact on outlook as a result
of the development just because of the projection at ground to third floor and this will impact
on 16 Padbury Court and 22 and 30 Tomlinson Close just to the side of the development.
Building 2 will be separated by approximately 18 metres to Curtin Gardens, that's at the
top of the screen and at its narrowest 16 metres to Tomlinson Close at the bottom of
the screen.
The development is acceptable in terms of separation distance and outlook.
As a result of the proposed development, some properties would experience daylight impacts.
The properties mainly affected are those in Equity Square, Curtin Gardens, Tomlinson Close,
Padbury Court and 240 Brick Lane with a number of windows below VSC guidance.
In terms of the impact of the rooms, the daylight distribution test identifies that the greatest
impacts are to Equity Square and Curtin Gardens.
However, those rooms affected our bedrooms rather than principal living spaces.
In terms of overshadowing to gardens and open space, there would be some impact to five
gardens at Curtin Gardens.
However, the wide public community space would meet BRE guidance.
As the Chair mentioned, BRE are available on the call should you have any specific questions
in relation to daylight and sunlight.
In terms of transport, the development will retain existing access from Tomlinson Close
for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
As shown on the slide, deliveries and refuse vehicles will be able to access and exit the
site in a forward gear.
Each building will have its own dedicated refuse and cycling store and visitor cycle
parking will be provided in the public realm.
This is acceptable.
With regards to car parking, the estate provides 21 car parking spaces and 18 will be retained
in the proposal.
Of those 18 spaces, five will be wheelchair accessible bays as shown on the slide.
In terms of environmental matters, no objections are raised subject to conditions and obligations.
Turning now to the public benefits, we do note that there's adverse impacts relating
to the loss of the moo -ger, the open space, the lack of immunity space provision on site,
impacts to neighbouring immunity and to the conservation area as I've set out.
However the proposal delivers a wide range of public benefits.
Public benefits, just I'll summarise quickly, include 55 new homes, of which 33 will be
social rent, contributing to housing need, wheelchair user dwellings, efficient use of
land and a range of planning obligations. This will follow on the next two slides. Here
are the financial obligations on the screen. And the non -financial obligations. And finally,
here is the sill. Officer's recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to
the Section 106 and conditions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Kirsty, for the presentation.
Now we will move on to the public speakers.
First up will be, can I invite Rafael Margado to address the committee.
You have three minutes.
When it's 30 seconds, I'll just interject and if you can, next time I interject, if
If you can just swap it out, please.
So when you're ready.
Hi, I'm Rafael.
I'm speaking, I believe, at 53 Tomlinson Close
and I'm speaking on breath with the residents,
the 37 people that wrote in an objection
and the 54 that signed the petition.
The first point I want to make is about the bulk court
because the officer's report already accepts that losing that
caused significant harm for the community.
And that's the only space in the estate for children over 11.
The space that we're getting instead is under 11,
and it's being built in front of resident dorms, which is no idea.
The consul's own design brief asks the consultants to design
and caused a second option that kept the ball court,
but that option is not being considered tonight.
The second thing I want to bring in is the daylight report.
The concern daylight report says that 33 to 63 Tomesong closed.
35 of the 79 windows were fell below the BRE guideline.
the Council's own independent daylight reviewer bearing found that 12 of the homes would lose significant amounts of daylight.
Some of our windows would be left with less than a quarter of the daylight the guideline expects.
In February, before the application went in, your own offices asked the building to be made smaller, but that was never considered.
The gardens at 31 to 35 Kirtan Gardens would lose most of the sunlight, which bear rates
at major adverse.
The new social homes come off water so long.
In every private sale flat, the living room meets the sunlight guideline.
But for the social housing, fewer than half of them do.
So we ask the new to defer this application and consider all the options again.
Are you finished?
Thank you very much.
I will now move to the applicant.
Yes, you are allowed to have two, but you would have to register with me.
You mean when I was going outside?
No, no.
So you would have to register before the actual meeting.
I have sent instructions before.
So Rafael would have done that.
I was on a living class yesterday and I'm here now, so I can't get back to you.
But if you don't mind, I'm a lifelong resident and I lived around the city to 20 years old.
I appreciate you coming to speak to me.
It will be at the discretion of the chairs.
you
Unfortunately, there was communication between officers and yourselves if you were to make any other representation.
And on this occasion, I would not allow to have any more objectives to speak.
Because there was a process which was in place and it needed to be done.
on that so unfortunately we'll have to turn down your request.
We're just going to move on and we'll go into the applicants presentation because like I explained there was a process which officer needed to follow.
Unfortunately there is no room for me to overturn that, which has already been agreed on, so I do apologise.
With that we will move on to the applicants.
Can I invite Geoff Pearce and Tom Waters to address the committee? You have three minutes.
Thank you Chair, I think it's been decided that I will speak for the full three minutes.
Thank you.
Good evening.
As you have just heard, the pressure to build more housing and especially affordable housing
in Tower Hamlets is acute.
The Council is challenged with delivering the highest house building target of any London
in Boer, which has dictated a need for a strategic response at scale in the form of the Mayor's
Accelerated Housing Programme. This proposal forms an important part of that programme
and would bring forward 55 new homes on Council -owned land that is available for development. Crucially,
it would deliver a substantial increase in the quality and quantity of affordable housing.
It would replace 10 poor quality, undersized homes with 33 exceptionally designed affordable homes in the form of social rent.
Importantly, 22 of those homes, 66%, would be family sized dwellings, including 7 wheelchair user adapted homes.
We are therefore responding directly to the priority needs of Tower Hamlets families living in overcrowded conditions or waiting for a suitable home.
In short, 60 % of all homes would be affordable, equivalent to 72 % by habitable room.
That substantially exceeds the minimum planning policy target and would make a meaningful
and much needed contribution towards local housing need.
Government planning policy now states that substantial weight should be given in planning
decision making to the benefits of providing homes that will contribute towards local housing
need.
That represents a significant endorsement of this scheme in the overall planning balance.
Planning policy also requires us to make better and more effective use of vacant and underutilised
land. In the case of housing, developments are expected to use land efficiently to increase
housing density and capacity where it is appropriate to do so. This proposal seeks to do just that.
Inevitably, there will be localised impacts within the confines of a dense urban environment.
However, we have sought to minimise and mitigate those impacts so far as reasonably and practically
possible through a variety of design and related measures, all of which would be secured by
planning condition and legal undertaking.
This latterly would include a financial contribution to mitigate the loss of the borecores, which
would be used to upgrade the quality of other facilities nearby.
Additionally, the proposal would deliver new child play space,
catering specifically for 0 -11 years old children across the estate,
where none currently exists.
The existing allotments would be retained and reconfigured
with only a minor reduction in growing area.
In summary, the proposal would have significant public benefits
in terms of housing delivery and helping to meet the acute need
for affordable housing in the borough.
These considerations weigh strongly in favour of the proposal
and the officer recommendation to grant planning commission, which we very much hope you will
support.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you to both the speakers, the objectors as well as the applicant for your presentation
and your remarks.
We will now move on to questions for members.
If members have any questions regarding this item, the floor is to you.
Thank you, Chair.
One of my questions concerns the decant with respect to the existing property and how this
would actually be undertaken because I'm actually quite puzzled by the fact that these two different
developments have been linked because there doesn't actually seem to be any real need
for that.
So I need to actually understand sort of more why that has been done and because it would
seem that if you were, that the decant should be into the new building, so in which case
you could actually split this into two separate applications
and build the social housing first
and then once that has been built
then you could address what should be built
on what is the building one site
and you could also then address the height of the building
and the sunlight and daylight impacts under a separate application.
So I presume this would be to the applicants to explain why they've actually done this
and then to the officers to explain the viability assessment as well,
because again I'm a bit confused about that,
because there's no need for the council to make a profit.
Thank you, through the chair. Thank you, councillor.
So I'll try to respond to the first point which was around the DCAN strategy.
And perhaps it isn't as clear as it could be in the application and then therefore in
the report.
But the proposals follow a period of consultation, including with the residents of the block
was proposed to be demolished.
The housing mix in what we refer to as block two is no accident.
It's been designed so that it can accommodate those people that are currently housed in the block that's due to be demolished
So our commitment is absolute that block will be the social housing block will be completed before
demolition occurs of the existing block and allowing
Everyone that currently lives in the block was due to be demolished to be rehoused if they so wish
Into that block there will also gain priority status of course on the council's housing list as they will have decant status
So if people choose to move away in the meantime,
they will have that option.
The reason why it's considered to be one planning application
are the reasons.
There are a number.
I guess the first is that the existing block is in very poor
condition.
It's also not very suitable.
It's got very small, undersized housing units.
So we were keen to secure the demolition
and removal of that block, which is currently
a kind of a quite significant liability
in terms of maintenance costs,
and not a pleasant place to live.
So we're keen to make sure we secure the wholesale change
that's required there in one application.
I think if we were to have considered it
as two separate applications,
a second application as a market housing block
with no affordable housing would have been problematic
in planning policy terms,
hence it's brought forward as a single application.
The Mayor's Accelerated Housing Programme is based
on this approach that we call equalisation, which will come
into strategic development committee
within the coming weeks.
And essentially that aims to achieve 51 % affordable housing
across the whole portfolio or programme sites.
So therefore some sites will have some market housing
and quite a small proportion, this is one of those.
Others will have a higher proportion of market housing,
but overall we're there to achieve 51%.
So it's important that as we progress
the Mayor's Accelerated Housing Programme,
we're monitoring that balance of housing mix
and that we're securing those planning consents
as we go along.
I hope that gives a satisfactory answer.
Councillor, do you have a follow up?
Yes, so what is the decision made to make it five storey rather than four?
Because the adjacent building is four storey.
And are you sort of suggesting that with the viability that this is sort of across the whole programme rather than on a...
Well, it would normally be in planning terms in respect of each particular application.
That's where I'm sort of confused.
We looked at various options in terms of optimising the housing capacity of that site because
that's what government planning policy tells us to do.
We're challenged with trying to increase housing densities to meet the acute housing needs.
So we looked at various options and tested them throughout the pre -application process
and it was decided that that was the optimum scheme where the impacts, and you've heard
about daylight sunlight were not substantially adverse to work against that option being
capable of being delivered. So that's why we looked at that option. That's why it sits
within the planning application.
If I can just add, you're correct in that it is a programmatic approach. So across our
the Mayor's Accelerated Housing Programme, it's a pity that we haven't previously considered
the full detail of the equalisation strategy
that's coming to a strategic committee
hopefully very shortly, this month I understand.
So, but yes, the principle is that we will be providing
around 50 % affordable housing, slightly below that 49%,
sorry, market housing.
That market housing will be spread over many different sites
so if we can provide more on one site,
we have less to provide on other sites.
And it is all about the overall viability of the programme.
Did you want to comment?
Thank you, chair, if I can.
So the reference to the portfolio approach, that will form a report to this committee
and the strategic development committee at the next meetings.
However, this application is still capable of being determined on its own merits.
and just to, if I may, Chair, just to comment briefly
on Councillor Parker's question about why
is there a viability assessment.
It's a nuance to do with the policy expectation
policy H8 of the London plan.
If you imagine if this was a brownfield site
and there was no existing housing on it to be removed,
well, that's always no affordable housing on it,
then the policy target is 50%.
Where there is existing affordable housing being demolished as part of the proposals,
it falls within the remit of an estate regeneration programme.
Policy 888 requires a viability assessment simply to test that the maximum reasonable
amount is being proposed, because obviously you're looking at an existing baseline and
then you're looking at the uplift.
So that's the reason why there's one for this.
In due course this committee and SDC will see other applications where there are no
Vibrancy assessments because they don't those circumstances don't apply
Cariff did you come yeah, just to avoid any confusion for members
This is obviously an application on public land council and so policy requires that
The delivery of at least 50 % of formal housing so this scheme because the two sites
Well, the two buildings are part of one application. They are delivering
72 % affordable housing, 61 % uplift if you take out the replacement as it were.
So it's more than achieving what the policy requires.
So the equalisation approach or more commonly called portfolio approach, 2Hz for the same
thing isn't required to make this scheme acceptable in terms of the level of affordable housing.
So the scheme is wholly compliant with the development plan in terms of the provision
of affordable housing on public land on council land.
Thank you, Gareth.
Councillor Sayeed.
Thank you, Chair.
The report, the summary report admit that the scheme causes the loss of existing
moga and reduction in food growing space from 37 to 34. There's a shortfall in
play provision for the older children. So how do you, how does the application or
the design, the provision, the play facilities for those, the loss of MUGA.
We're providing child play space where none currently exists on the estate currently.
So we've got three areas of structured play space for the nought to 11 year old age group.
The multi -use games area, there are other facilities nearby.
It's an unfortunate consequence of the scheme that land is scarce
and we need to find land to meet housing targets.
There are other facilities nearby and as part of the mitigation
for displacing the ball court, we will be providing a financial contribution
to improve the quality of those facilities,
which is a perfectly acceptable, legitimate way of trying to mitigate loss on a particular site.
We also, as part of the public consultation, try to understand how that ball core was used.
We're not denying that it is used. We were told that there were instances of antisocial behaviour and just loitering.
But equally, there may be older kids that can use that facility.
but we need to be mindful of the fact that there's no actual dedicated child play space
for nought to twelve years old on the site, and we're trying to provide a decent acute
housing need for family sized dwellings, which means the provision of child play space is
a perfectly sort of legitimate and reasonable counterbalance to losing older age child play
and as I said, we're 200, 250 metres walk to other Borkor facilities nearby.
Thank you.
Can I ask a follow -up?
So, could you, officer, show me where the nearby existing, I mean, the proposed play facility will be,
How far is it from the proposed development?
How do you justify the acceptable policy S4 and DF7 for young children to travel that
distance to have this provision?
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Officers really acknowledge the policy around no loss of open space.
So this is why in our balancing exercise we gave great weight to the loss of open space
with this proposal.
So just in terms of the aerial view, you can see this bit of space at the bottom of the
And I have got it further along in my presentation. This is the Shacklewell Street development where
90 ,000 pounds of improvements will be provided and there's also an additional contribution towards
Child play for those that won't be on site
So this is one this one on the screen is for the loss of the Mooga that is directly related to that and then further
contribution
Going towards the lack of child play for the over 12s and it is worth noting that
Quantitatively the applicant team are delivering the more than the space on the site
But we recognise how severe the losses of open space. So we've worked them hard to get additional contribution for those losses
So I think we we also agree
Around that it is a hard position for us to be in around loss of open space
But with the public benefits of the proposal that we have today, we feel that in the balance
that those benefits outweigh such losses subject to those mitigations.
Thank you.
Just to supplement what Kirsty just said, in terms of the distance, it's less than 70
metres from the site.
Less than 70 metres from the site.
So it really is very close.
In fact, I think in the suite of application documents, there was reference to another
park further away, another Mooga, sorry, that would be done.
We kind of pressed hard and I must say we're much more comfortable with this because it
is so close and there are opportunities for improvements.
If we just look on the I know it's always difficult with these images, but there's basically
a football pitch or a kind of a general one and then there's a basketball.
But you notice that there's nothing divided in them so the two player areas can interfere
with each other.
So one of the improvements through our discussions with the Parks team is to introduce some sort
of internal boundary fence so that obviously the two teams, two activities take place without
any interference.
I think there's also probably an opportunity to introduce a new gate into it and
Was very pleased that our parks team are always keen to try and improve the greening. So these there are additional kind of
improvements that could also be made but these these are the kind of the
These are the things that the parks team are exploring
Thank You Gareth just just want to understand in terms of its following on from that
In terms of what sort of alternative planning was looked at to retain the play area.
And also in terms of 106 Monday contribution to other facilities, it's all good.
Like you said, the play area is not that far from the current one, but it would also be good to hear from the objectives in terms of the practicality from your aspect.
But first of all, basically from the planning side, what sort of alternative, was there any other alternatives to the plans that we have?
I know one of the residents made a Freedom of Information call and there was reference
to an option to keep in the Mooga on site.
That's something that hasn't, it's not something that's been part of the application document
or indeed in our pre -app discussions it wasn't, you know, it's not something we're familiar
We haven't seen the document that's referenced
The committee's decision has to be on the application before us and the suite of documents are made it
So I know there's a reference to it. I'm not disputing that there's a document being released, but it's not part of the planning suite
Thank you chair
We're not aware either that I've personally aware of a previous study, however, I think
that Amuga takes up a lot of space
and would almost certainly have reduced
the amount of development capacity
that you'd have on the site,
or reduced the amount of open space that's there
for over under 11's play or for other residents' amenity.
And so it was not something that in the time
that I've been involved in the scheme,
which is for the last 18 or 19 months
has been under consideration.
What I would say though is the new development
house more than 80 children that currently probably are homeless, overcrowded and therefore
the benefits for young people I would say you know significantly outweigh the loss of
the place, the Mooga.
So just to add to that, the reasoning behind me asking is we know as important as it is
that we know the housing crisis that we have and want to utilise all the areas that are available.
But at the same time, from a resident perspective, not having the kids to go and play somewhere,
that's something that for us as a council we have to really look into,
because health and wellbeing is so important for our young people, especially young people as well as elders as well,
going out. If there's flats, they're stuck in the flat, they need to go out, kids growing up, they need to go out.
So I think that's really important. Just going back to the objective in terms of the practicality aspect of it,
If you just want to touch on that.
The pitch, the muggle pitch and basically the alternative that has been suggested in terms of practicality.
Although it's been pointed out it's not that far, but in terms of residence the practicality aspect of it.
If you want to touch on that.
you
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'll only have couldn't take the speakers
Presented any other officers members one to
Thank You chair, thank you colleagues
So I can't let us say you mentioned the reduction of the flower pots and I know in the introduction
There was an amendment to say that will retain the 37 as opposed to reducing it to 34
So I just wanted to clarify because during this question it wasn't necessarily addressed.
So just to clarify, has it reduced or have you found a way to keep all 37?
To answer the question, it's retained at 37 food growing plots.
The size has reduced slightly because, as you can see on the screen, it's gone from
being a bit more rectangular to more linear.
So the size has reduced a little bit but not the number of plots.
Thank you.
I'm actually a Weavers resident.
I live close by, but I don't live in
Tomlinson Close, but again, there are lots of
things.
But the main thing I'm thinking about, the
housing prices and the housing need in
tower handles, so how sure do you think this
will have an impact on social housing and
and affordability or did you think about like is it actually going to fill in the space
like is it going to meet the need in 200s?
Because today I had a resident like I'm doing case work and there's a family of eight with
six children.
In 2013 they placed a housing application and it's now 2026 they're still living in
a two bedroom housing there and today the members inquiry reply says they are in a band
Two one and the housing waiting might be 13 years for family home another 13 years
They already been on 13 years. So how do you think like this will make sure?
It will contribute to it. It's a modest contribution. We know we've got an acute crisis
It is part of a broader programme that the mayor's delivery the ambition to live a three over three thousand homes
Obviously they all need to go through planning permission. So
There's no guarantee of that, but there's 33 additional social roundhouses, 65 % of those
are families that are larger, three and four bedroom, where we know where our evidence
base shows the most acute. So it's making an important contribution, but by no means
is it going to be enough in isolation to address the acute housing needs we're doing. But it's
a meaningful step in the right direction, is all I could say.
The allotment place there, because where I live there are lots of elderly people I know
that go and use the allotment and it's like a free time. It helps support their well -being
as well when they go to the allotment, do some stuff over there, spend some time with
some friends and neighbours. So these five -storey and six -storey buildings, are they going to
have the impact on the sunlight and the daylight? And have the allotment users been consulted?
and was there any concerns raised from them, particularly from the allotment users?
Thank you.
Yes, there were objections raised from local residents, including users of the allotments,
and it was flagged that, as you've said, older people in particular used the allotments,
which is why the applicant submitted the equalities impact assessment to seek to mitigate the
impacts both during construction phase, but also at the end result phase, and following
meeting with the chair, we recognise the importance of retaining the number of plots, so that
is why the update report is clear in the amended plans around retaining 37 food plots rather
than reducing, so that all those residents that currently use it still have that opportunity
in the future.
The sunlight and the daylight, how have you considered those, or what evidence shows it's
going to be okay for them?
Yeah, the the BRE assessment has considered all open space areas including any immunity
spaces so private gardens as well.
Whilst the private gardens are a little bit impacted the immunity spaces themselves would
meet the BRE guidance so we're satisfied as officers that those growing areas would be
acceptable in the future.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Okay, colleagues online, if you want to say a few words in regards to this matter,
you are more than welcome to share your expertise.
Okay.
All right.
We'll move on.
We'll move on.
Any other members of...
Councillor?
Thank you, Chair.
I was actually going to ask a question about the subject of the discussion.
Sunlight and daylight with respect to the buildings and the impacts that have been mentioned.
But if the people aren't available on 9, I'm not quite sure where we go with that.
What does 2R online get?
So what I wanted to understand is in respect to building one if it was actually four storeys
instead of five would that actually have a significant change to the way in which it
impacts on the
So loss of sunlight and daylight to the properties affected
Thank you chair, I don't know that we've had that assessment done but
We do have a daylight sunlight consultant joining us online, but I'm just worried that perhaps they couldn't hear us
previously
If they'd like to come in
Lorna, can you hear us?
I can hear you.
This is Cosmin at BRE. I can confirm that I can hear you. Hopefully you can hear me.
Loud and clear.
Okay. Obviously we reviewed the assessment that was prepared by the consultant
commissioned by the applicant.
So we would be in a position to comment
from a reviewer's perspective as it were,
rather than from the consultant that did the assessment.
So I'm not sure whether we would be best placed
to answer a question first, or we could go second.
I'm happy with whatever decision is made.
I just wanted to make this point really
to understand when to come in.
KOSMIN, I think the members would appreciate your comments.
Understood. Okay, so in relation to this specific question about what would happen if that block
had one storey less than proposed, so that's building two, as I can see now on screen.
if we take the impacts on sunlight to the gardens.
So again, just to be clear, as mentioned earlier,
the impacts on sunlight to gardens would be
to those properties north of building two.
So I think there were 31 to 35
curtain gardens.
And of course, if you look at the share
which I believe this image kind of shows, it is indeed correct to say that, again, without having
any numbers, it is correct to say that, you know, it's likely that one storey less than proposed
would reduce the impact to those five gardens. So again, loss of sunlight to gardens.
In terms of impacts on daylight to properties, I'm saying daylight rather than sunlight because
our review of the assessment submitted as part of the planning application identified
some adverse impacts on sunlight to properties, but they were minor adverse and they're just a few
properties really affected. So there were like, you know, minor adverse obviously, and a very
small number of properties affected in terms of sunlight. So I think it's best to focus on the
impacts on daylight. So, you know, diffuse light from the sky. And the greatest impacts
identified were to these three properties, 53, 49 and 57 Tomlinson Close, which looking
at this image again. So these properties are to the, that's not a 2D view there, but I'm
trying to get one. So it's to the west, southwest of building two. Orientation doesn't matter
in this case because it's lots of daylight. So one would expect certainly that a building
which is not as tall as proposed would have less of an impact. But again, it's difficult
to say more than this without having an analysis to look at the numbers. But the likelihood
is that the impact could be somewhat reduced compared to what's in the report currently.
So for instance, currently we have stated in our review report that impacts to these
three properties, again taking the ones with the greatest impact, are moderate to major adverse.
They could be reduced to moderate, I don't know. Again, this is a matter of running a calculation
and see what happens.
And the same kind of thinking process would apply to other affected properties.
I hope this has answered the question to some extent.
I think Councillor Parker wants to come in.
I think this is some specific...
Thank you, Chair.
I was actually asking about Building 1,
because that actually has impacts on other people's properties.
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Building 1. Okay. So in terms of Building 1, I think
the impacts are only in relation to loss of daylight. So not sunlight, but just daylight.
And as far as I can see, again, going back to those three properties with the greatest
the impact. So 53, 49, 57, Tomlinson close. Yeah, what I said earlier is still relevant.
So if you reduce that height by a storey, then yeah, potentially it's obvious, let's say
that the impacts would be reduced as well. But we do not know for sure to what extent,
unless a calculation has been carried out.
So, yeah, the answer is yes to your question.
The impacts would reduce, but we do not know to what extent,
without having an analysis.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
If there's no more questions, Ochov.
It's just important to note that the top storey of building one
is actually recessed, so we've sought to try and design a solution there that will actually
minimise so far as reasonably possible the externalised daylight sunlight impacts.
Padbury Court, they're minor to moderate adverse, they're not substantial adverse impacts.
If there's no more questions, can I ask Paul and Diane to just finally give us some advice
before we move on to the vote?
Thank you, chair.
Not too much to add really.
I think committee members have looked very carefully
at the different issues involved with the application
and listened to the points made by the objector
and taken aboard some of the other points
made by the applicant.
I think if I was to just sum up,
there is some quite classic planning balancing
going on in this application.
As committee members you will know
that there are strong policies that protect open space and play space, so we wouldn't
be sort of looking to see that loss if there weren't good reasons on the opposite side
of the scales as it were in terms of public benefits.
The nature of the site is such that there are constraints and if we want to follow national,
regional and local policy around optimising housing development, then there are certainly
going to be some compromises if this site was to come forward in any shape or form.
In terms of the loss of the existing multi -use games area, there is mitigation proposed and
you've seen where that is, so you'll come to your own judgement around that proximity.
That's really in a way aimed at older children, younger children who would normally be sort
of what we call a doorstep play space. That play space is accommodated on the site, so
So younger children who would come out and perhaps play with parental supervision, that's
accommodated the contribution to off -site play is really aimed at older children and
the site's been identified to replace the Mooga and then in addition to that there's
a further contribution and whilst the site hasn't been specifically identified at this
stage that's more to do with general improvements for older children within the vicinity of
the site. We've heard about daylight and sunlight and yes, there are some losses, but I think
in certainly in my experience in that kind of sort of urban area, they are not so substantial
that you would normally refuse planning permission given the public benefits of the scheme in
terms of delivering very substantial amounts of affordable housing skewed heavily towards
family housing with wheelchair housing and all that social rents which is which is the best
Rental products in terms of affordability. So I think that's
In a way what I'm doing is just summing up how we've come to our planning balance and we are pleased to recommend
Approval and there are some additional conditions
Included in the update report which deal with the phasing issue which came up earlier
I think in possibly Councillor Parker's initial question around the decant process and that
phase.
So thank you, Chair.
Sorry, yes, nothing really to add.
It's really a matter of weighing up the benefits of the scheme against the disbenefits and
making the decision from there.
Before we go into the vote, just to touch on what Paul said regarding obviously the
106th contribution that's been given, if committee do decide to go with the, I just want to put
that on record that alternative place is found and so that it's going to have the maximum
benefit for the locals.
So if that can be noted.
Having said that, we will now go on to the vote.
I am now proposing the officers recommendation to grant permission for the development and
propose in this application subject to the planning condition and the completion of section
106 agreement as per main report and the updated report.
Can I see all those in favour of the application, please?
Those against?
Any abstention?
Paul, thank you, can I please ask you to confirm the decision the committee has made?
Thank you, chairs.
So the committee has voted on a majority vote of five in favour, none against and with two
abstentions to grant planning permission subject to the details set out in item 6 .1 of the
agenda for redevelopment of the site at Tomlinson Close, subject to planning conditions, planning
applications and including the additional conditions in the update report.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Paul.

6 b) PA/26/00589 - Professional Development Centre - 229 Bethnal Green Road, E2 6AB and 10 Turin Street, E2 6GX

We will now move on to our second item, 6 .2, the planning application for PA 26 .00589,
The Professional Development Centre, PDC 229, Bofon Ogun Road, London E26AB and 10 Turin
Street, E26GX.
So, Chair, can we just have a two minute comfort break, please?
Yep, sure.
So that's the next item on the agenda.
We'll have five minutes.

6 b) PA/26/00589 - Professional Development Centre - 229 Bethnal Green Road, E2 6AB and 10 Turin Street, E2 6GX

Welcome back everyone.
Now we are on to the next item which is just to repeat it again.
PA 26 -00589, the Professional Development Centre, PDC 229, Bethnal -Green Road, E26AB,
and Chewing Street, E26GX.
Agenda item 6 .2 is a planning application for a comprehensive development of the site
comprising of the demolition of the existing buildings with the exception of the PDC building
including partial demolition
Thereof and the erection of five -storey building to provide residential dwelling and an idea store along with
associative works
Can I invite Paul to introduce the application, please?
Thank You chair, so as the chairs mentioned this is planning application affecting standard 229 Bethnal Green Road
and 10 Turin Street.
It's the council's former professional development centre.
The application is for comprehensive redevelopment
of the site with some demolition apart from PDC building.
And the erection of five storey buildings
provide residential dwellings and a new idea store
alongside associated servicing car parking,
public realm ancillary works.
Just to confirm, the application is being referred
to the committee because it would raise significant economic, social or environmental issues
for the local area and is also what's known as an own interest application because the
council is the applicant and the land owner in this case.
The recommendation to your committee chair is the grant planning permission subject to
conditions and planning obligations.
There is an update report, again, for this application, and this concerns some additional
representations that have been submitted on behalf of the Bethel Green Weightlifting Club,
who occupies some premises, existing premises within the application site.
And they are engaging in discussions with the applicants around arrangements for relocation
and have made in their representations further requests for heads of terms in 106 agreements
and what we call a Grampian style condition in the event that you are minded to grant
planning commission.
The update report just comments on those proposals and where we feel that we are able to support
them in policy and regulatory terms. We have recommended some additional heads of terms
to support the relocation strategy and an additional planning condition that no demolition
for that building shall take place until the replacement facilities have been completed
and fitted out and made available as part of that relocation strategy. So, again, that's
all about the phasing of the development.
Obviously happy to answer detailed questions
around that in due course if they come up.
So, but other than that, that's all I have at this stage.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Paul.
We will now go to the public speakers.
We have two speakers.
Jumping gun again, sorry.
I would now go on to the planning
Officer at a case officer Ellie downtown to present the application. Sorry
Thank you
Good evening chair members of the committee and members of the public
I'm joined this evening with Kevin Curley and Garif Quinn team leader and area manager in the West team
The planning application for committee relates to the former professional development site and associated buildings at 229 Bethnal green and 10 cheering
Street in the weavers ward. The recommendation before members is to grant planning commissions
subject to conditions and a legal agreement. The application site is located to the north
of Bethnal Green Road between Chearing Street to the west and Barnet Grove to the east.
As shown outlined in the red on the plan and aerial image here on the slide. The site extends
approximately .38 hectares and sits behind the main frontage buildings along Bethnal
Green Road. To the rear of the site are residential apartment blocks. The surrounding area is
The predominantly residential and character with a mix of community, education and commercial
uses nearby.
This slide here identifies the principal buildings and uses currently occupying the site.
Site comprises a number of separate buildings of varying scale, age and function.
The former PDC building occupies much of the eastern portion of the site.
Located to the west of the site is the Bethnal Green Weightlifting Club.
The site also contains a former caretaker's building to the north and temporary accommodation
dwellings at 10 Turing Street, together with associated parking, servicing and hard -standing
areas.
The next two slides show some site photos of the existing arrangement across the site.
The left image is the current pedestrian entrance to the site from Bethnal Green Road, which
shows the PDC frontage behind.
The middle image here shows the south courtyard in front of the former PDC building looking
westward into the site.
The image on the right shows the view towards the Bethnal Green Road buildings from the car park located in the western portion of the site.
This slide covers a few more photos. The image on the left is taken from Chearing Street, showing 10 Chearing Street, which is currently used as temporary accommodation.
The image in the middle shows the single storey building which is home to the Bethnal Green
Weightlifting Club.
And the image on the right is a view looking north from the on -site car park towards the
residential flat in developments to the rear.
Turning now to the proposed development.
The application seeks to comprehensively redevelop the site as part of the Mayor of Tauham's
accelerated housing programme.
The proposals would retain, refurbish and convert the former PDC building, including
Removing later later additions to provide 20 market homes a new 5 -storey building would be constructed on the western portion of the site
Delivering a replacement delivering an idea storm residence hub lower level and 24 social rental homes above
The scheme would also provide new public realm and landscaping improvements including child play space cycle parking and disabled parking provision
This image here illustrates the overall massing and layout the proposed development
As I said, the scheme comprises two principal elements.
On the west element is the west side of the site is a new five -storey building, which
we'll refer to as Block A. And to the eastern portion is the retained PDC building, which
we'll refer to as Block B. As mentioned, Block B will contain the market housing, and Block
A will be the social rented homes.
This next slide shows the proposed key elevations of the proposed new development.
This is the north elevation when viewed from the rear of the site.
This slide here shows the south elevation which is viewed if you were looking out of the Bethnal Green frontage buildings.
The main entrance for the idea store will be provided here similarly as the main access now.
This slide here shows the ground floor arrangements of block A.
As mentioned, block A will accommodate the new idea store and residence hub.
And then this is a typical layout of the flatted social rented homes above across the first floor plan.
And it's also a typical arrangement up to the fourth floor.
Here is a plan showing the ground floor of Block B, which is the retained PDC building.
And it shows a mixture of the servicing required alongside ground floor flats.
This slide has a plan showing the first and second floors, which include duplex apartments
across the first and second floors with mezzanine levels.
The application has been subject to public consultation.
Four site notices were displayed.
A press notice was published and consultation letters were sent to neighbours.
167 representations were received, which comprised 166 objections and one letter of support.
The principal concerns raised in objection to the application relate to the loss of the
Bethnal Green Weightlifting Club, particularly the absence of a secured replacement facility
at the time of determination and concerns regarding the future continuity of the club.
Other issues raised relate to the proposed height, scale and massing of the development,
potential impacts on neighbouring immediately, daylight sunlight and heritage considerations
alongside transport impacts.
I will now turn to the key planning considerations.
The assessment of this application is focused on land use considerations, housing considerations
including the affordable housing offer, the urban design heritage considerations, neighbouring
immunity and transport and servicing considerations.
I will take members through each of these considerations before setting our officers'
overall conclusion and recommendation.
Starting with land use considerations.
The proposed residential and community uses are considered acceptable and principal, having
regard to the site's highly accessible location adjacent to Bethnal Green District
Centre and the site's status as a previously developed brownfield site suitable for residential
intensification. The proposal would make an important contribution towards meeting the
borough's housing needs. To note, the previous employment uses on site have been relocated
elsewhere within the council's estate and arrangements will be made to rehouse households
currently occupying temporary accommodation at 10 Shearing Street prior to redevelopment
commencing.
Moving on to the other key matter in terms of land use.
As mentioned, the proposed redevelopment would require the demolition of existing buildings
and a facility for the Bethnal Green facility for the weightlifting club would not be re -provided
within the development.
This issue has generated significant public interest and was a principal concern raised
throughout consultation.
Officers have concluded in the committee report that the loss of the existing facility could
be supported subject to a planning obligation securing the relocation to a suitable replacement
premises. The proposed heads of terms requiring the submission and implementation of a relocation
strategy which would secure the replacement facility suitable for the use by the weightlifting
club, including fit out works and facilities equal to what the club has got as an existing
accommodation operational requirements, together with details regarding the lease and also
mechanisms to secure continuity of the operation pending relocation.
Following further discussions with the applicant, the club, officers and the club, the officers
have sought additional refinements to these relocation arrangements.
This includes a requirement for the applicant to engage with the Bethnal Wing -Wake lifting
club in preparation of the relocation strategy and provide evidence demonstrating this.
Also we've included officers have also sought provision relating to the fit out and reasonable
Relocation costs an additional gramping style condition providing further assurance that the existing facility will remain available and operational
Until the replacement facility is available and operational
Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposed obligation and conditions
Provide a robust mechanism to ensure the continued provision of the weightlifting community facility through the relocation process
Moving on to housing as mentioned the proposal would deliver 44 new homes across the site
24 homes will be provided as social rent, equating to 61 % by affordable housing by hab room.
This exceeds the 50 % threshold applicable to public sector land and attracts significant
positive weight in favour of the proposal.
The proposed mix is outlined on the table on the slide and the affordable offer also
includes 12 family sized three or four bedroom social rented homes, making an important contribution
towards family housing needs within the borough.
All homes meet or exceed policy standards in terms of size and all flats benefit from private outdoor amenity space.
Almost all the homes are dual aspect, including all homes within the social tenure.
The scheme provides five wheelchair accessible dwellings, community amenity space and child play space.
Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal delivers a high standard of accommodation for future residents.
Moving to urban design and heritage considerations.
These CGI views here provide a visual impression of how the event would appear once completed.
The image on the left shows the approach to the site from the Bethnal Green Road, illustrating
the public courtyard and landscaped entrance towards the new ideas store.
The image on the right here shows the development when viewed from Chearing Street, demonstrating
the building has been designed to respond to its surrounding scale and form.
The massing is broken down through setbacks, articulation of varied roof forms, reducing
its perceived bulk.
Key feature of the proposal, as mentioned, is the retention and refurbishment and conversion
of the PDC building, which is identified as a non -designated heritage asset.
The image on the left here shows the proposed view from Barnet Grove towards the PDC building,
demonstrating how the building would remain a prominent feature within the streetscape
following its conversion.
The image on the right looks into the northern courtyard and shows the relationship between
the retained building and the new residential development.
This slide here illustrates the architectural approach and material palette proposed across
the new retained buildings.
As set out, the scheme delivers a comprehensive package of public round landscaping and tree
planting across the site.
A publicly accessible landscape courtyard will be provided in the central part of the
site alongside children, play space and communal community provided in the southern landscaped
areas and courtyards.
Taking all these factors into account, officers consider that the proposal delivers a high quality design
and will secure the long term reuse of the non -designated heritage asset.
Moving on to impacts on neighbouring properties.
The majority of neighbouring windows will continue to achieve acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight.
The most notable daylight impacts are identified at Monkswell House, Torrance House, 15 Shearing Street and 219 Bethnalboon Road.
At Mungswell House the impacts are concentrated to the lower floor windows facing the development
and many of the affected rooms are dual aspect and benefit from additional windows.
At Torrens House, while a greater number of windows are affected, the retained daylight
levels retain relatively high and as you can see between 18 .9 and 29 .6 retained VSC, which
means that the windows will have relatively high daylight.
At 15 Train Street, only a small number of windows are affected and these results are
influenced by the existing room configuration, including deep floor plates and inset windows
and balconies.
At 219 Bethnal Green Road, impacts are limited to three rear -facing bedroom windows which
currently overlook the undeveloped application site.
The principal living rooms look onto Bethnal Green Road and are not affected by the development.
Having regard to the site's urban context and the significant planning benefits of the
scheme, together with the new ideas store and the housing provision, officers conclude
that the impacts are acceptable overall.
Turning to privacy outlook and sense of enclosure, the proposal has been designed to maintain
appropriate relationships with its surrounding properties.
Separation distances to neighbouring properties range from approximately
Separating distance have a range beginning with
There's 13 .3 metres to Sagler House, 14 to 15 .6 metres to Spicer House
and at least 80 metres for Torrance House, Benn House and properties opposite Barnet Grove
One of the closest relationships is with 213 to 219 Bethnal Green Road
Where Block A would be approximately 9 metres from the existing building
However, many of these facing windows serve kitchens, bathrooms and other secondary spaces
rather than principal habitable rooms.
The other close relationship is to the north with the development between MacDougall House
and Monkswell House, where Block A would be approximately seven metres from the respective
flank elevation.
However, these elevations contain secondary windows with the principal habitable rooms
also benefiting from windows on other elevations.
Nevertheless, privacy screens to the corner balconies and obscure glazing will be used
to certain windows and will be secured by condition to ensure there are no adverse privacy
issues.
Officers are therefore satisfied that the scheme would not result in any unacceptable
loss to privacy, outlook or undue increased sense of enclosure to neighbouring occupiers.
Turning to transport, highways and environment considerations, the scheme is proposed as
free development with five blue badge parking spaces and extensive cycle parking provision.
Separate access and servicing arrangements are provided for residents and the ideas store,
with servicing and refuse collection accommodated from Turing Street for block A and the Northern
Courtyard for the ideas store and block B. Highway's offices have raised no objections
to the proposal. The development also incorporates a range of sustainable measures including air
solar PV panels, drainage improvements, green roof and enhanced planting including tree
planting.
The scheme is equity neutral and delivers significant biodiversity net gain.
Moving on to the financial obligations, so outlined in this slide are the financial contributions
that we will be securing through the unilateral agreement.
Outlined here is a short summary of the non -financial obligations to be secured, as set out in further
detail in the Committee report and the updated report.
To conclude, the application has been assessed against the Development Plan and all other
material considerations, and is considered to accord with the Development Plan when taken
as a whole.
In the planning balance, significant weight is attributed to the delivery of 44 new homes,
including 24 social rent homes, the provision of the new idea store and residence hub, the
retention of the non -designated heritage asset and the wider public realm improvements.
Therefore, the recommendation before members is that planning permission be granted subject
to the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions set out in the committee report.
Thank you, Chair.
That's the end of my presentation.
Thank you very much, Elle, for your presentation.
We will now move to the public speakers.
We have two speakers who are speaking as objectors to the application.
The first speaker will be Eleanor Smith, who is part of the Buffalo Green Weightlifting Club.
You have three minutes when there's 30 seconds left. I'll just remind you
Counsellors, my name is Eleanor Smith and I speak for Bethnal Green weightlifting Club
We've been part of Tower Hamlets for 100 years and we're asking for your help to stay a part of it since
1927 the PD site has been our home and we don't want to leave it
I want you to understand what it is. You're being asked to protect
This is not a commercial gym.
We're a registered charity run by volunteers with open sessions nine times a week.
Around 30 lifters come to each one and about a third of them live in this borough.
Our prices are set so that working people and those who cannot find work can afford to train.
Look at who walks through our doors.
We have school children and people in their 70s.
We have disabled athletes including Paralympic medalists.
We have ex -service men and women rebuilding their lives.
We have young women recovering from eating disorders
and people suffering from depression who have found a coach -supported place to heal.
We have refugees and people from every faith and background in Tower Hamlets.
We have hosted the first two international LGBTQ plus powerlifting championships.
For many of them, this gym is the reason they feel they belong here.
and that sense of belonging has deep roots.
In the 1930s, at the height of fascist activity in the East End,
our photographs showed Jewish lifters training and competing alongside their teammates.
Later came the Windrush generation and then Bengali lifters.
Every generation of Bethel Green has found a place here, and it has always been welcome.
Sociologists call this the third place. We call it home.
The club has also given something to the country. Our lifters have won British,
Commonwealth, European and world titles. Those champions came from this
neighbourhood, from our gym's floor. The gym is known and respected by lifters
throughout Britain and many other parts of the world. The heads of British
weightlifting and powerlifting have written in support of us. Over 24 ,000
people have signed our petition and more than a thousand live, work or study in
What we have is hard to rebuild.
Our coaching knowledge has been passed down in our gym
for a century.
And our head coach has trained here since 1970.
A makeshift solution would not simply move us.
It would quietly end us.
We need secure long -term tenure.
So we are never in this position again.
Please help us keep this club for the people who need
it and for those who have not yet walked through our
door.
Councillors, you will be the first to know what
You have the chance to be the council that protected a hundred year treasure of this
borough and to be remembered for it.
The club is a jewel in Tower Hamlets crown.
Please help us make sure there is another hundred years of Bethnal Green Weightlifting
Club.
Thank you.
I invite Tom Ruff to present yours out for you please.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Dear Chair and Councillors, I'm speaking on behalf of Bethnal Green Weightlifting Club,
who as Ellie said have served the community since 1927.
The PDC has always been home for the club.
We absolutely don't want to move, but we recognise the reality of this process.
I am asking you today to make sure that if you do approve, you make sure that conditions
are in this place that protect us, and if that is not possible, to please defer.
Since the officer's report was first published, recommendations have been approved, and for
For that we are grateful.
Four protections that matter most to the club's survival are still not secured.
The first protection is an equivalent facility.
The report highlights that local, national and London policy require equivalent or better provision.
The current condition asks only for suitable premises with nothing defined.
We ask that the condition is amended to require equivalent premises and measured against the defined specification.
We also request that planning obligation which secures a lease of at least 15 years on terms
no worse than today.
The second protection I would like to propose is our right to stay.
Our tenancy ends in June 2027 and we welcome the obligation to keep the existing facility
open until the replacement is ready.
But it doesn't mention the terms.
We ask that the obligation confirms that the club stays on its current terms at the PDC
until it is operating within the new facility.
The applicant has assured us that this will be the case many times,
so I'd ask them to confirm it tonight and for members to secure it in writing.
Thirdly, we'd like a seat at the table.
The relocation strategy will define the location, floor space, layout, fit -out,
access, lease terms and delivery programme.
We welcome the new requirement that the Club will be engaged,
but having our needs reasonably considered as currently drafted
is not the same as having a say in those decisions.
We ask that the club has a formal role in agreeing the strategy and that Sport England is consulted.
Fourth is an independent oversight.
New wording relies on judgments such as suitable, reasonably considered and proportionate
and each of these is decided by the council within its own scheme.
We propose that delivery is monitored and any disagreements resolved by an independent expert
so the arrangement is clear and fair for all.
We have sent officers two amendments which provide both these protections.
I would ask you to only grant permission if the remaining protections are included.
If you are told that any of these will be dealt with later, please ask one question.
What protects the club?
The need for social housing is unquestionable, but an FOI response shows that just over a
quarter of map sites contain community facilities.
This is the first to involve relocating one, so how you protect us tonight sets the precedent
for the rest of those groups.
Housing and community are not mutually exclusive.
If the club is forced to leave, it should be no worse off than it is today.
All we are asking for is an equivalent facility, a 15 -year lease on terms no worse than today,
the right to stay at the PDC on the same terms until that facility is operating,
a real say in decisions and independent oversight.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I now invite Richard Katelli to address the committee.
I believe you will be speaking for six minutes.
Sorry, Geoff Pearce, Director of Accelerated and Priority Projects for Tower Hamlets and Council.
If I may just do a couple of words and then I'll hand over to Richard for his pre -prepared speech,
just in response to what's been said by the objective.
So first of all, I would like to say that you had part of your part of the time
Yes part more time. Yeah, I just like to say we do value the bathroom room weightlifting Club and we have had lots of
Engagements with them personally haven't but I know my team have met on several occasions with the weightlifting Club
We have identified an alternative site which has been
Discussed with the weightlifting Club in 10th Street and that's subject to a current planning application which has been made
Identifying that that that space as as a relocation space less than or just around one kilometre away
in walking distance from the site
the
We are comfortable with what's being proposed by
officers around the
the
Condition, I think we do have to be quite careful about some of those other requests
The council has for instance a voluntary
VSC voluntary community space premises policy and we need to abide with that.
So I think we need to take things like the conditions and the term of the lease, et cetera,
through the appropriate internal council processes.
And so I don't think we could commit to those things tonight.
We are clear that an equivalent facility in terms of usable space
Will be provided we are also clear there will be that the costs of relocation
Will be met by the council as part of the applicant as part of our process
We're also clear that the new space will be delivered prior to convincing the diminution or
Requiring the rehousing so it would be a single move for the club into that new space
I can pass over to Richard to complete.
To confirm, is this part of three minutes or my own three minutes?
No, it's six minutes.
Fantastic, thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
This proposal demonstrates what the Mayor's Accelerated Housing Programme can achieve by
using Council -owned land to deliver much -needed affordable family homes, invest in community
facilities and bring valued heritage buildings back into use.
At Bethnal Green PDC, that ambition translates into 44 high quality homes, including 24 for
social rent.
This represents 61 % affordable housing when measured by habitable room, substantially
exceeding policy requirements.
Half of the social rented homes will have three or four bedrooms directly responding
to the needs of Tower Hamlets families living in overcrowded conditions or waiting for a
suitable home.
Your offices have carefully considered and rigorously tested the design through pre -application
discussions and public consultation has helped shape the final proposals.
Every social rented home would be dual aspect, with their own outdoor space and access to
shared gardens and children's play areas.
These will be high quality homes in a carefully considered, well designed setting.
New landscaping, planting and play space will improve the environment while energy efficient
design and the release of existing heritage buildings supports a more sustainable development.
This is a practical example of how the MAHP is delivering against the borough's housing
priorities, with a clear emphasis on the homes Towerhampton's families need most.
I particularly want to address Bethnal Green Weightlifting Club.
We recognise its importance to its members and the wider community, and the need to plan
properly for its future.
We have worked with Bethnal Green Weightlifting Club from the outset to understand what it
needs from new premises and we've identified a potential site within its local catchment area.
The council has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to secure the club's relocation.
Before the existing building could be demolished the planning authority would need to approve the
relocation strategy and suitable replacement premises would need to be ready for the club
to use. That safeguard would allow the club to continue serving its members and the wider
community. We want to continue to work with Weightlifting Club to that end. The scheme will
We will also deliver a new idea store and residence hub, providing over 1000 square metres of community floor space at the path of the borough that currently has no idea store.
Local people will be able to borrow a book, take a class or get face to face help with a council service.
The social value generated will therefore be significant, creating opportunity and enhancing residents' lives.
On a personal note, my mum used to work in the PDC building during her time at Tower Hamlets
I am particularly pleased to think that the now vacant Victorian building where she once
went to work could become somebody's home.
To conclude, this is the value of MAHP in practise.
Council -led investment delivering social rented family homes, strengthening much needed community
provision and securing a renewed future for an existing local heritage asset.
It is a scheme the Council can be proud of and I hope members will support your office's
recommendation and vote in favour of granting planning permission.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you to both the objectors and the applicant for your
presentations. We will now move to members if members have any questions for officers.
Councillor Lajon.
Thank you, Chair.
I can see the objector and applicant is a little bit sort of trust.
So what they will be able to do to make you sure that another 100 years is the Bethany
Weightlifting Club will continue another 100 years of the histories, what they will be
to make you satisfied that that will carry you in and they can gain your trust.
It's simply to agree with the terms that we set out in the amendments to this committee
meeting.
Yes, Councillor Gough, you have a little bit to let us with the terms there have set out.
So as I have previously said, the terms were quite detailed and we have to clearly make
sure that the council is not, I'm not as an applicant today, making decisions that are
with the council's usual policies.
We do have a VCS premises, a voluntary community sector premises policy, which we need to abide by.
As an example, that usually sets a term of five -year leases.
The objectors are asking for a longer term than the VCS policy provides for.
That is not a decision I can make as an officer.
that would need to be made by members if there were to be a deviation from that.
I think there are also other provisions in there that a formal role in agreeing the strategy
I think sounds like a helpful proposal, but what does that mean?
What we wouldn't agree to is some form of right of veto, so we just need to have that
discussion and to work it through but you have my word that we will work together to provide you with the facility that you need
and if I can
you know help in any way in presenting to members a case for the least terms to be as
Beneficial as possible. I will do that, but I cannot preempt the discussions that will take place out of this room by members
Yeah, counsellor
Thank You chair apologies, I should have declared at the beginning
I do have an interest as the cabinet member for assets and based on sort of legal advice
I've been asked to not
Engage in the discussion and to excuse myself. So if that's
appropriate
Are you happy for me to excuse myself?
Okay
Then just want to clarify this, the Councillor, can you state?
Sorry, yes, I think because of your interest it is better that you can excuse yourself
from the meeting, the prejudicial interest.
Okay, all right, thank you.
Chair, would you mind if I come in on the point that was just being raised regarding
the really crucial strategy?
I think it would probably be helpful for everyone in the room if I go through the heads of terms
set out, a summary of the heads of terms set out in the committee report and also what
we've agreed additionally in the updated report, just so that members are clear and can remind
themselves.
So I'm just going to pull up the slide here.
So apologies that it's obviously quite small writing, but it's also set out in section
eight of the committee report.
So as part of the heads of terms, we have set out in section 8 of the recommendation
that if this was deemed to grant permission, we would secure a legal agreement and within
that legal agreement would be the mechanism to secure a relocation strategy.
That would first need to be implemented, be provided to us, this is what was said on the
committee report originally, provided to us, and the replacement facility provided before
the on -site demolition of the current facility used by the weightlifting club.
So that mechanism is there to try and ensure that the club has a continued operation between
and is not impacted by the development in terms of, and the relocation.
It also includes a further detail regarding the least proposed, alongside information
set out in the relocation strategy in terms of the details, so that's layout, fit out,
and lots of other things that are set out also in the committee report that I can also
refer to if needed.
And so that was set out in heads of terms, and since the committee report was published,
We've had additional representations from the club and they set out further kind of requirements that they see fit
and we've looked at these in detail and we've tried to work with these within the scope of what we can secure as planning offices
and within as
within the planning authority and
Matters such as the lease isn't something we can secure
I wouldn't meet an obligations test wouldn't meet the tests for an obligation to secure that and that's something that sits outside of planning
However, we have taken on board
many of the things that have kind of been set out and tried to refine the obligation,
and that is set out here on the screen and within the updated report itself.
So we agree that obviously the relocation strategy should be, the weightlifting company
should be involved in what the future facility will look like, and the fit -out, the lay -out
the facility. So we see that we should secure a mechanism within the legal agreement that
evidence needs to be provided, that there has been engagement between the council and
the club. And so obviously welcome further view on that from members if they believe
that there should be further mechanisms that we've tried to work out what we can secure
in a legal agreement that meets the test within planning. We've also obviously had agreement
from the applicant that they will cover relocation costs and fit out, and that they would continue
and also assurance that the current gym will remain in operation until the replacement facility is provided.
So we've tried to secure what we can to ensure that the club can be able to continue in operation
and in addition to all of this we've also proposed a Scramping condition which the club has also set out
and we do believe that to add additional kind of assurance to the club that this is a condition that will do that
and that will ensure that no demolition works to or change of use to the club shall take place until there's a replacement facility suitable for the use by the weightlifting club.
So that's just a quick run through of what we've secured, including updates to that.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
Yep, Councillor.
Thank you, Chair.
This is to the applicant. I'm very confused as to why you're actually
proceeding with this planning application at this point in time when,
you know, I don't really understand why you actually need sort of the planning
permission now because if you're agreeing as you say you are that you're
that until the issue of the Bethnal Green weightlifting club is resolved,
so you're not going to demolish that part of the site,
so you're not going to commence...
Logically that suggests you wouldn't commence work on that side of the site either,
so you wouldn't be providing the social housing which you profess to want to provide.
So I think that you should actually sort out whether relocation of the relocation of the Bethnal Green weightlifting club first and then come back with an application once that has been done.
So I'm inviting you to withdraw your application tonight.
So the process of developing a planning application clearly takes a long time.
And in parallel with developing this planning application, we've also developed a planning
application as part of the first batch of Mayor's Accelerated Housing Programme schemes
at 10th Street, which is not the site that's considered at the moment for relocation.
The timing of such is that this one has come to committee first, 10th Street is also in
the system, application has been made, so it should come to committee shortly.
We're out at the moment to tender two contractors to deliver the first nine sites under the
Mayor's Accelerating Housing Programme, which will include Bethnal Green PDC.
We've made it a very clear requirement for the contractors that before starting work
on the new build element of the PDC building,
they will re -provide the facility in the 10th Street site.
So that's the first phase of work.
We clearly have to go through a process
of agreeing the design.
For an applicant to commit to spending
hundreds of thousands of pounds on relocating someone
without the certainty that we can then redevelop that site
through the planning process would be
and ambitious adventurous and perhaps high risk.
So it makes sense that we've followed this route.
I think that we're not talking about a huge amount of time
between the fit out starting and ending.
Work's already underway in starting to design,
certainly the technical design,
the layout and spatial arrangements and et cetera
needs to be agreed in full with the club.
But in terms of the structural work that's required,
that's all kind of already been assessed.
So I don't see that as a major risk. I think there could be a matter of months between
starting on site at 10th Street and the handover and completion of the
Of the weightlifting club which allows us then to move on to the PDC building
Thank you
Yeah, I
Sort of still don't really understand why you couldn't have actually
Done the 10th Street first. This is council land. So
No, the it's not like a private development as such way and you seem to be talking more
As if it was a private development
and there are other things about this site which
have been sort of
weighed in giving the permission and for example the the fact that there is
the
The building the PDC building
There hasn't been advertised for new employment use which for the 24 months like it should have been
and
there's
The fact that that actually had a residence hub in it and
You're now talking about. Oh, we're going to turn that into private and then
Provide a residence
carbon this new building so I
See the risk in this development being that you will end up
Providing private housing and no social housing and that's the assurance that I would need to actually not refuse
Okay, I'll let the officers
Perhaps talk to the risk of delivering the private housing and no affordable housing
Because I'm sure that will be secured by a condition in the in the planning approval
And we would not be able to occupy any private housing without the affordable housing first being delivered
I think I would remind you this is a council application for the mayor's accelerated housing programme
Which primary focus is delivery of affordable housing?
The the private housing is there to support that delivery not not vice versa
So I cannot comprehend a situation where?
Where the council would take that action and also it would not make
And yes, I sometimes do talk. I'm afraid like a commercial developer not because I am commercial developer
But we have to make commercial decisions that are in the best interests of the council
So we wouldn't require a contractor to set up site, start work on the PDC building, wait
for a long time and then come back.
The work won't start until the whole site is ready, including relocation.
But securing the planning consent allows us to then get on with detailed design, all the
other things that have to then happen subsequent to starting the award of a contract and to
a single contractor which will deliver all of the work.
So, yeah, the timing of planning committees is unfortunate in a way.
If both were here on the same night, it would have been clearer.
But the application has been made to convert the space at 10th Street into a new facility,
which is equivalent.
I'm not sure.
I can say more than that.
Do officers want to come in?
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to touch on the point regarding, I guess, potential issue raised that the market
housing could be built without the social rent.
So I've just put the non -financial obligations back on the screen, and these are just a summary
of the heads of terms, not obviously the wording.
But within a very standard legal agreements when there's a mixture of tenure for there
between occupational clause so you wouldn't be able to occupy the private dwellings until
the social rent is provided on site.
So that's very standard and that would in this case, like every other case, be secured
in the legal agreement.
Thank you, Kansada.
Thank you, Chair, Officers.
A lot of the questions have been asked around the current facility at the site, so which
which is contained in the Green Weightlifting Club,
Occupation Therapy and for a temporary accommodation.
So, particularly I would like to understand on page 95,
under the Principle of Development, section third,
Section 6, concern that replacement premises
have not been adequately secured
and that any placement facility would not provide equivalent accommodation, accessibility,
functionality, affordability of community benefit.
What is your comment on that?
Thank you.
How do you mitigate that?
Thank you, Councillor.
So yeah, in this table is a summary of concerns raised and as mentioned in my presentation,
and almost all of the objections were in relation to the loss of the clubs and sites.
So this in particular is concerned regarding there not already being a facility that they
could move into and that the strategy isn't already secured.
Other concerns have also been raised around the functionability, affordability of the
new facility.
And so obviously this has been taken on board and that's why we've moved to have quite a
comprehensive list of heads of terms in the legal agreement alongside the grant
being condition I've explained whilst we can't within planning secure the lease
agreement and the commercial arrangements that sits up outside of
planning and within different commercial aspect and asset management we've we've
secured what we can within planning which is to provide a replacement
facility which would be like for like at least cost to be covered and there to
ensure that the existing facility and use by the Bethnal Green Weightlifting Club
would not cease before they are within the replacement facility and operating from it.
So that's kind of belt and braces mechanism really within the legal room and the grampian condition
just so that it provides additional assurance to the club. Thank you.
questions.
We know this is a council side, so the obvious question comes why we are not building 100 %
affordable rent home instead of 70 % or 60 % or whatever.
So how do you compensate or mitigate the loss of affordable home under the application?
Thank you.
As a similar sense with the first application, the requirement is to deliver at least 50 %
of affordable housing on it.
Obviously we as the planning authority just assess the applications put before us.
The application is provided more than that 50 %
Could the app this applicant or any other applicant choose to provide hundreds and affordable housing? Yes
Would use a local plan authority be disappointed with that? No, I'm sure we would support it
But the application is compliant with the policy it more than meets the 50 %
It's a separate discussion I guess for the where the applicant team about why they have provided more
But in terms of the decision you have to make tonight, does it comply with the development
plan in terms of provision of affordable housing?
Yes, it does.
Thank you, Gav.
Any?
I may be able to help with that question, if that's okay.
So as previously, part of the Mayor's Accelerated Housing Programme, which overall aims to achieve
51 % affordable housing across it's 47 sites
that are owned by the council.
Some will achieve 100 % affordable housing.
In fact, some of the applications
that have been submitted to date do include 100%.
Others will have a lower level.
This is still above policy.
The main reason this site wasn't selected
as 100 % social housing scheme is that for private homes
will be within the refurbished building
which will not meet modern space standards, et cetera.
Won't allow to have separate kitchens and dining rooms won't be state dual aspect home
So they won't provide the quality of affordable housing that the council wants to see its new building council housing stock
And largely will be smaller
So I just wanted to clarify that point because I appreciate the PDC building which is the conversion
Wouldn't necessarily meet the spec we would require for social rent homes. It does meet the requirements for market hands
Which is the space standards the provision of outdoor space etc
So I just want to be like as I said on my side 95 % of the flats across both sites are dual aspect
There's only one I think one flat that within the converted PDC that doesn't have windows on two elevations
I just wanted to make that clear. Thanks. Thank you
Any other members any comments?
Thank you, I want to ask the objectors, you know
You asked about the lease for not less than 15 years.
So if you don't get that, what would you want to hear from them?
If it's less than 15 years, do you have any alternative options?
No, I think for an institution that's been within this borough for 100 years, I think
15 years is appropriate.
We're kind of aware that this council has already secured fixed terms for other applications.
So on the 21st of July 2026 Stanton house secured an affordable workspace at a discount
for 15 years.
And on that same night south key secured rent free community space and we're just asking
for that same certainty.
Three members of today's development committee sat on that committee also.
Any other comments?
Any other comments?
Thank you to everyone for your contribution.
Questions in this item.
Before we go to the vote, can I ask Paul and Diane again just to give us some advice before
we go to the vote.
Thank you, Chair.
Again, grateful to members for the scrutiny that you've given, the application of the contributions from Bethel Green Weightlifting Club and from the applicant.
I don't have a massive amount to add in terms of the general planning issues because I think in a way they're probably not the most acute concern of ourselves or indeed yourselves as decision makers.
I think the arrangements around the Bethel Green weightlifting club have been explored in quite some detail.
And we have looked very carefully at how the different requests can be accommodated through Section 106 agreement
and what we call a Grampian style planning condition.
There are some things which sit outside of town planning.
and so the arrangements for things like the length of the lease are not something that
this committee could really sort of govern and as colleagues have explained there is
a separate process for that. The council operates with regard to community facilities. Just
to touch on the point around other arrangements where 15 years has been mentioned, I think
the site that was mentioned just previously was an employment site and it concerned the
provision of affordable work space, where there is a clear policy expectation in the
London plan around 15 years.
That's slightly different to the lease, that's just about how long the use should be there
rather than how long the lease is, so that's how long that particular use should be there,
whereas in a way we're talking about a different,
or it's been raised a different matter around the lease.
I would also add that normally in planning terms
we would not get into conversations around
even the individuals that would be subject to occupation.
However, in this case the club has recently been awarded
an asset of community value status,
so that's material, we see that's material planning
consideration and that's why we're talking about
specific arrangements for the club.
Normally as you know in planning terms we don't talk about land use rather than the particular occupiers.
So in a way that has added an extra dimension to our considerations which I guess is beneficial for all parties
in making sure that the club can continue to be accommodated within Tower Hamlets.
I hear the points around the timing of the respective applications.
I don't think that that is particularly material if you drill down to the fact that this is
part of a portfolio arrangement where the council is the landowner and the developer
across the whole of that portfolio.
So it gives us the confidence around that re -provision which might not otherwise exist
if we, for example, were talking about an individual landowner who didn't necessarily
have other interests that they could bring forward to provide the replacement.
I think my throat is about to give up so I'll probably stop there.
Thank you, Jay.
Do you want to add anything?
I think Paul has more or less covered the main bits so no, I don't want to add anything.
Just before we go to the vote, I just want to add a few points.
Although it's not policy related in terms of the development,
like the objectors who passionately, in terms of advocates for the weightlifting club,
Establishment like the weightlifting club is an asset to the
Barra and we as a council
We want to protect again in the previous
Application where I said a home building how?
House building is a top priority. We have a huge issue when it comes to the lack of housing
And I know officers when they do go and look at the sites, they go above and beyond to
protect assets like the weightlifting club.
And I want to just reiterate that we do our utmost to find the solutions for, if the committee
does agree with officers to get permission just to reiterate that we do
try out most to basically accommodate and facilitate to keep this
establishment going like the objector said for another hundred years so
bearing in mind all of this I would like now to propose the officers
recommendation to grant, sorry.
Sorry, thank you for being concentrate.
I'm going to ask Paul to clarify, just for my clarification,
giving a status ACB as said communicability,
does it give guarantee for the relocation of the
provisional service?
Thank you.
Yeah, so ACB status does give certain protections.
It normally comes into play actually when buildings and land are disposed of, so when
they're sold.
For us in planning terms, it just creates a slightly different dynamic in the sense
that we can consider the very specific activities that are sort of happening there rather than
if you like sort of general land use terms.
So I think it works in our favour in terms of slightly tighter controls that can be put
in the 106 that perhaps might be otherwise.
And also, in particular, I think it's still on the screen,
well it was on the screen earlier,
the requirement to specifically engage
with the weightlifting club.
Whereas, under normal circumstances,
what we would be talking about is solely
the re -provision of the land use
and not necessarily the requirements of the particular user.
So it just creates a hook, if you like, Councillor,
for being able to sort of go that bit further
in terms of the controls over the relocation.
Thank you, Chair.
I mean the opportunity.
Yes, Chair, I can say it's enough assurance
from the applicants that they will not
pursue the planning until they relocate
to the weightlifting club.
And there is only, I think so it's a disagreement
a bit like about five years or 15 years.
And the applicants said they can be like,
they can start talking about that and how to mitigate that one 15 years and five years.
And so I think it's enough assurance from their side that they will relocate this white
lifting club and about the least terms they say they can just have a discussion on that one.
So I hope they're going to stick with their commitment hopefully.
Any other comments before we move on to the vote?
Thank you.
So we now I now propose the officer's recommendation to grant the planning permission for the development
and propose development proposed in this application.
subject to planning condition and obligations at the main report and update report.
Can I see all those in favour of this application?
All those against?
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Next.
Paul, can I ask you to summarise the vote, please?
Thank you, Chair.
So the committee has voted on a majority vote of 4 in favour and 2 against to grant planning
permission for the redevelopment of 229 Bethel Green Road in accordance with the detail set
out in item 6 .2 of the agenda and the update report that was tabled as well.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you very much.

7 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS

We don't have any other planning matters this evening.
Not this evening, no.
Okay.
So we will conclude this evening's meeting.
Thank you very much for everyone's participation.
We will see you at the next meeting, which will be Tuesday 1st December 2026.
Webcast Finished - 2:20:29
Thank you very much.
Good evening.
1