Transcript

video. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Developing Film Committee. My name is Councilor Baohasane. I will be chairing this meeting. Apology for this slide delay. This meeting is being held in person, committee members, and key participants are present in this meeting room. Only the committee members present in this meeting room will be. Other person may be also attending remotely. Committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by the committee officer that should technical difficulty prevent their full participation in this meeting. It may proceed in the reference if I feel it is necessary. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting procedure. Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair. If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact the democratic services officer as soon as possible via email. However, officers may not be able to respond to all such requests. You should keep your microphone and camera switched off, please, at all other times. Please do not use the meeting chat facility. Any information added to the chat facility will be discarded. If you experience any difficulties, you must contact either myself or the democratic service officer as soon as possible. I will now ask the committee members to introduce themselves. Please, can I also state, can you also state any declaration of interest that may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interest. I will start with myself. One of the. I am interested in the development for item 7.1. The Red Hood Community Center, the managing committee members, the secretary is my brother, Martha Hussein. So with that note, that's my declaration of interest, but I have no other pigmented interest to declare. Thanks now, members, to introduce themselves from my right, please. Councillor Muhammad Chardry, Mylon Ward, I have no interest to declare. Councillor Gula, I'm Kibriya Choudri, popular award, nothing to declare. Mephi Debustin, Councillor for Island Gardens, nothing to declare. Councillor, I'm in Raman. One of the agendas for tonight is the agenda item. Councillor SRI quickly find it there with me. Agenda item 7.3, I'm a committee member of TACH, and I used to previously live in the estate. Thank you. Yes, Councillor Bailão Jean, Kivitain Ward, nothing to declare. Good evening, all Councillor Farriuk, I'm with Washington Ward and I have nothing to declare. Thank you, members. I now ask, if we have received any apologies from us, we have, have we received any apologies from us? Good evening, Chair. We have no apologies. We have a full house. Thank you. Now, we must elect it by chair for the year 20, 20, 25. Do we have, I'm asking members, do we have any nomination? I am proposing Councillor, I'm in Raman as a vice chair for this municipal year. May I have a second drop of that, please? I will second it. Thank you. Any other nominations? May I now have a vote on this nomination, please? Can I have, can I see all those in favour of this nomination? I see all those in favour of this nomination. Any abstent? Ten minutes. That's carried, Chair. So, Councillor, I'm in Raman. We'll be the vice chair. Thank you. Yes. Thanks all for confirming that. Now, agenda item two is minutes from previous meeting. Can we approve the minutes from the meeting held on 30th November 2023 and 25th April 2024? Thank you. Agenda item four are the recommendation procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance. I will now ask Paul Beckenham, the head of development management planning and building control to present the guidance, please. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening. Good evening members and members of the public and officers who are joining us today in the meeting in the Chamber and online. So, this item just simply sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and relevant material considerations. When we come to the individual reports, I will outline the proposal and brief description of the application and the summary of the recommendation. Then officers will present the report and then we'll hear from anyone registered to speak, starting with those who wish to object who can address the committee for three minutes each. And then anyone who's registered to speak in support, including the applicants or their agents for up to three minutes each. And then any Councillors who are registered to speak can also address the committee for three minutes. And then the committee can ask points of clarification or questions of the speakers and officers and then the committee will consider the recommendation, including any further questions that they have and debate and any further advice from officers. The committee will reach their decision based on the majority votes and I'll come back to the Chamber. In the event that the committee proposes changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations or reasons for refusal. The task of those changes is delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration. And in the event that the committee did not accept the officer recommendation, it must give their planning reasons and propose and agree an alternative course of action. The committee may be adjourned briefly for further planning or legal advice. And the task of formalizing the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration. And finally, if the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions of the development plan or if it could have further legal implications, then the item may be deferred for a further report from officers to deal with the committee's proposed course of action. There is an update report that's been circulated this evening, which actually just contains the minutes, and then just some details on changes to the terms of reference, which I think is in the forthcoming item chair. So thank you very much. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Joe. So we've just taken the opportunity to just review the terms of reference. And there's a few minor changes and clarifications really, so it doesn't change too much. The first one is to is where we refer to referral criteria of 35 residential units. Members may be aware that from time to time, the council receives planning applications for not just conventional self contained housing, but also a shared accommodation such as students accommodation, houses, multiple occupation, etc. So it's just clarification that when we refer to 35 residential units, we've been of any new class, not just conventional housing. So that just makes it clearer for us and clearer for applicants. It's also to update the wording in part of the terms of reference, when we talk about what are often referred to as minor material amendments to planning permissions that have already been granted. The correct terminology is applications under section 73 of the 1990 Act, so we just clarify that's what we mean. We've also, there's a slightly odd wording in terms of observations to other planning authorities that said that we will refer them to the committee where the response is not in accordance with the development plan. I think it was meant to say where the scheme is not in accordance with the development plan. And finally, due to structural changes in the council, the terms of reference referred to the former director of place. So we've just updated that to refer to the corporate director of housing regeneration, which is the equivalent post under the new structure. So really, it's just a tidying up exercise, I would suggest chair and members just to make sure that the terms of reference are clear and up to date. Thank you.

Thanks for exploring terms of references. We can we note in the current terms of references, core membership and dates of future meetings as set out in appendices 1, 2, 3, to support and agree the proposed changes to the terms of references set out in appendix 4 and request these be approved by the appropriate decision wrote. [ Pause ] As an item for defer item, we have no defer item today to this meeting. Sorry, just could I have we gone through the dates of the meeting? Can I just raise two things on that? So on the list in the report, it says the 25th of April, which I think is a Friday. Because initially, it was the 24th of April, and I think I raised that with democratic services because that date and also the 9th of January clashes with audit committee and both myself and Councillor Ramana, members of audit. If there is a way of changing development, it would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for raising character. We've taken this to the deputy monitoring officer at the democratic services and we'll be trying to get those dates up. Whichever two committee could work better. Thank you. So it's in the in the works. Thanks, Thomas. As an item 5, the planning matters for decision. We have three planning applications to consider this evening. As an item, 5, 1, the land comprising Harriet, Aspley, and Patterson, Patterson House, and Red Court Committee Center, Stanford Green, London, U1, paid from 33 to 84. As I express my interest, my relationship with the general secretary running the Red Court Committee Center, my brother, my people have seen, although I have taken advice, legal advice, I don't have any pecanary interest or any other interest. It doesn't stop me legally to chair this meeting, but for the greater transparency and established good practice, I will step down for this item and I will ask our chair, Councillor Ramana, to chair for this item, and I'll come back after this item. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, everyone. So we do have a sub-member available, which is Councillor Shafi. He's sitting here today for this. So can we call you to come in? Thank you. Councillor, would you like to introduce yourself and if you'd like to thank your declaration or if you have any interest? Good evening, my name is Councillor Shafi, I'm from the White Chapel Ward, and I have nothing to declare, Chair. Thank you. So we will go ahead. Agenda item 5.1 is PA/24/00368, land compromising Harriet, Apsley and Pattison House and the Red Cross Community Centre, stepping within London E1, pages 33-84. I now invite Paul Beckham to introduce the application. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Vice Chair. So this planning application affects land at Harriet, Apsley and Pattison House and the Red Cross Community Centre and Steppe degree. And the planning application proposes the redevelopment of the site, comprising the demolition of the existing buildings, which are listed in the description. And then the redevelopment of the site to provide 407 residential units within Class C3, across buildings ranging in height from 4 to 8 stories. And the new community centre building of 1,167 square metres in youth classes E and F1 and F2, together with associated landscaping, communal and meaningful space, accessible parking, secure cycle parking spaces and refuse and recycling and storage facilities. And the recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to planning conditions and planning obligations. There's no update report for this item and I understand there's no register speakers either, Vice Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Mr. Paul, can I ask the planning officer, Kevin, really to present this application? Thank you, Kevin. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. This presentation should take approximately 15 minutes. I'll begin first by providing an overview of the development site, including photographs of the existing site on the surrounding context. The application site is the CTA State located in the Steppney Green Ward. The site measures approximately 1.8 metres and is bounded by Steppney Way to the north to make a street to the west. Howard Street to the south and Wesley Street to the east. The site is currently occupied by three post-war housing blocks and two council-owned community buildings. The community-ish buildings are positioned in the northeast. That's the two red-risk buildings. You can see them pointing out on the screen now. The existing housing blocks range in height from between four and eight stories are positioned in a broadly north-south grid pattern. This is the three blocks, residential blocks here. There are currently 100 homes on site with a mixture of social tenants and leaseholders. This is just another aerial view showing the existing site and the surrounding context. The surrounding context is residential character with buildings between two and eight stories in height. To the northeast of the site, you'll see Steppney Green Park, which is a publicly accessible green space. In terms of transport and accessibility, the site is a PETA rating of five, which is considered very good. There are a number of bus routes in close proximity and white chapel, Steppney Green, Shadwell and Limehouse are all within walking distance. I'll just go through some site photos. This first photo is at the corner of Jamaica Street in Alwood Street, looking northeast. This is a view from the corner of Jamaica Street in Steppney Way, looking southeast. This is a view from Alwood on Wellesley, looking northwest. This final photo is looking south into the vehicle access route through the centre of the site. The community centre can be seen just here on the left, where my pointer is, and an aptly house on the right here. In terms of site history, there's a previous application for the development of the estate. It was approved in 2023. The 2023 proposal was for demolition of the existing building and a delivery of 412 new homes alongside a new community centre at the ground floor level of the residential building in the northeast. So the community facility was in the ground floor of this building here. The application was recommended for approval. I presented development committee in March 2022 with the resolution to grant from members. The decision was issued in August 2023. This current application is broadly similar to the previously approved scheme in terms of massing, building layout. With the changes focused mainly on the layout changes to accommodate fire safety measures and the relocation of the community centre into a stand alone building. Moving on to the closed development, this application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the construction of 407 residential units. A stand alone community centre together with new landscaping and outdoor amenity. In terms of the council's statutory consultation process, there's 879 neighbour letters sent out in April 2024. There was also press notice and site notes displayed on site. There were two letters of objection and one letter of support. The main issues raised in the objections were regarding potential disruption to existing residents and concerns regarding the affordability of the proposed residential units. The proposed site layout would consist of two perimeter urban blocks, each constructed around central communal courtyards and a new pedestrian link with public space in the north side orientation through the centre. So this is the perimeter blocks here on the screen and these are the central communal spaces here and here and through the middle is the central public link and landscaping. This drawing shows the step new way of the proposed elevation. As you can see, the proposed buildings, which are shown here, are similar in height to the existing building on Jamaica Street, which I'm just pointing out here. This drawing shows that the Alwood Street elevation, again with existing buildings here to the east and to the west. You can see the building height is here, stepping down to respond to this lower context. So this is the community centre here and it steps down towards the lower buildings to the east. In terms of materials and facade design, the primary facade materials will be three different colours of bricks with a mixture of protruding and recessed balconies. A similar material and colour part can be found on buildings in the surrounding area, ensuring the development is in keeping with the setting. A buff grey brick will be used across the buildings at the ground level to create a sense of continuity across the development. The next few slides show a series of proposed visualisations of the development. This first one is a view looking down at Jamaica Street. You can see the building would be commonly brick with a mixture of the inset and the projecting balconies here. This is a view looking up the central work way from Alwood Street. You can just see the community centre here on the right-hand side where my pointer is. And this view also shows the landscape new central access route here. This final view shows the new community facility on the south-east corner of the site. In terms of landscaping, as previously mentioned, the site would be developed around the central courtyard spaces and the new central link, which would also be landscaped but would be able to allow controlled access for vehicles for servicing and emergency services. The proposals include the addition of 127 new trees to offset the removal of 35 category being category C trees. The one category entry, the highest quality, identified on-site and circled here in the bottom left-hand corner. In red, it's being retained with the layout of the buildings designed to accommodate its retention. The image on the right shows the proposed eastern courtyard space, which includes some of the new semi-material trees. In terms of child's place space, the site delivers sufficient good quality child place space for under-12s on-site. As per the previous application, there's no provision for over-12s on-site. Although, as shown before, Stepney Green Park is in close proximity to the north-east and has various facilities for older children. Moving on to housing, there are 100 homes existing on-site. These are 64 leasehold and 36 secured tenancy. Of these, there are 64 homes to be re-provided. These are the 36 secured socially rented tenancy homes and 28 of the resident leaseholder properties. So all the socially rented units would be re-provided alongside the 28 leaseholders. Overall development would deliver 407 new units, which would include the 64 re-provided units previously mentioned. And the scheme would deliver 53% affordable housing overall, with 63% family units within the affordable rented. So there's 63% of 3 and 4 beds in affordable rent. In terms of the uplift beyond the 64 re-provided homes, the site would deliver 343 new homes. 40% of these would be affordable. Members should note that the split between affordable rent and intermediate is 86 to 14 in favour of affordable rent. And it's just noted in the office report at 7.37. It refers to 82 to 18%. So just to correct that, it's actually 86% affordable rent and 14% intermediate. This slide shows the layout at second floor across the buildings on the left. And on the right hand side is a selection of two of the proposed unit layouts, a three bed maze net and a four bed flat. In terms of housing quality, all the proposed units would meet London Plan minimum standards. All units would have private minute space provision that meets a minimum standards and would deliver good quality layouts with a good level of dual aspect units and no north facing single aspect units. In terms of neighbouring amenity, there are some daylight and sunlight impacts to neighbours surrounding the site. In almost all cases, the impacts are materially the same as the previously approved scheme. There are a couple of instances where these impacts differ due to changes in the massing associated with the design amendments. So an example of these is at 245 Jamaica Street, which is this building here. And here, 26 of the windows tested would meet BRE guidance for VSE compared to 30 windows in the extant scheme. And within George Scott House, which is this building here, 10 of the 34 windows would meet the BRE guidance for VSE compared to 13 within the extant scheme. Whilst these impacts are noted and have been considered as part of the officer's assessment, overall impact is considered to be broadly the same as the approved scheme. And officers consider the impacts to be acceptable, giving the range of benefits the estate regent scheme provides. In terms of overlooking and privacy, only buildings are more than 18 metres apart, both from neighbouring buildings and from other buildings within the site. And there would be no privacy or overlooking concerns. The proposed development would be parking permit-free with the exception of those eligible for a permit transfer. They are 35 blue badge car parking proposed on site. 33 of these would be within the podium car park space here and two additional spaces within the central links here and here. In terms of phasing, development has been designed to allow the first phase of development to come forward prior to the demolition of the residential buildings, to allow the existing residents to only have to move once and thereby limiting the destruction created by the development. There will also be subject to conditions regarding the submission of a construction management plan and a requirement to sign up to the council's code of construction practice to mitigate and limit the impact of construction works on residents. Lastly, I thought it would be useful just to take members through a comparison summarizing the main changes between the 2023 approved scheme and this current application. So on the left of the screen is the 2023 approved scheme and on the right is the proposed scheme. As you can see, layout of buildings, the footprint bulk scale and architecture, as well as the open space are broadly the same. As I previously, one of the main changes with this application was the relocation of the community building to a standalone building. So the community floor space and the extend scheme was located on the left hand here, where it says one and the red circle. So it was in the ground floor of this building. And that is moving to a standalone building, which is shown on the right here at the southeast corner. There's also an associated reduction in the number of homes proposed from 412 to 407 to accommodate this. This is made up of six fewer intermediate homes and an increase in social rent of one home and the private homes remain the same. The second key change has been external changes to provide second staircase access and meet the fire safety requirements. This takes the form of external walkways to provide access to second course. So on the approved scheme where it shows two, that is just an elevation with windows. In the proposed scheme, there is the addition of external walkways where it's shown two here, which allows access between the two stair cores and meet the fire safety requirements. This slide shows these proposed changes to accommodate the fire safety in more detail. So as you can see, highlighted in purple here and here within all the buildings, that is where the external access is being accommodated. These changes have been reviewed and have been signed off by the health and safety executive and meet the fire safety requirements for the building. This slide shows the approved scheme and the proposed scheme in terms of housing delivery numbers. The proposed scheme would deliver one more socially rounded unit than previously approved, but there would be a reduction in the number of intermediate units. Overall scheme would still deliver a significant amount of affordable housing at over 53%. In terms of viability, the proposed scheme has been tested by the Council's viability team and is delivering beyond the viability quantum of affordable housing. Finally, this slide shows summary of the range of financial and non-financial planning obligations proposed as part of the application. This includes financial contributions towards employment and carbon offsetting as well as non-financial contributions in terms of the deprivation of the affordable existing homes and the provision of additional affordable housing. The development also be liable to pay both borough and mayoral sale. To conclude, office's recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to a letter of agreement in relation to the financial and non-financial obligations. And the conditions and the formative salary in the committee report. Thank you, Kevin, for your application. As we have knowledge to speakers for this application, I will now move on to the members' questions. Do members have questions? Is it possible to just to turn the lighting up in the chamber? I can have a look. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. So, I just wanted to clarify with the reduction in intermediate housing from the approved plan, those five homes or those five units. Do you know what size they were that were not getting any more? Were they one bed, two bed or three beds? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, we were just double checking there. Okay. Overall, in terms of family size units, there is 50 -- sorry, I haven't got the exact numbers. There's 63% family housing within the socially amended overall. Thank you. So, it sounds like we're reducing the amount of family size accommodation and increasing the space of the community centre. In terms of the overall floor space for the community centre, there is a very small increase, but it's relatively the same size as previously proposed. It's just in a different position in a standalone building. So, that has the knock on impact in terms of housing numbers. Thank you for your presentation. All together, we are getting 412 residential units all together here. And our affordable housing is 55%. And if we calculate our previous existing one, affordable one, if we deduct this, how much we will get for this proposal. So, just to clarify, it's 407 units on this scheme. It was 412 on the extant scheme. So, in terms of 407, it's 53%, in terms of the uplift. So, taking aside the re-provided homes, it's 40.5%. So, there's 40.5% uplift in affordable housing. 40.5, 40.5 on the uplift. Councillor Shafi, I have it. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Just for clarification, in phase the proposed one in 2023, the community centre was underneath the building of that. In the new proposal, it's coming out. What advantages and disadvantages did we see in making that or proposing that? So, that's probably a question for the applicant. I think we just assessed the acceptability of that. So, it's probably a question less directed at the applicant or if you're allowed to. Yeah, I think probably in planning terms, I suppose, one of the main advantages is it makes the space a little bit more flexible. So, if planning pressure was granted and then in the future, there was a proposal, for example, to adapt that space or extend it, then it's easier to do that perhaps with a standalone building than it is with a building that's underneath the residential block. Also, it probably also allows a more bespoke design that perhaps you would get if you had it within a residential block and it probably allows for a bit sort of better sort of circulation of people arriving and leaving, because it just had a little bit of outdoor space around it more so than perhaps it did in the previous scheme. But that's probably from a planning authority perspective chair. The applicant is actually represented here and although they haven't registered to speak, it is your discretion if you think it will help the committee understand how those decisions are made. I think you should be fine. Thank you. Yeah, happy to speak to that chair. So, the change from a ground floor build space underneath one of the main towers. So, a standalone building was made primarily to accommodate the preferences of the current user group of the record and community centre and mosque as we're intending to re-provide that facility. There are advantages in terms of the separation from the residential scheme to delineate a clear divide between what our residential areas and where residential entrances to buildings are as well as what is for community use. And so that help that separation does help with things like noise transmission and reduces any possible risk there. That can sometimes be an issue with community centres below residential. But also that foot traffic entering and accessing the building is separated and clearly distinct from the residential buildings and entrances. And so we'll hopefully minimize the impact of foot traffic into that facility and avoid any confusion with things like residential entrances and that sort of thing. Thank you for your, thank you for your presentation. So, how much space was provided for the previous under the approved one for the community centre and how much space is given for the proposed in the proposed plan for the community centre. So, the community centre as a standalone building within this application is 1,167 square metres. Within the extant scheme it was 1,192. So, throughout the December we're talking very minor. The approved one, how much was the approved one? 1,192. Okay. And the current, the proposed one, 1,167. Thank you. Councillor BASSIL. Thank you, Chair. So, just in terms of like equalities considerations then. So, in terms of the community centre, is that going to be wheelchair accessible? How many floors are there? It was an internal lift and then thinking as well about on one of the slides, Kevin, you had the site layout and it said mosque in the corner. So, if it is going to be a mosque, is there going to be separate entrances for men and for women? Yeah, thank you. So, in terms of accessibility, it is a multi-floor building and it will be accessible and there will be lifts. In terms of how it will operate, we haven't been involved in those discussions. I think again, that may be something that the applicant might be able to provide more clarity on. Yes, there are two separate entrances. There's one entrance on the southern elevation to Ellwood Street. And there's a second entrance on the east elevation to Wellesley Street. So, to provide for exactly that to have the separate entrances. Just a quick question. She said there was about 800 something consultations sent out. Was it just to the surrounding residents or was it to a wider sort of residence? Yeah, so that is just our standard consultation is for residents within the proximity. So, the consultation for this replicated the consultation on the previous scheme to ensure that everyone had been consulted previously was consulted on the scheme as well. Councillor? Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation as well from the officers. May I ask, when was this scheme proposed? Or was it proposed previously separately or all together? Both of them, the committee centre as well as the affordable homes? Sorry, just for clarity, can you explain this scheme, when was it proposed? Yes, I'm sorry, this scheme itself. When was it proposed first? Previous application. So, there's been pre-app on this revised scheme for the past few months until... No, the one before the first initial proposed scheme. So, that would be... Chair, that application was received in December 2021 and we issued a decision on it in August 2023. Yeah, and it went to committee on the 21st of March 2022 and yes, it's very similar to the scheme proposed now. It was for the 412 homes on the site and for the community space for the incoming mosque, which was to be at the ground floor of the building in the northeast corner. So, that was the application that was resolved to be approved at the development committee in March 2022. Thank you and may I ask another question? Thank you. About the consultation, what was the percentage that you have received the outcome of the consultation, the feedback? So, in terms of our statutory consultation on the planning application, there was 879 letters sent out and there was three responses. So, there was only three responses on this application, but I think that might reflect the consultation that the applicants have undertaken and their consultations with local residents and keeping them updated with the changes on the scheme. Yeah, so, in terms of the responses to this, there was only three responses to this application. Thank you. I may come back. Just a quick question. Development decides how long are we looking at roughly. Yeah, thank you. So, we are currently in the process of procuring a developer who would manage the construction phase. The scheme is split into two phases. So, the first phase, once that developers appointed over the next few months, we would expect preparatory work to be undertaken demolition work, commencing towards the end of the year. And then a material start of the new homes being constructed during summer 2025. And that first phase estimated to take two to two and a half years to build out. That would build all the homes for the existing residents. And so they would then be moved into those homes. The RCCM would be moved into the new community facility and then the existing buildings demolished and phase two comes forward with a bill period slightly longer because it's the majority of the new homes of between two and a half to three years. Thank you. Thank you. I understand that many residents will be rehoused and currently the scheme is every house has a permit as we understand that this is a coffee development residents that are coming back. Will they have the right to have their permits and if so, how are we going to accommodate because according to the thing that's only 35 spaces. Yeah, so the permit transfer scheme and will apply to those residents that applies to in terms of the parking on site, that would be disabled parking only, and which is in line with London plan and local plan policy. This is a very accessible area, a PTL rating of five in terms of the vast majority of the units on site. They wouldn't be allowed to apply for permits. So it would only be the permit transfer. I think in essence, there is a potential for some parking pressure. I think this was also addressed on the previous scheme and this follows the same approach. So there is potential for some parking pressure. And I think it was a balance about delivering and optimizing the level of housing on site. So yeah, I understand that there is potential for parking pressure from the permit transfer scheme, but officers view were that in order to optimize the delivery of the site. This was the best option. Councillor Good evening, everyone, and my question to you, when you the consultation, how many complaints or have you received. So on this application, there has been two objections. Thank you. We have three plan or Tower Hammers local plan, London plan, and national policy framework does this proposal totally or fully comprised with this body three bodies. Yeah, so like, yeah, the report says that in essence the application has been assessed against local policy and national policy and overall is in line with policy. Yes. Any more questions. All right, do you members have, would members like to share the sorts or debate this application? I would like to start off first, maybe. Looking at this application, I think it's a very nice application. It looks like a uplift to the area brings more more homes as we know how there's a big crisis for new homes and it brings a lot of new homes and a big uplift to the area. Thank you, Chair. So, yeah, I'm a bit torn on this, to be honest with you, because I do agree there is a need for housing. What I'm struggling with is the reduction in family size accommodation from what has already been approved, and I know it's, you know, only for four beds, but we know the demand on our housing waiting list for family size accommodation. And I'm not, I'm not, I'm not here, what the applicant has said about the benefits of having a separate, separate site for the community centre slash mosque. However, I am not, I'm not convinced by those arguments. I have to be honest with you. Thank you, Chair. It's a welcoming development, I think, for the residents of Stepney. And it's, we know that throughout the years, the building is dilapidated and the surroundings and I think it's a good, a welcoming site to the residents. And I'm pleased that there are, in terms of climate, we managed to retain one of the trees, which is, which is a good news. And in terms of multiplying the trees that will go, it will double, it will actually triple the numbers of trees, which will help in terms of environment and the open space, which will be available to the residents. And it will be a, you know, a flagship development that will look as tower hummus and Stepney as a, as a great place and a go-to place. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Definitely, it will give a sort of relief about our overcrowding because lots of people have been facing due to overcrowding. At least we will get some relief and definitely it will impact in our vicinity as well because the visualization is very nice and everything. Though I have concern about parking, I know it's very difficult. At least we have getting 35 space, but PTC will give some flexibility to them, but it's very difficult here. But overall, my opinion is we will come this report because at least we will get some sort of relief. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I echo my colleagues about the, you know, much needed housing stock at this current housing crisis. And same time, I think the community, for a long time, the community were asking for a community centre standalone community centre. I think that will make the community happy as well, as well as, you know, those new houses will bring some relief to the, you know, our overcrowded community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I always do welcome any new development from, I wouldn't say necessarily this one is derelict, but old scheme to a new scheme, which uplift the area definitely. I do echo with Muffida Buston that my fellow Councillor about the big size properties. I personally think it's very low, the percentage of what you have drawn on this, and especially on this crisis, what we have many overcrowded families. It's still on a very long waiting list. And I, and I'm sure the other Councillors, my fellow Councillor, they do face these difficulties almost every day. What I can say is this, it will benefit many others, but those families who are really struggling, they will suffer and they will continue to suffer. So that should be looked into it very carefully in the future and bring something beyond what it's here. It's a massive project, there could have been better than this with big size properties. And the final thing is about the play area, I'm always keen on that for the kids. And I believe very strongly on a modern world, they should have adequate facilities and obvious for the health and wellbeing as well. But nowadays there are open gyms and that should be included into these schemes, if I may say, compulsory. Thank you. Okay, thank you everyone. I would like to ask Paul Beckham and Astrid lawyer planning legal service governance to share any final advice before we move on to the vote. Thank you Chair. I don't really have too much to add. I think the Committee have kind of explored a lot of the issues. The scheme is, you know, I would say it is, as we said earlier, generally compliant with the development plan. I think clearly choices have been made by the applicants as to kind of how they wanted this scheme to evolve compared to the planning commission that they already have. And that has involved some changes to the housing mix, but I suppose from a planning point of view, there is still a relatively generous provision of larger family sized houses that even if you just isolate the uplift, rather than considering as a whole, it's still more than the 45% that would be required by policy for the affordable, sorry, for the social rent element. So we're getting nearly 60% across the three beds and the four beds. So from a planning point of view, although it is less than the previous scheme, it is more than policy compliant from that point of view. So I don't think that in itself would be a reason that we could have rejected it. And also, it has been viability tested, so we have secured arguably the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing schemes actually in deficit, but it will need to be subsidized by the applicants in some way. Again, here, what members have said about the challenges of car parking, and I think as we've said, it's a bit of a balance between providing more car parking spaces, which arguably is against policy in a highly accessible location like this. Versus the place making benefits as the scheme in terms of the layouts and the landscape, etc. So it's one of those typical sort of planning choices and balances about sort of what should take precedent. But I think that's all I'd say for now. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just have one thing to add. I think we'll cover everything. Just your comment, Councillor, about the place space. I just wanted to clarify that obviously planning obligations are delegated to development management. So, although you said compulsory, it is something that's delegated, but I'm sure the comments will be taken into account. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Now moving on to the vote. Can I see all those in favor of the application? All those against? Any abstentions? Can I ask Paul Beckenham, can you please confirm the committee decision? Chair, so, on both of six members in favor and one abstention, the committee is supposed to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the result. The estate with Harriet Epson, House of the Reco Community Centre in accordance with the recommendation set out in item 7.1 of the agenda, subject to planning conditions and securing planning obligations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just asking members, are you comfortable with having 10 minutes break? Are you okay with that? Thank you. So, we'll come back. Yeah, we'll come back at 10 to wait. Thank you for coming back after the break. I thank you, Councillor for sharing the first item. And Councillor Shafiya for filling these spaces substitute. Now, we move on to the item 7.2 and the application at 8, White Road, London E1, 7 and F, based on 85 to 110. Now, I would like to invite Paul back and I'm tuned to do the application, please. Thank you. All right, Chair. So, as Chair said, this is a planning application affecting property at 8, White Road, London. And the planning application proposes the direction of two additional stories at roof level to the existing building to provide one forward bedroomed self-contained department with plant and associated works. And the recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to conditions. The reason this application is coming to the committee is that we've received more than 20 objections so it can't be dealt with under delegated powers. And, Chair, I believe there are, I think, in total four registered speakers this evening, two of which I believe will be joining us online. Is that correct, Thomas? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the introduction. So, the case, as mentioned, is for a two-story repetition at two White's Road. So, the application site is highlighted in red on the site plan on the screen behind you. It's located to the south side of White's Road. To the east, we have commercial street shown where my mouse is pointing to, and on the west, we have Bell Lane, leading up to Christopher Street. Immediately to the north of us is the London Bridge and Wall Exchange, and immediately behind that is this visual's market. The site is located in the Artillery Passage Conservation Area. Immediately to the east of us is a local listed building, Shaded in Yellow, which is a copper gate house. And immediately to the rear of us is a grey to listed building, which is 17 to 19 Broon Street, also known as a former soup kitchen for the Jewish poor, which is a grey to listed residential building. Here is an aerial view photo to help place everyone at the outpatient site. As mentioned, copper gate house is here to the left of us, and to the rear is the former soup kitchen for the Jewish poor. And here, provided is a front elevation view of the building highlighted in red along White's Road. So the proposal was mentioned is for a two-store roof extension on existing building. This would provide a four-bed six-guessing duplex unit with external meanity area in the form of terrace spaces. Cycle and refuse would be provided within the unit, and the development would be secured as permit-free. It was also noted that there was actually a 2021 previous approval for largely the same two-store roof addition. In terms of public consultation, 93 letters were sent to neighboring occupiers. A site notice was displayed outside of the property, and also it was advertised in the local press. We received 22 objections. In terms of the main concerns are listed here, and more detailed summaries provided in the committee report, but just to highlight a view here, the objections raised concerns regarding insufficient space for bins, removal of the existing communal terrace area, the design, impact and daylight and sunlight, the structural stability of the system building, and also no fire statement being provided. Some of the notable key issues are listed on this slide here. In terms of land use, the existing building comprises residential dwellings. Therefore, the principle of intensifying this to increase residential provision is considered acceptable. In terms of design, neighboring meanity, refuse and fire safety, I will discuss these in the following slides. Shown here is a visualization of the front elevation of the extension. The fifth floor addition, you can see, is set back from the existing car's parapet of the existing building, and a sixth floor addition is further set back to provide roof terrace space. The step design approach really helps to diminish the scale and bulk of the addition, and so that was set subservient to the host dwelling, and also would not appear unduly prominent from surrounding street views. This is helpfully illustrated in these proposed visualizations from White's Row. The step addition subtly blends into the streetscape, and it's also the use of dark bronze finishings, which complement the existing palettes, the existing materials palette of the street. The building still sits as a transition piece between the copper gate house here, which is taller than us, down to lower 6 or 7 White's Row. The existing proposed sections here also are quite helpful to understand the step design approach. It's around a 2.6 metre set back from the front, and a 2.1 metre set back from the rear. Shown here are the existing and proposed front elevations. Again, you can see here how the height of our extension will sit below a copper gate house, and that's again shown in these existing and proposed rear elevations. So our extension will sit here, again below a copper gate house. Here are the existing and proposed upper floor plans. You can see that the lift over one would be demolished to accommodate the duplex unit, and overall it's quite a spacious, full bed, family size unit provided. Here I thought it would be helpful to have a single slide to show the existing and proposed front and rear elevations of the previously approved 2021 application. There are actually in fact the same drawings we submitted in this application. There are no changes to the scale, bulk, and massing of the extension, or the architectural design, or the amount of glazing on the elevations. The borrow conservation officer previously raised no objections to the scheme, and the borrow design officer has also, in this application, raised no objections, complimenting that the extension will be subservient to the host building, and that the proposed use of materials by keeping with the character of the host building and context. In terms of neighbouring immunity, given there are no changes to the scale, bulk, height, and amount of glazing on the extension from the 2021 proposals, no additional concerns are raised in terms of overlooking or daylight and sunlight. In terms of daylight and sunlight impacts, the application is accompanied by daylight and sunlight report, and indicates that 23 out of 25 are the windows of a former soup kitchen would meet BRE guidelines. The two windows that do not meet these valleys serve a room with multiple other windows that do comply with BRE guidelines, and additionally the rooms that daylight distribution has been tested and bound to have no adverse impact. On the refuse strategy, I would like to draw members attention to this aspect, as this has changed from the 2021 proposals. Previously, a preoccupation condition was attached to provide a waste management plan to demonstrate how the existing ground full refuse area would accommodate additional bins. This was considered the most appropriate strategy as a site visit was not carried out during COVID-19 restrictions. In the objections received for this application, concerns regarding the size of the bin store were raised again. So following a site visit earlier this year, this has helped to confirm that the bin store is indeed too small to physically accommodate new bins for the new dwelling. Therefore, the applicant has committed actually to providing refuse storage within the unit. There will be 240 litre bin for waste, 180 litre bin for refuse, and for recycling of a garden, and 23 litre food storage bin which will be provided in the kitchen. This arrangement is detailed in an accompanying refuse management plan which has also been provided up front, and this shall be tied to compliance condition to ensure this arrangement is provided for the lifetime of the development and that future occupants are where, and that's their responsibility to bring refuse down on designated collection days. Some objections raised concerns with the loss of the existing rooftop amenity area. However, in the 2021 proposal, the officer noted that there are no rights actually attached to the tenancy leases to access the roof for recreational or communal purposes. Furthermore, the original planning consent for the building in 1997 attached a restrictive condition which removed the right to use a flat roof as an amenity area. And the planning history of site also reveals that there are no other concerns or permissions for the use of the roof as an amenity space. Consequently, the proposals were not resolved in a loss of a communal terrorist area. Lastly, some objections raised concerns regarding the lack of a fire statement. However, in accordance with the government's guidance on how to measure the height of a building for playing gateway, which is shown on the left-hand side here, the height for planning gateway is measured from the upper floor surface of the top floor level to the lowest external ground floor level, and with this guidance, the new increased height of the building would amount to 16.6 metres, which would fall under the 18-metre threshold. Therefore, a fire statement was not required for this application. So the officer's recommendation for this application is to grant planning permission of subject conditions, and that brings me to end my presentation. I have to take any questions later on. Thank you for the presentation. I will now invite Jim Tagorel. We are joining us online to address the committee in objection to the application. You have up to one and a half minutes. Thomas, if I can interject here, it's Grandcottis. I think I'm going to speak first on behalf of the before Jim, if that's possible. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. OK. I mean, we put a lot of the details. I'm speaking on behalf of the current residents and the actual owners of the building. The picture they're showing of the bin store actually shows it with one bin removed. There are already four bins in the bin store. I mean, realistically, they're saying that they're going to now provide a larger refuse bin within the apartment itself. It's totally impractical, and I can't see any residents ever wanting a dustbin inside their accommodation. So the previous application was passed, and unfortunately, the size of the bin store was overlooked, and it looks like it's going to be overlooked again, because also in the bin store, something they've completely ignored is the fact that there's utility covered in there. The water meters and everything else all within that cupboard. In the photo, there's a cupboard you can see just behind the bins. With regards to rights of way, again, being completely ignored is that every single leaseholder has this roof access. Noted as a fire escape. So you can understand everybody's concerns as to why this fire escape is going to be taken away from them. In the demolition plans, they've completely ignored the fact that there's a smoke escape vent right up the top of the stairs there. That's disappeared completely from the planning drawings. It's being overlooked completely. 30 seconds left, thank you. 30 seconds, okay. The conservation area, it's nothing like anything that's in the area. They have no permission to demolish or remove anything, and yet they're relying on demolishing and removing stuff. There's no local need for a four bedroom penthouse. The design and access statement contains multiple errors. I haven't got the time now to go through them. Please ask me afterwards. There are utilities existing on the roof like TV areas, no plans for reciting anything like that. I said incorrect statements. The loss of amenity. The rooftop has been used. Your time is up. Thank you. I now may ask Jim to go, he's joining us online to just a committee in objection to the application. You also have one and a half minutes. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'd like to just, I also represent the free holder and I'm also a lease holder. I just pick up more Graham said and the provision of bins now inside the property. It means that they'll have to take the bin down some stairs, then down in the lift and then effectively throw the rubbish on. The street, which given that the wall exchange has increased. The uplifted the wife's row area significantly having people throwing rubbish on the floor is hardly enough to the area. It actually will derogate the area and the life of the lease holders. We already have a pest control issue inside the block that we're fighting to against and having rubbish on the street outside the door will certainly not help. The applicant mentioned they basically have no legal right to demolish anything on the roof. So the plans are unbuildable and completely against their space lease. Just to remind you, 30 seconds left. Thank you. The provision of bicycles, there's no way that they can keep the bicycles and the bins in the property and take them down some stairs and then fit them into a small lift. This application, we became the free holders because we were effectively being bullied into upgrading the lift. And we became the free holders. And now we're being bullied into accepting a penthouse that doesn't add any value to the local community or to wife's row and is solely for the financial benefit of the applicant. And I'm really pleased for the sake of every single lease holder. Please reject this application. I invite Ross Lodgy. Is that how you say name? Looking. Thank you, pardon. Ross Lodgy, chair of the committee in objection to this application, you have up to three minutes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm an owner and a resident of one of the flats in the residential block called the old soup kitchen. It is a grade two listed building containing nine flats. For eight of these flats, the habitable rooms, rely on daylight and ventilation from the windows that look into the rear courtyard. This is a courtyard that is shared with eight whites row. Our objections to the proposed development are twofold, loss of privacy and loss of daylight. The local planning policy states that development must contain good levels of privacy and avoiding an unreasonable level of overlooking or unacceptable increase in the sense of enclosure. The proposed development adds two full floors to the building with fully glazed rooms overlooking all the rear windows of our building. Moreover, there's a full width private roof terrace proposed directly facing our windows. There's currently no private outdoor community space facing our windows. The planning policy stipulates that a distance of approximately 18 meters between windows of habitable rooms reduces into visibility to a degree acceptable to most people. The distance here is much less than 18 meters. In fact, it's less than nine meters. So if you visit our courtyard, you would just see how constricted this space already is. We believe that therefore we believe that in respect of this protected immunity, the proposals do not comply with the planning policy. My second objection regards loss of daylight. I acknowledge that a daylight and sunlight technical report has been prepared. That report quantifies a loss of daylight to all the rear windows in our building. In fact, as confirmed by the applicant in their daylight analysis, two windows to habitable rooms within our building would have a loss of daylight exceeding BRE guidelines. I also point out that the planned equipment which is indicated on the submitted roof plan has not been included on the digital model shown in the daylight report. Moreover, planned equipment is not indicated at all on the proposed site sections. How can we be assured that this will not have further impact on loss of daylight to our homes? Along with the owners and occupiers and occupants of the old soup kitchen, I believe that the above objections outweigh any benefit from this development, especially as it adds just one more home to the BRE's housing stock. That's my thank you. Thank you, Chair. I am Andrew Riley, Director of Planning at DLBP, a London-based planning consultancy. I'd like to start, please, by just giving a bit of an explanation, excuse me, for why this application was submitted and why it's before you this evening. As you would have heard, the application, or rather, there was an application submitted and approved by the Council in 2021. That was in August 2021. And the application before you this evening is, toward intents and purposes, identical to the application that was approved by the Council, there's one small change around the refuge arrangements that the planning officers explained, and I will respond to some of the points that have been made about that in a moment. But the reason I want to stress that point is what we are not seeking to do is make any significant or really any sort of material changes to the permission that's been granted. We're not seeking to make the development any bigger. It would still be for one dwelling, for one home, it would still be for four bedrooms, it would still have the same gross internment area, and it would still have the two stories that were previously granted. So we're not seeking to make any changes at all in that way, excuse me. And when the Council made its decision in 2021, the planning policies or the planning policy framework that was in place at that time is the same as it is now, the London plan, the local plan, and indeed the Council's reuse, recycling and waste SPD was in place at that time. And so again, I stress that point that this is the same application under the same set of planning policies that has been granted. And as the officers would explain and confirm, consistency in decision making is obviously a key tenant in all matters of law, but including planning decisions. So the reason that we have made this application is we're effectively seeking to renew a planning commission that's been granted. There is no provision in the planning act that allows us to simply renew it. So we've gone to the process of making a new full planning application. Having said that, we have taken some steps to implement the scheme that is granted and is currently excellent and can be lawfully implemented. And that is by making an application to the Council to discharge the requisite pre-commencement planning condition. And that's currently with the Council for its consideration. So the reason we want to make a new-- we're requesting that a new planning commission, a replacement planning commission is granted, is really one of time. Time has got the better reverse because of COVID and because of other factors. And we would like more time to implement the same planning commission. And that time, what we'd like to do is have more discussions with these holders and the right to manage company. We'd like to have more discussions with our design team about the build program and effectively just have more time to implement the current planning commission that's been granted. One thing to note is if planning commission is granted, it will be subject to the Council's current community infrastructure level, which is higher. There was a higher number that was stipulated back in 2021. So that will-- there will be a higher sale to pay with a new permission. So turning to the change that we've made and it's been touched on already, which is solely around waste and recycling arrangements. In response to one of the neighbours or also one of the residents that asserted that this matter was overlooked in the previous application, that's not correct. We had discussions with officers because comments were made about the refuse and recycling arrangements in the previous application. And, you know, in fairness at that time, there was some uncertainty about whether the existing sort of the refuse that currently exists could be increased in capacity. And so in discussions with officers, it was suggested to us that a planning condition could be imposed and that's condition number four that's on the current planning commission. That condition was not predicated on enlarging the current refuse capacity or the refuse capacity within the sort of the existing arrangements, but solely a strategy to result in refuse for the new dwelling being accommodated. And a number of options were discussed at that time, including potentially incorporating within the flats, including private collection, which was an option and actually an option suggested by the planning officer that was previously dealing with the application. In discussions with officers on this application, it's been recommended to us that the best option would be to accommodate it in the flats in the new apartment. And one thing that we do have is the space to accommodate it is it exceeds the minimum space standards. So we can comfortably accommodate the refuse requirements and the recycling requirements for the flats that we are seeking permission for and then have a strategy where the collection sacks are taken down on collection day and collected as is normal. Conscious of time, the points that have been made by local residents in relation to the police hold matters and points of the lease and so on are as officers will confirm sort of not material to the planning decision. But I can confirm that we have a lease that enables us to develop this items, you know, that is in place. And in relation to the points that made by the resident from the adjacent building, again, I just sort of draw your attention to the judgments that were made by officers and the council as a whole when determining that those policy compliant matters around overlooking and overshadowing were addressing a previous application. So thank you very much. I invite members to have any questions to the officers subject to or applicant. Thank you chair. This is to the applicant. Obviously there are a number of objectives and strongly raising their voice regarding this particular proposal. How would you justify that we should accept this application and how do you keep them happy to go ahead with it? Could you talk us through a bad place? Thank you councillor. In terms of the justification, the justification is that the proposal is in accordance with the council's local plan and the remaining policies of the development plan, the London plan and national policy. As the officer outlined earlier, it has been endorsed by the council's heritage officer, and is endorsed in terms of its design and urban design. It has no objections in terms of transport or environmental health or any of those points, and both our assessment and more importantly the officer's assessment. Then and now is that it's acceptable in relation to its relationship with the properties that surround it, the adjacent and adjoining residential occupiers. Whilst there would be some impact as there is in any form of development, actually that impact is very modest and is not in the terms of the planning policy harmful to us to contradict that planning policy. In terms of the second part of your question, to some end actually, that is why we are here, is fundamentally we would like time to have further discussions with the leaseholder and the right to manage preholder. Those discussions are not related to planning matters, they are related to legal and contractual and construction related matters. And ultimately, we want to put in place, because it's actually fundamentally in our interest, a construction program that causes at least a amount of impacts, and to create a development that can coexist with the existing flats that that is ultimately in our interest, and that is what we would like to do and we'll do if we're granted planning permission. Thank you, Councillor Arman. Just a quick one, so when you put the planning permission in 2021, how many objectors were there in? I don't know if that's on my head, so I don't know if you've heard. There were 14 for the previous one, and 22 in this one. Councillor? Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your report, Katrina. So, I'm a little bit confused. Who is the applicant? What do they own as part of this building? Because we've heard from the objectors who are freeholders and leaseholders. Who was the applicant right here? Could I defer that to you? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. So, the applicant is an entity or a special purpose vehicle, but part of a company called up space construction services. It has a lease effectively over the airspace to be able to undertake this development. I would say I'm not a lawyer, I'm a planning consultant. Can I interrupt you? Can you bring, I should continue to explain this, please. Thank you. It was just something I was going to mention, because I did hear the second objector mention about, I think, flying freeholds and the airspace of other flats. But just to mention, really, that it's not really a matter for this committee, it's not a material consideration, it's a planning application. I just wanted to point that out really, that was all to members, because it had been mentioned. Yeah, I can assure you that it's possible. Should I, sorry, your question that you did not heard of it, it's, I think that's common, but it's, I don't know how common it is, but it's quite a regular part of buildings and development for that arrangement. And as it's been said, it's ultimately a matter for us to ensure that, you know, we have the, you know, we are not going to undertake this development unless we are entitled to do so from a legal and contractual perspective. Okay. Thank you. So then going back to one of the objectives, I think it was Mr. Cottie talked about the fire escape. So the current, currently the roof is being used or is mentioned as a fire escape. So what is there currently on the roof that allows current residents to be able to escape potential fire? Is it just the access to the roof or is there something else? Thank you councillor. So yes, at the moment is just, say, X out onto the flower roof. There's no other kind of other accessories to help in terms of I is just to kind of access point for them. Thank you. Thank you. This is to the officers. How many of the object are from the same building? Could you clear from that, please. Thank you councillor for the question. Actually, in the representations and number them withdrew their address. So I can't actually give an accurate list of who's from where. So only I believe 12 people provided their personal address. Thank you. Mr. the Boston, councillor Boston. Thank you. So, Mr. Thank you for coming along today. So you mentioned here that you mentioned about the concern about overlooking and loss of daylight. So in the report, it says that I think you said that you're in the old soup kitchen. Is that correct? And in the report, it says that the impact is only to the reduction. Sorry, I'm just reading it. Let me find the right page. There are only two windows that do not meet the acceptable levels, but you're disagreeing with that. Is that right? I'm not disagreeing with that, but there is a reduction to daylight to, I think, all the windows at the back, but they are, I think they are within the BRE guidelines of what reduction is acceptable within guidelines to just two of the windows. Don't even below that, but still there is a reduction, even if it is within the BRE guidelines to many of the other windows as well. That's what I was trying to say. Thank you. And then going back to the issue about the bins. So Katrina. So, I mean, the object is a right. Right. So you could store the refuse bins in the accommodation. But the waste collection is that they're not going to come up to that floor to collect the bins. How are they actually going to get emptied? Thank you, Councillor. So the refuse would be provided the storage in the flat, but they will bring it down in sacks and place them on the street for collection, which is quite a common procedure where you do have other four units that do bring sacks down on collection day. And it would only be during collection days as providing the waste management plan, not just whenever they have a full refuse bin to kind of put it on the streets and accumulate waste, we would designate just whatever they need to bring waste down to bring waste down. And it wouldn't be within the existing bin store, which people have raised objections to overflowing in the past. So that will be separate. We're not trying to exhaust the existing refuse store. We're trying to create a new process where they provide it on the street. I have a question to the applicant. So you mentioned that this application had been submitted was granted in 2021. So compared to that application, what improvement have you offered in the current application? Thank you, Chair. So, as I said earlier, fundamentally the development that we're seeking is identical to what has been approved previously. The one change that we have made and really flowing from a recommendation from the planning officers is around the refuse and waste arrangements. Our strategy was never predicated on the existing arrangements being changed. And ultimately, there will be no change to the existing arrangements, either good or bad. But what we have done is find a solution that we can meet the needs of the future occupiers of this apartment in a practical way that doesn't affect the existing residents. Thank you, you know, particularly the objector highlighted their objection around fire safety and refuge collection. In terms of those factors, how did the planning. You're designed mitigate this to particular objections. Thank you, Chair. So in relation to refuse and recycling matters. Ultimately, the residents of the existing residents of the building will not be affected. Their arrangements will not change. Their communal bin store will remain their communal bin store and that will continue to serve their needs. So we are not proposing to make any changes to that. And essentially, that would be separate from our future developments. So that addresses their concerns that there is effectively no change. With respect to fire safety, as the officer said earlier, there's no specific requirement for a fire statement. And obviously, when we construct the development, as part of the principal contractor, we'll have advice from fire consultants in a fire engineer. And we will satisfy the relevant legal requirements such as the building regulations and those regulations associated with them. And those legal requirements will relate to both the existing residents and the residents of the future occupiers of the flat. So we will satisfy those. We will not make the situation worse because that would be unlawful. And indeed, we'll do what needs to be done to make it better. Thank you. Do you want to respond to those question and ask? Do you want to add anything? Thank you, Chair. There's not too much to add. I think we had a strategy before where we had preoccupation condition, which we found wasn't suitable. Therefore, we have tried to improve that by obtaining a waste management plan up front and also the drawers up front. So we know designated location for the refuge in the future. In terms of the fire safety, again, this would be addressed during the regulation stage as a legal requirement. And it's not required at this stage of planning to obtain one with the reasons given in terms of the building, not being of the correct height for fire statement. That would be captured in the next stage. Thank you members for your invaluable questions. We have a question and answer now. I would like to members to share their final thoughts on this application or comments. Thank you. Can I start? Councillor CHILDREN, do you have any? No. Anyone? Thank you, Chair. Actually about this proposal, I always do welcome any application with a new scheme, but subject to satisfactory. And especially on this one that there are a number of objectives, which I really respect and the application as well. But I personally think this will not be a good scheme to deliver from ourselves because of myself, basically. Because there are a number of objectives that they are not happy and they are cleared. And I'm not satisfied with the scheme as well to go ahead with it. And that is my point. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Chair. So, you know, taking into consideration that there is precedent, so it's already a scheme has been approved. So, I need to be kind of conscious of that, I suppose. But I guess I can understand why objectives, particularly those living in the building, are concerned. And if I was one of the people living in that building, I would be concerned as well, and I'd be very concerned, particularly about fire safety. And also appreciate that it's not of a height to require a fire statement. I don't know whether there's anything that we can put in place in regards to a condition to give some assurance around how we can. Yeah, how we can get assurance around fire safety. I suppose what I'm conscious of is that with an internal bin storage, does that create an additional risk? Does that increase the risk of fire for any reason whatsoever? There's also two sort of listed buildings on either side, is that right or am I? There is a lot listed building to our right for looking north-south and onto the back of us. So, imagine if you're on one of those sort of upper floors and you've got no way to really sort of escape and thinking about, you know, listed buildings and perhaps some of the dated fire safety arrangements they might have. I can see why there are valid concerns, but I feel like the objectives have valid concerns. However, there is precedent there, so I'm not quite sure what we can do. So I don't know whether Paul, you're able to thank you for any advice on that. Any members? Your final thoughts? Counselor? Counselor? Thank you, Chair. It is a previous application that was granted in the previous. So, listen to the objectives and looking at the application. I still think this application is quite strong. And with the objectives, concerns regarding the waste and the fire safety issues, with the waste, I get it. When it's inside the building or in the communal area, there might be thoughts where how it will be collected, but it has been collected. And with the fire, I think maybe, again, looking to a different way of dealing with it rather than going to the top of the building. With fire, I think we don't need to go to the top of the building, we need to get out of the building. So maybe that's something to look into. Thank you. Now I would like Paul and us to share your final advice before we move into a boat. Thank you, Chair. So, again, grateful for the Committee for exploring all these different issues. I think this is important, obviously, to recognise that there is a planning commission in place for substantially the same development. So that, if you'd like to create a four-back position for the developer, you know, if the mission wasn't granted for this scheme, the policy environment is substantially the same, the local environment, it hasn't really changed in terms of, you know, that's assessment. Understand that there are concerns around fire safety, although I was sort of listening to what Councillor Wong was saying. And actually, you know, in many ways, it's not clear to, in my mind, why an escape route to the roof would be important to the residents' group because instinct would suggest that you would head out of the building. So whether that's sort of a material planning consideration, I would suggest it isn't. And the fire safety issues would be dealt with through the building regulations. If, through the building regulation assessment, there is a requirement to change the scheme. The applicant will need to come back through planning at that stage. I think, you know, I understand there might be a preference to include conditions at this stage around fire safety, but I'm not convinced that they would meet the legal test for conditions because, as I say, it would be dealt with comprehensively through the building regulation stage. Just reiterate if that assessment finds that there's a problem, then it's down to the applicant to resolve it. If they can't resolve it within the scope of what they had permission for, they'll need to come back and apply for a different scheme that resolves it. The, I know the concerns around daylight impacts, but I think I'm correct in saying that actually when you drill down into that, the only, the two windows that fail the BRE guidance are actually complemented by a number of other windows serving the same room. So they're not the only windows that serve, serve that room, so that they are minor transgressions. In a bit, in a bill suburban environment like this, you would expect some, some daylight impacts. The extension is set to the north, so there's not really any impact on, on some, so it's only light, light from the sky in that sense. But other than that, I don't really have much else to add. Thanks, Board may ask, must you to have your say, advice on discipline? Thank you, Chair. I don't really have much more to add. It's just the very, very general point and apologies for, you know, it's a simplistic one really. It's just to make sure that any, any members who are minded to object, to really set out clearly, you know, what your reasons are, and to make sure that they are material planning considerations, because, you know, if, for example, there were to be refusal, it's really, really important that we set it out clearly, because if it does then go to appeal, then that could have costs implications. So it's just to remind members of that. Other than that, I don't have anything else, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. No, can I see? Mr Chair, sorry, it's trying to talk to you here again. Would it be possible to make a couple of brief? I'm afraid. That was the objective there. It's easy, okay, too. Sorry, Mr Chair, would that be possible, because there are a couple of points in their application that are different to what they presented today. Sorry, you have 30 seconds to say your final summary. And I will have to give 30 seconds to the applicant as well. Do you have 30 seconds from now? Thank you. Right, the applicant stated that the building doesn't require a fire statement, but the application stated as being 19.74 metres. Now they've miraculously made it shorter by about three metres. I'd like to know how the application, you know, the applicant has made the building smaller. They're also proposing that they put rubbish bags onto the street. They will be blocking the pavement or blocking the access door to the bin store. So either way, putting to taking bin bags downstairs and dumping the ministry will not work either. Thank you. Yeah, all that's going to do is attract vermin. Thank you. May I ask a applicant to respond? 30 seconds, thank you. Thank you, Chair. In response to the question regarding the building heights, I'd suggest that's a misunderstanding on the objectives part about what the information is in the application form, which is requiring the total height of the building versus the height of a building for the purposes of a fire statement and, you know, slightly confusingly in fairness, they are different measurements. And that is why that is different. I think the refuse point, I'm not really sure there's anything I can add to that other than what's already been discussed. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, I'd just direct you to the slide put on the screen, which again illustrates that point. It's not the height of the building, it's the height of the top floor story that's pertinent for the HSE refer. Okay, thanks. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, Chair. So the committee is voted with the majority of four in favour, one against, and there were two abstentions to grant planning permission for the historic extension at eight white row in accordance with the details set up in item 7.2 of the agenda and subjective planning conditions. Thank you, Chair. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Now we're moving on as agenda item 7.3, confirmation of the Dean Mont State E2, three preservation orders, 2024, oblique two, page 111 to 134. I will now invite Michael Richie. I've taken legal advice from the officer, and I have been advised that I can sit on this. However, I feel like being a board member of a THCH, I won't be taking the apart on this application or complete of interest. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, for letting us know your interest, including your interest, thank you. So I will now invite Michael Richie, please, play-shaping manager to present the three preservation orders. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, thank you, Chair. I'm just going to call up the presentation on the screen for you to skip one minute. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] There we go. So yes, this report relates to the confirmation of a tree preservation order for two trees on the didn't want a state. Before we talk about the trees, in particular, I'd just like to take a moment to talk about tree preservation orders in general, because this is a relatively new thing for the committee. So the council has powers under section 198 of the Tannakan planning act to serve tree preservation order, where it considers it to be expedient in the interests of immunity. Once in place, an order means that you're unable to carry out any work or fail or prove in a tree without that council's consent. And when we say it's the interest, it's the consideration of expediency and immunity. So the expediency point means there has to be a foreseeable threat to the tree. So there has to be some, some must be responding to some kind of threat and we're not just, we don't just serve TPOs to trees as we like otherwise. I mean, it is not defined in legislation, but there are various different objective methods that we can use to assess the immunity and I'll come on to those a bit later. The process is that orders are served by officers under delegated powers on an interim basis and they last for six months until, by which time they must be confirmed or not. And a recent change to the council's constitution means that we now refer the confirmation of TPOs that are a subjection objection to committee, which is what we're here to do today. So, the trees in question, so the Dimmont estate is the tree, sorry, the buildings, the red brick buildings in the center of this image, they're just north of Hackney Road. You'll see here at Haggiston Park and about the green gas holders just to provide you with a bit of context and the trees are these two in the middle of the estate here. The two trees in question are a white beam and a London plane, showing that these pictures were taken this morning to give you an idea of what the trees actually look like today. The London plane is a much larger tree, it's not totally clear from this picture, but you'll see later on and the white beam is smaller. And they are here within the estate on a area of grass amenity area between Seabright House and Beechwood House. The grass amenity area is actually the only sort of thing that softens the very hard landscape area between the two buildings that you can see here, the space between the buildings is mainly occupied by garages, parking, cycle parking, bin stores. There's a play area and a sports court that are kind of fenced in in the middle there. So why have we made the TPO? Well, this came about because the owner of the site, which is Ta Hamat's Community Homes, has approached the council with development proposals for the land in between the space between the two buildings. And I think they began consulting residents and residents expressed concern to the council about the impact on these two trees. We're concerned that the immunity of these trees would be harmed. So the council's tree officer visited the site and conducted an objective assessment of the two trees using what's called a TEMPO assessment. And essentially, this gives the trees a score out of 25 and anything above 11 means that a TPO is justified. The London plain, the larger two trees scored 16 and the white beam scored 14. The point, I guess, some of the key points about the immunity assessment is the trees are very visible and they're very mature, so they're quite old trees. The London plain is thought to be over 100 years old, the white beam over 60 years old. The white beam is expected to not live as long as the London plain, which has a slightly lower score. But nonetheless, they expect to still be the white and the London plain could be there for another 100 years and the white beam another another 40 years. So those factors have fed into the immunity assessment. And we do believe there's a real, enforceable threat to the trees as evidenced by the development proposals. So we notified the Tahams community housing of the interim order as we're required to buy legislation. And they raised an objection both on the grounds of expediency and immunity so that their view is that the expediency has not been established. They state that the removal of the trees could be mitigated by replacement planting, which in itself would offer biodiversity and ecological improvements. And they could also introduce further greening to the space between the buildings. They do recognize that the London plain is a high quality tree, but there are the view that the white beam is only of moderate quality, which broadly is reflective of our view that London plain is the higher quality of the two trees, but they're both still worthy of retention. In our view. And with regards to immunity, the objection states that again, softening can be achieved. So one of the reasons we gave for serving this TPO was that the area, as I said earlier, in between the two and this is very hard. And this is these trees and the grassed area they sit on is one of the only things that really sort of provides any softening. And the objection states that that softening could be achieved through other planting that might come about as part of the development proposal. The importance of delivering affordable housing is also been highlighted in the objection. So our consideration of the sector, we've given the objection due consideration and we recommend that office recommend that the TPO is confirmed. We believe that the expediency test is met. That is definitely a foreseeable threat to the tree. As I said before, as evidenced by a development proposal has been put before us. The trees do offer a significant immunity value. As you will have seen, they are large mature trees that are very visible and expected to live for quite some time. It's also very important to point out that the TPO, if it's confirmed, it will offer protection outside the planting process. So it's not just about protecting the trees in case anybody wants to have to submit a planting application to redevelop the land. It protects the trees at all times and it would also mean that a developed proposal could be put in and then withdrawn or development could be granted, which will affect the result in loss of one of the trees, but the other tree would be put under increased pressure. So it could continue to just protect one of the trees. It's also important to note that a confirmed TPO doesn't necessarily mean that the trees can't be removed at any time. It just means that they will be given elevated status in consideration of any other planting application should it come forward. That may allow the council to negotiate further on the site and give us an extra weight that will allow us to negotiate more in terms of replacement potentially. For those reasons, we are recommending the confirmation of the TPO this evening. It's also important to note that the committee can choose to modify the order before confirming it. So that would mean in practice you could choose to confirm the order on just one or rather of the trees. Either one or both. So, yeah, thank you. Thanks, Michael, for your presentation. Now, as we don't have any registered speaker for this item, I would like to move on to members questions. Please indicate if you want to speak. Thank you, sir, I missed your name. Michael, Richard. Okay, thank you for your presentation. It was really comprehensive. So, the development that TCHCH wants to bring forward, is that even in pre-upstage, is what stage is it at? It's at pre-upstage. I believe there have been two or three meetings. Paul might be able to confirm that. It's at pre-application stage and there's been a couple of meetings. There isn't any definite proposal on the table that we're not moving towards. There's no application imminent as far as I'm aware. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to elaborate, that's correct. What I'm excuse to have done is look to options across a number of sites across the state. So, this is not the only one that they're in the process of looking at. But none of the sites have actually got to the stage of a planning application yet. Thanks for your question, Paul. Thank you very much. Have you ever seen any complaint from the resident? Sorry, complaints from the resident. No, we haven't received any representations from the residents. The legislation only requires us to notify the person's interest in the land as in somebody who has the right to work on the tree. So, it's slightly different to a planning application whereby we don't consult residents in the wider sense. I am aware residents are interested in the tree and I have spoken to a resident on site. I don't think the committee can really treat that as a supporter of objection because we have no written letters of support or objection before us. But I have spoken to residents. The ones that I spoke in particular was concerned. The one who alerted the council to the value of the trees in the first place and was concerned the trees would be lost. Thanks. I would like to draw your attention. It has been presented just to this point. The tree preservation order does not necessarily mean that one or both trees cannot be removed in the future if needed. So, just to highlight that for the member's attention. Say. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We always like trees because we need more oxygen and we need reduction of carbon. Thank you and we have a possibility that if any development or anything we can remove this tree then we can, newly we can plant trees in this point. We appreciate your comment, Councillor. Thank you, Chair. Not too much to add. I think. I think yourself and other Councillors, I think have identified that if the tree preservation order is confirmed, would it does it elevate the status and give protection to the trees. If there was a proposal that came before planning in the future then that can be looked at as it's merit on its merits. And I think as my colleague, my colleague has pointed out that in some ways it actually strengthens the council's negotiating position in terms of additional planning across the estate. But having said that, just to reiterate at the moment we don't have a planning application before, since purely consideration of the tree preservation order, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to explain in the pack because I think you've got the tree preservation order. So this is the temporary one that is made for six months and then it would get signed off. If it goes through now then it would get confirmed and then it becomes permanent. So at the moment it's just this six month, if I understand correctly, I've got nothing else to add. Presentation? Thank you, can I ask members now to confirm. Jin Monde, State Tree Resent Order 2024, I'd like to protect the significant amenity value which these trees offer in favor of these. Can you confirm the decision? Thank you, Chair. And as soon as that was fair, it concluded that was the unanimous vote in favor of confirming the tree preservation order. Thank you again for your assistance this evening and also given this is the first of this type of report that the committee is considered as well. So I'm grateful for your help with that. Thank you. Thank you.