Transcript

turret, this meeting is held in person, committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room, only the committee members present in the meeting room will be able to vote. Other persons may be able to attend remotely, committee members and other who have chosen to attend in the meeting room discussions with the committee members. The committee members and other who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by committee officers that should technical difficulties prevent the full participation in the meeting. It may proceed in the absence if I feel unnecessary, 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 virtual meeting procedures. All participants must address the meeting through myself, the chair. If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact the Democratic service officers as soon as possible via email. However, officers may not be able to respond in such short request. You should keep your microphones and cameras switched off at all other times. Please do not use the meeting chat facility, any information added to the chat facility will be disregarded. If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic service officers as soon as possible. I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves. Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interest. Just so that, you know, I have had a few people calling me regarding some of the items and a few emails listed there. And from my right, please introduce yourself. Councillor SABINACAN, nothing to declare. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY, nothing no DPI by judge for the record. I have received some email and phone call as well. Councillor SABINACAN, nothing to declare. Councillor Gulan, good evening. Paul Woodward, nothing to declare, but for record, I have received some phone calls and email as well. Councillor corresponded to the letter word. Nothing to declare, but I received a few emails, even time to look at them. I received one phone call, but I didn't have any conversation. I said, I will listen to the conjecture of the meeting. Thank you. Councillor SABINACAN, from the south, nothing to declare other than a few phone calls and emails. Asma Begum, Labour from by arrest, I don't have any DPI's. Similarly to other Councillors, I have received emails. Now to apologies, Justina. Have we received any apologies for absence? No, Chair. No apologies have been received. Thank you. Now to agenda item two is appointment of SEC Vice Chair, as this is the first meeting of the multiple year 2024 and 2025. I would like to ask if there's any nominees for from the committee members for the position of a Vice Chair. Can I propose Councillor Ipalu say to be the Vice Chair? Thank you, Chair. I am proposing this moment. Thank you. Any more nominees? Can we go to a vote for Councillor Iqbal, for Vice Chair? Can I see everyone in favour, please? Councillor interjecting. Any against? Any abstentions? Councillor interjecting. Congratulations, Councillor Iqbal. Vice Chair. Now moving on to the agenda item three is the Strategic Development Committee in terms of reference, and I also want to thank the Chair for the time, Mr Chair. Thank you, Chair. This is an annual report because this is the start of the municipal year. I'm asking members to note the quorum, the membership, the dates of meeting, and I ask the members to approve the amended terms of reference and approve the start time of 6.30pm. Thank you, Jessie. Can I get Mr. Paul Beckham to explain? Thank you, Chair. We've just taken the opportunity to just review the terms of reference just to bring them up to date with a number of items, so they are in your pack and there is some track changes there. So the first one is just to deal with terminology, we refer to minor material amendments, but really the correct terminology is to vary or delete planning conditions, so it's the same thing that's used using a better terminology. We've also taken the opportunity to clarify where planning applications include housing, but sometimes it may be non-self-contained housing, such as student housing or shared HMO housing. And to clarify that that's also caught by the terms of reference, and also to clarify the sort of change in the Council's structure, which is the reference to the corporate director of housing and regeneration, when it's previously referred to the corporate director of place. So it's just to bring in terms of reference up to date, so to clarify a few matters. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Beccanum. Is the committee content to note its current membership and meeting dates for 2024 and 24, 25? Yes. Yes, okay. Our members' content with the amendments made to the terms of reference and the proposed start time of 634 committee meetings. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Agenda item 4 is minutes from previous meetings. Can we approve the amended minutes from 14th May 2024 meeting? I agree, dear. Thank you very much. Okay. Agenda item 5, either recommendation and procedure for hearing objection and meeting guidance. I will now ask Paul Beccanum, head of development management, planning, and building control to present the guidance. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening. Good evening, Committee members, members of the public and officers who are joining the meeting this evening. So this item 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 items for decision, I will introduce the report and recommendation and a brief description of the proposed development. And then case officers will present the report. And then we'll hear from anyone who is registered to speak in objection who can address the committee, for up to three minutes. And then we'll hear from anyone registered to speak in support, including the applicants who will have an equivalent amount of time. And then any councillors who are registered to speak can address the committee. Committee can then ask any points of clarification or questions of the speakers and then go on to consider the recommendation, including any further questions and debate and advice from officers. The committee will reach a decision that's based on the majority vote and I'll confirm that back to everybody in the meeting. If the committee proposes changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for example, to add or delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of formalising those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director of Housing and Regeneration. In the event that the committee do not accept the officer recommendation, they must give their planning reasons and propose an agree and alternative course of action. The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the task of formalising the committee's decision is also delegated to the Corporate Director of Housing and Regeneration. 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 legal implications, then the item may be deferred for a further update report from officers dealing with those issues. Finally, there is an update report that's been circulated to the committee and published online this evening that deals with some matters that have arisen since the publication of the agenda and I'll deal with those issues chaired when we come to the individual items. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bingham. Agenda item 6, deferred item, there is no deferred item to consider. Agenda item 7, other planning application to consideration. We have two planning applications to consider this evening and the other planning matter. I will be changing the application around slightly from the published agenda. Agenda item 7.1 is PA/24/00184 formal London Chess Hospital, Bonnar Road London E29JX pages 165 to 340. And now invite Paul to introduce the application for any Paul. Thank you, Chair. So, this item actually includes two linked applications, so an application for planning commission and an application for listed building consent, but they're covered by the same report with two recommendations. So, as the Chair said, they affect the formal London Chess Hospital on Bonnar Road, the descriptions of the development and the works the lists are building are quite long and they're in the report, so don't propose to go through them word for word, but just so that everyone is aware of what's being proposed. So, the first application is planning permission for demolition of all existing buildings and structures on site, excluding the main hospital building, south wing and sanitation tower, and to redevelop the site to provide residential dwellings and a flexible commercial and community floor space with a converted and extended hospital building and five new buildings ranging from five to nine stories with the associated works that built heritage, selected removal of TPO trees, plus nutrient planting and landscaping works and other ancillary works to facilitate the development, and this is EIA development, so there is an environmental statement that accompanies the application. And the recommendation for that application is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning obligations and any direction by the mayor of London. And the second linked application is an application for listed building consent for works to the main hospital building and sanitary tower, which are quite detailed. The set out and the report, and obviously if members, they'll be in the presentation. If members have any questions, we can go through those in detail, but again, the recommendation to committee is to grant listed building consent subject to conditions. Chair, if I may, there is an update report for this application. So, if I just mentioned that briefly, so it's been circulated, it's in the PAC. So, there is some additional documents submitted by the applicant. So, one of them is an updated statement, community involvement, prepared by London Communications Agency that provides correct distribution areas for flyers and newsletters, and some additional verified views, which replace certain views in the townscape assessment. And the applicant has also provided drawings demonstrating the carry distance for waste arrangements. We've also received one of this representation from the Part View Residence Association, which goes through previous concerns raised by the association specifically raised into the Heiser Building E. The association has also submitted their own daylight and overshadowing review, which has been looked at by our independent consultants along with applicants' reviews. So, we've got all that information assessed in one place. And then just some clarifications around the provision of the social rent units about the trees to be removed, the highways consultation concerning blue badge parking, and the waste response status is having no objection, whereas the waste officer did raise some concerns about the carry distances, but this is now covered in paragraph 7.380 of the report. There's also a clarification of the equivalent heights of building E in the previous scheme. And two additional conditions are recommended to the committee. So, those conditions should require installation of timber sash windows on the front elevation of the main hospital building, and to secure further investigatory works relating to the retention of trees, T22 and T58. So, I think that covers that chair, so nothing further to add up this stage. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Paul. I will now invite Nicholas Gihan, Planning Case Officer to present the application. Thank you. Thank you Chair and good evening members, and members of the public and officers dialing in online. I won't go through the full description of development again, as it's said and Paul has adequately memorised that, but just go through the application site. The application site is in the north of the borough adjacent to Victoria Park, which is a grade two-star registered garden. The image here shows the application site in the middle, which is bounded by three roads, approach road, boner road and St. James's avenue. It's triangular in shape and contains the listed London Chest Hospital building, South Wing and Sanitary Tower, as well as a dwarf wall and railing surrounding most of the site, which is grade two listed. There's also a grade two listed church in Vicarache to the east side of St James's avenue, and the grade two listed Rainin Foundation School to the south. The site is also within the Victoria Park Conservation area, and south of the grade two, listed Bonner Gate Piers and Scheduled Monument of Bonner Bridge. This is an area image of the site currently, taken from Google Earth. As you can see, the site is surrounded by a green perimeter of trees, which are a significant amount of mature trees. The site benefits from a tree preservation order, which protects the majority of the trees on site. But all trees on site are also protected by virtue of being within the conservation area. As you can see, the hospital building sits in the middle of the site with various different and ciliary buildings, which have been built up over time, to the rear of the site, and then a formal lawn to the front. In terms of consultation, 310 notification letters and a site and press notices were published. As the image on the right shows the extent of the neighbour consultation. In total, 176 individual representations were received, six of which were in favour, and 170 were in objection, primarily from Parkview Estate residents. There is also an online petition on change.org with 916 signatures, as at 6.30pm today. This is still a live petition. There was one additional representation, as Paul mentioned, received since publication from the Parkview Residence Association. I won't go through all the issues in objection. They are set out in the report. But to highlight the primary issues, they are in relation to the massing, in particular of building E. The impact of new buildings on heritage and townscape, in particular the surrounding conservation area. Daylight and sunlight impacts the neighbouring buildings, lots of trees, affordable housing provision, and the quality of the housing to be provided on the site. A lack of commercial space and impacts on highways and parking. As I mentioned, the full list of objections is in the report. It's important to note with this scheme that there is an interesting planning history for the site. In 2018, an application was submitted which was granted a provision in 2020 for a scheme involving 291 new homes, with 35% of them being affordable homes. That scheme was challenged by the general public in the high courts on the basis of the advice that was given in relation to the removal and replacement of an effective enrollment tree within the site. The tree is located here and was to be relocated to the middle of the front lawn here. There were a number of rounds challenging the courts, but the only successful one was in relation to the advice given about that tree. The decision was ultimately crushed by the high courts. It's important to remember this application because it does the assessment of the application except for the advice given about the tree was found to be sound by the high court. So this sets a sort of baseline for the development coming forward now in terms of massing and tasking. In terms of the new scheme, the headline points are that there will be 274 new homes, 50% of which will be affordable by habitable room. 72% of those affordable homes will be social rent homes, which equates to 76 homes in total. The scheme involves the refurbishment and extension of the listed building, including retention of the south wing, which was to be demolished under the previous scheme. It retains the mold tree and situ together with a significant amount of protection for the mold tree in landscaping and additional applications. The loss of 20 trees, including 8 protected by TPO, as well as new publicly accessible space. The scheme will be laid out as shown on the image here. The listed hospital building is seen here in white with the south wing projecting eastwards. There will be five new blocks built throughout the site. Building A and B here will be the social rent blocks. Building C and D here, attached to the main listed building together with an extension to the rear of the building. And then building E to the north of the site will be the tallest element and will accommodate solely market housing. In terms of land use, the previous land use on the site was obviously an NHS facility. However, the hospital closed in 2015. The NHS facilities provided by the hospital are now provided elsewhere in London. And an additional NHS facility has also opened up close to the site, which provides medical facilities. The loss of the NHS and medical facilities has been found acceptable. The loss of the medical facility was acceptable in the previous scheme. The provision of housing on the site has also been set by a precedent within the previous scheme. However, on this occasion, there are fewer homes to be provided because of the retention of the mold tree and the loss of built form in that location. However, there is an increase in the amount of affordable housing to be provided on the site. Such that there are actually more affordable houses to be delivered on the site than there was under the previous scheme. There is 50% affordable housing across the scheme, which is in line with policy requirements for land which was in public ownership. 72.6% of which will be social rent or habitable room. The rest of the affordable homes will be shared ownership. As you can see, the social rent homes will be in line with policy requirements as to their sizes, in particular, there is a significant number of family size homes and the over of the provision of three bed homes. There are some discrepancies in the other requirements. However, these are considered acceptable considering the significant amount of affordable housing to be provided. This slide just shows the social rent levels, which are currently capped by the social rent regulator, and just to give you an idea of the weekly rents for social rent homes. There will also be a commercial and community facility within the scheme, which is to be located on the ground floor of the south wing. Locating this in the south wing means that the community and commercial facility will be located within the heritage building. The plan here on the right shows the floor plan, and the image on the right here shows the end of the south wing with the commercial unit ground floor here. The ground floor will be lowered within the south wing to open up onto the square, so that direct access can be provided for people in wheelchairs directly into the facility. This facility will be secured as a commercial/community facility through the 106, which will require the occupier to follow a agreed community strategy, which will mean that we will operate as a community-based cafe. There are examples of successful community-based cafes within the borough, and should an operator not be able to be found within a certain amount of time. There will be a requirement for the ground floor or for the unit to be let free of charge to residents in the evenings once the cafe operation is closed. Turning now to the new buildings themselves, this is an image from the very south of the site, looking north towards the site. You can see here the south elevation of Block A with an external staircase and its relationship with the listed church to the east. You can also see in the distance here Block B. Block A will be 7 stories tall, but will be set back at the top story away from James' avenue. Building B will be 6 stories tall, and is of a rectangular form with bolt-on balconies for each of the new homes. These balconies have been designed to reflect the historic veranda of the listed building, which will be restored as part of the scheme to provide balconies for the residents in the listed building. As mentioned, these two buildings will accommodate the social rent homes. All but one of the units within the buildings are dual aspects. Building A has homes which travel all the way through the building and have debt access to the east of the building with a second staircase in an external staircase. It was decided to explore an external staircase so that the maximum number of dual aspect units could be provided. Building C was looked onto the new St James the Less Square, which will be introduced to break up the massing as one moves north up St James' avenue. In the image here you can see the square with the end of the south wing looking out onto it, with building C to the north. The building has two gable end elevations and a dormer roof story at its seventh story. That's sixth story. Building D is the link between Building C and the listed hospital building. This building again has debt access and provides access to the units in behind. Building D has been designed so that it does not sit above the existing roof height of the listed building so that it respects the height of that building. The floor plan on the right here shows a typical floor plan for building C and D. There will be a mix of intermediate and market homes within these buildings. The image on the left shows a view of the route through from St James' avenue between the buildings looking down towards the listed sanitary tower. Building E will be the tallest element on the site at Standing at 9 stories. It will be solely market homes and has been designed to reflect the octagonal form elsewhere on the site. The proposed external staircase on Building A goes to the existing outpatient building. Whilst the building is notably taller than many other buildings it's not been considered by officers to constitute a tool building for the reason set out in the report. It is that same image of Building E during the summer which demonstrates how the trees went in leaf will disguise much of the massing of the building. This is an example floor plan of Building E which shows the octagonal forms in each of the corners of the rooms and balconies in between. Turning now to the listed building sensitive restoration of the building will be carried out to convert the interior to provide new homes. Timber sash windows will be secured to be installed in the front elevation of the building which is seen as the most important elevation of the building. There will also be further works of the listed building including extension of the basement light wells to provide amenity space and increased light access to the basement flats as well as installation of dormers in the roof. A rear extension will be built out to provide additional homes. This is a CTI image of the rear elevation which looks out into a community or communal courtyard in behind. It has been designed to reflect the front elevation whilst providing a more modern interpretation. This is a typical floor plan of inside the listed building. As you can see it retains the historic wide corridors which are an important part of the historic fabric of the building as well as the historic layout of the rooms. It is also a bridge that stays similar to the new buildings by retaining as much of the internal fabric as possible. This element here demonstrates the extension. There will be a communal amenity space for residents at ground floor located here. Turning now to impacts on neighbouring amenity, the buildings are all set more than 18 metres away from neighbouring buildings so there are no issues as to overlooking or privacy. In terms of daylight and sunlight, this has been assessed by the applicant and the applicant's assessment has been reviewed by an independent consultant on behalf of the LPA. It was confirmed by the independent consultant that the levels of loss of daylight and sunlight were not uncommon for a scheme of this size within an urban area. That doesn't mean, should acknowledge though, that there are significant levels of loss in some of the rooms which range from low to high levels of loss. However, these have been deemed to be acceptable. In terms of the internal daylighting to the new homes and privacy issues in relation to new homes, there are some tighter differences between the buildings but these were similar to the previous scheme and have emitigated as far as possible. The day lighting to the new homes is also in line with current proposals which are being approved regularly. Turning now to the proposed landscape and public realm. There will be new landscape areas within the site. For instance, the new St James the less square will provide public space and spill out space for the cafe potentially. There will be new public access routes through the site running east to west for pedestrians and cyclists. There will be two dedicated place spaces areas here and a third within the communal courtyard here. The communal courtyard will also include food growing space and is the only area of the site which will be closed at any point. The communal courtyard will be closed between dusk and dawn, only accessible to residents during this time. The rest of the site will be accessible 24/7. The formal lawn will also be reinstated with a long bench introduced so that the members of the public can enjoy views of the historic building. Finally, there will be a dedicated landscape area for the mulberry tree which I'll come on to shortly. In terms of tree removals, there will be 20 trees removed in total, eight of which are protected by TPO. The boroughs tree officer has reviewed the proposals and has objected to the loss of only four of these trees. However, on balance, officers have considered that the loss of those trees is acceptable, considering the amount of affordable housing to be provided and the need to remove those trees to provide the built form within the site and to optimize the delivery of housing within the site. Additionally, 51 new trees will be planted to mitigate the loss of the trees that will be removed. Larger species of trees have been picked to be planted along the perimeter of the site so that the immunity which will be lost along the perimeter will be kind of regrown in time. It's also worth noting that the trees located here along St. James's avenue were to be removed in the previous scheme but are to be retained here, which means that much of the built form here will be disguised during the summer months. In terms of the veteran mulberry tree, this is an image on the right here of the tree. As you can see, it is currently being propped up by metal props, which have been installed as part of TPO applications to safeguard the survival of the tree. There is a barrier around the tree to ensure that nobody can access the root protection zones. And the images on the left are just historic images which give a reflection of the importance of the tree to the local community in terms of its historic and cultural value. The top image shows nurses dancing around the tree, whilst the bottom image shows the tree after some bombing during the Second World War. The tree will benefit from the scheme as it will have a dedicated landscape area. As you can see, there is a significant barrier surrounding the tree. This will be a landscape so that people cannot access the tree. There will also be railings so that people can't get close. And then a setback viewing platform so that people can admire the tree. This behind here is a permanent windbreak that will need to be installed to avoid the tree being affected by wind once the building alongside has been demolished. During demolition and construction, a larger windbreak will be in place throughout the process. The borough's tree officer has reviewed the construction methodology in relation to the mulberry tree and is satisfied that it safeguards the long-term survival of the tree. The image on the right here is a CGI of the tree with building E in the background. In terms of servicing and highways impacts, the scheme will be car-free. There will be nine residential blue badge spaces and one blue badge space which will be tied to the commercial unit. The only vehicular access to the site will be through the front access here for deliveries and drop-offs and obers and the like. And then the refuge vehicles and emergency vehicles will access the site through the new routes east to west. One refuge vehicle will come in through here and collect waste to each buildings and then exit onto Bonna Road. To collect waste from the other side of the site, the vehicle will enter the site here, collect from building E, and then reverse down to building D and then drive back out in front in forward gear. All of the servicing and highways impacts have been reviewed by the highways officers and considered acceptable. There will be cycle parking within the public realm as well as within the basement of building DNF and the ground floor of building B. So turning now to the heritage impacts, there are kind of a high level of heritage impacts to the caused by the proposals. First is the loss of the nurses accommodation to the rear of the site which is seen here in the image on the left and is this building here on the right. The building originates from around the 1800s but it's not part of the listing and was approved for demolition as part of the previous scheme. It is approved for demolition again as part of this scheme as it was not deemed viable to redevelop to provide the levels of housing required for the site. This image also shows the level of demolition behind the hospital building as well as an example of the levels of demolition inside on this is the ground floor plan and shows the ground floor here will be demolished and lowered. In order to allow for accessible access into the commercial unit. Building E as I mentioned before is notably taller than the other buildings on the site and some of the buildings in the surroundings and has been considered to cause a level of harm to the conservation area as well as other buildings on the site proposed on the site. This is building A and building C along St. James's Avenue and this is the same building E and building C looking south down St. James's Avenue towards the church. These have been considered to cause harm to the conservation area however during the summer months again when the trees are in leaf this will be mitigated. Building A here again its height will potentially cause harm to the conservation area however this image is included to the external staircase has been considered to compete with the listed church file such that an element of harm will be caused to the listed church. However this is the image in summer months again which shows how disguised the building will be. In terms of the listed building itself I've already discussed the level of works inside the building however there is also impacts the setting of the listed building. This image shows building E and how it is taller than building the listed building. Again from a further view how it raises above the listed buildings roof line this is considered to cause harm to the setting of the listed building. Again building B is slightly taller than the listed building or appears slightly taller than the listed building so is considered to cause harm to the setting of the building. Overall there is kind of a full summary of the heritage impacts within the report and overall offices have been considered that there is a level of less than substantial harm to the conservation area the listed building, the setting of the listed building and neighbouring heritage assets including St. James the less church and the views from within Victoria Park. However and the level of harm has been considered to be low to mid level of less than substantial harm. The fact that a level of less than substantial harm has been decided upon means that a test set out in the national planning policy framework needs to be undertaken when the public benefits of the proposals against the levels of harm provided. Some other effects provide significant levels of public benefits including but not limited to the retained the retention of the listed hospital building and the south wing and reintegrating it into active use as well as other heritage benefits including retention and repair of the listed walls, retail housing facilities, Victorian gas lamp, removal of the building from the heritage at risk register. It will deliver 274 high quality new homes including the provision of 50% affordable housing by playground room and 76 social rented homes, 39 of which will be family sized social rent homes. It will include the provision of a new community lead commercial facility, a 24/7 access to new public spaces and new routes through the site. There will be 20 apprenticeships during construction and 20% local labour during construction and in the end phase through the usual planning obligations as well as the provision of a TFL bus driver facility for bus drivers who stop at the bus stand adjacent to the site. These are just some of the public benefits which have been identified and the full list is included in the report. Officers therefore concluded that the public benefits presented by the scheme outweighed the less than substantial harm presented by the scheme and should therefore be recommended for approval. It is therefore offers recommendation that full planning position be granted subject to any direction from the mayor of London and conditions set out in the report as well as the obligations set out in the report to be secured by section 106 agreement. It is also offers a recommendation to grant this the building consent subject to the conditions set out in the report. Thank you. Thank you Nicholas. Thank you very much. I now invite Champsia Begum, Chair of Parkview, TRA to address the committee in objection to the application you have up to three minutes. Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. I represent the Parkview Residence Association representing 300 plus residents, tenants, lease holders and private renters. Parkview Estate sits within the triangle of St. James's Avenue, Sea Woodston Road and All Ford Road. In addition to this, I'm also representing Residence from approach Bonner, Sea Woodston Road and All Ford Road and also visitors to Victoria Park since the start of this planning application we've been canvassing for our petition and raising awareness about the development. So, approach Road Bonner and All Ford Road are the roads that are the boundaries for the chest hospital. So, a lot of residents had concerns. I want to thank each of you. Now, we welcome the new development and the opportunity to increase housing in the borough. However, we found it exceptionally challenging to trawl through 255 plus documents concerning the application. And I present to you our opposition of the current application and ask for a possible deferment of the decision until our Councillors have understood the scale of the impact of this development on the community and the polity of people to look at. We are just not going to say that we have a charter meeting of people's lives, and the legacy it will have in the area. Today, we have submitted 170 objections and 6 supporting comments, as confirmed by Nicholas Jahan. And we set up a petition on change.org and we have 616 signatures so far as of the... Sorry, 916 apologies. We sent out as requested by residents who did not have access to computers or had language barriers and needed support to write letters. Not all residents were aware of the planning application as evident from door-to-door canvassing down by our committee members. Let me be clear on behalf of our residents that it became necessary to do this template letter because so many people were regularly contacting the tra unable to navigate the planning system and make their opinions clear. So, in addition to this, our petition was declined to be supported by the Council's petition platform due to the active planning application, which was going through the process. So, however, the signatures have been considered as part of the case officer's report today, so thank you for that. Now, the petition and the letters represent the view of the residents and visitors to Victoria Park. 30 seconds. Okay. Some wanted something to be done in the area that has been left abandoned, whereas the majority welcome the plans. But, Sam, if I've got 30 seconds left, if I could add quotes from residents, from a parent, who cares for a disabled child, life is already quite challenging, we need more time at home than many people might do. My mental health is 100% affected by natural light. I would like to know what measures in terms of changes to the nine-story block and proposed flats would affect my home and what changes to the planning might reduce the impact. And then another resident commented it would be good to have some new flats and more people around, as at the moment the area is so derelict and often scary to walk past in the dark. So, both reactions really hone in the effect on the quality of life this development will have in a positive and negative way. So to conclude, this is an opportunity for our elected councilors to demonstrate real community engagement by listening to the residents who wrote in that people who supported almost 1,000 signatures to ignore all of this would be a failure. Thank you. So now invite Dear Petg, sorry if I couldn't pronounce your name right. I have to address the committee in objection to the application. Thank you. Three minutes. Thank you. So, I'm Diktá here, a local resident. And I want to stress that the community is pro development. However, the height of block E is too tall. This development being challenged by the TRA and the community. And it's the main thing that people in the area that talk to us have said they've got an issue with. It's very, very tall. Nicholas Gihan said that it's not quite a tall building. It's just short of a tall building. It's like less than a metre short of a tall building. And once the character of this area is changed, it's gone for good. It cannot be brought back. And that's the point I want to make. And I'm going to give this information to you. I want to make three points to demonstrate this. Point one, so that we caught a block that sits directly across the road from block E. Recently had an application to extend up to eight floors refused that was refused on the eighth of July. The reason was because it was too tall and it did not satisfy the local plan. In relation to the heritage and character of the area. Block E, at effectively 10 stories, because there's a plaque room on the top, which is almost 2 metres tall, is much bigger than the proposal for so that we caught eight stories. The council has already set a precedent for refusing development at this height in this area. And so the height of block E should be reduced to bring it in line for the incident set by the council on the eighth of July. Point number two is that the community has submitted a shadow analysis which demonstrates that there will be significant shadowing impact on the surrounding buildings and the entrance to Victoria Park due to the height of block E. This is supported by an independent review carried out by Latimer on the daylight and sunlight report that they have produced. In addition, a second review of the daylight and sunlight report was carried out by writes to light consulting who have identified 49 separate households in the area would receive levels of light that fall below BRE standards. And that's something that I want to reiterate was highlighted in the officer's report. In their letter, Historic England have stated that at nine stories, block E would undermine the visual primacy of the hospital causing harm to amongst other things key components of this conservation area. They also highlighted paragraph 206 of the NP/PF that any harm to heritage and their surrounding area should require clear and convincing justification. Block E is not justified at its current height because if it was reduced in height it would still be making a very substantial contribution to housing stock even if block E was made smaller. So to conclude, if it's considered in the planning balance, the height of block E should be reduced because the scheme is big, it's a significant housing contribution from tower hamlets to the housing stock of the borough. If the height of block E is reduced, that contribution would still be very significant. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you very much. Thank you. And now I invite the applicant, Matthew Producedson of Leomartre as the Committee in support of the application, you have six minutes. Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this evening. My name is Matthew Prudence, senior development manager at Lattimer by Clarine Housing Group, which is the development arm of the Housing Association and the office reinvested back into delivering more affordable housing. So firstly, I wanted to extend my thanks to the people, groups and societies in the local community we have engaged with, the GLA Tower Hamlet's Quality Review Panel, the Councillors, and of course your officers for helping us to get to this point with a recommendation for approval. It's a great privilege to bring forward these ambitious plans to bring back this landmark building back into use, deliver a much needed housing and open the site back up to the community. The formal London Chess Hospital site has been vacant and deteriorating for the past nine years, with no public access. Our proposals guarantee the long-term future of the site, which will benefit Tarah Hamlet's and the area in three key ways. Firstly, our proposals will create 270 for high quality homes helping to meet the growing demand for housing across the borough. 50% of these homes, by help to room 121 total, will be affordable with the significant proportion at social rent levels, the lowest cost of housing available. 39 of these social homes will be three in four beds, helping to tackle the incredibly high demand for family housing in Tarah Hamlet. This is a significant improvement on the previous scheme, which did not propose any four-bed family homes. And it's important to us that this is a place where you raise a family. It has emphasized the importance of delivering much needed affordable homes. There's housing emergency nationwide, but particularly across London, which is something that we, as the country's largest housing association, need to work together with local authorities to address. London-wide, it has been reported that local authorities are spending nearly 90 million pounds per month on households and temporary accommodation, uncertainty to those households without a permanent home, but also a significant financial strain on these boroughs. Included within this significant number of households and temporary accommodation are children. This should not be accepted, and society needs to work together to address this crisis. A key part of this is building new affordable homes and supporting development on suitable brownfield sites such as this. Whilst there are objectors to the scheme tonight, I'm sure that if the families and children on the waiting list were here, they would be overwhelmingly in support of the delivery of new homes. Secondly, our proposals will save the Grade 2 listed hospital building, south wing and sanitation tower, from further deterioration, and remove these from the historic England's heritage at risk register. Thereby preserving these important local historical landmarks, bringing them into active use for the first time in almost a decade. We have designed a scheme that sensitively restores these important heritage assets whilst ensuring their significant and architectural merit is retained through high quality design, which closely considers the wider conservation area. And this is supported by historic England as well as your own officers. Importantly, our plans also retain the veteran mulberry tree, which holds such a special place in the community. It will remain in its current location, and a barrier will be installed to the north, so it's better protected. Thirdly, we are creating new open and green spaces and providing two public routes across the site, making this site genuinely open and accessible to the community. There will be nearly 3,000 square metres of high quality defined open space, which includes the creation of a new public square on St James Avenue, the restoration of the formal lawn in front of the main hospital building, and 1,700 square metres of children's play space. We are retaining as many of the boundary trees as possible, and included in this, bringing more under the tree preservation order for increased protection. And we will be planting 51 new trees to increase the overall number on the site. The trees and open spaces will be complemented by flour rich grassland, mixed native hedges, neck to rich planting and bird and batboxes, helping us to achieve at least a 15% biodiversity net gain. In addition, a small flexible space will be located in the ground floor of the south wing, fronting the new public square, which we intend to be used as a community cafe, ensuring public access to this important site and providing somewhere for the community to come together. We have listened and collaborated closely with your officers in the community and we have added a path, which is the way that we can find the community here, developing a scheme that will deliver high quality architecture, open public spaces, and much needed affordable homes for tower hamlets. These proposals have evolved through close dialogue with both GLA and tower hamlets officers, and the QRP, who we have presented to three times. We are pleased that all are supportive of the final plans and the inspiration that we have taken from the site's history and surrounding area. It's been a great evening. We're happy to answer any questions. Okay, do members have any questions for officers or the objectors or applicants? Council officers, the question is to, the objectors spoke about publication of this development. Can you please clarify how you publicise this proposal so that the communities are aware of this scheme coming forward? I'll just get up the publication slide, it's loading here, yeah. This here is the site outlined in red here, which the pink and shaded boundary is the area where letters were sent to notify residents. Wherever there's a pin, a black pin on the buildings, that captures all the addresses within those buildings. As you can see, we've consulted all the Parkview state buildings here. This building here, all these buildings along St James's Avenue and Bonner Road as well as the buildings along the approach road. This is in line with the requirements in the Council's adopted statement of community involvement in terms of boundaries. And I would say we've extended that boundary in some respects to make sure that all the Parkview state residents would have received a letter as part of that. The applicant themselves have also undertaken their own pre-application consultation, including flyer drops and letters and engagement with residents and Councillors and everything else which is set out in the State and the Community Involvement. They provided an updated one because there was an error in the previous one which showed sort of an incorrect boundary in terms of the letter drops, which didn't kind of align with the number of letters, I think there was kind of 8,000 letters sent out in the end as part of their pre-application engagement. We also put up site notices, one on each corner of the site, so that anyone kind of approaching the site from any of those roads would be able to see one of those notices. And then there would have also been a press notice as well, because of the fact that there's a listed building and it's in the conservation area. So I hope that answers your question. [inaudible] Thank you Chair. I have a question to the objectives. You mentioned building E in specific that sort of the height is a concern to yourself. What sort of height would you consider so in terms of the other buildings still are not on issue? What is it that you know is all looking for? So block E, I'm talking from memory, I'm not a planning consultant, but I think with the plant room on top it's something it's pretty much 30 metres, give some centimetres. So the B Court, which is currently the other block in the top of approach road is 6 storeys. It's the tallest residential building in the area by a long chalk, and effectively at 9 storeys plus a plant room, it's like a 10 storey building next door to it. The point that's being made is that block E, if it was reduced by two floors even, if it was more in line with what is already there, it's not going to have the impact on heritage but otherwise will do, and which has been highlighted by the planning officer by historic England and by the community as having a negative impact and what I was saying is because it's so high and so bulky, the impact that it's going to have on the area is significant and permanent. It's not something that's ever going to go. And that's the reason why we're sort of highlighting what historic England has said, highlighting those aspects of the officer's report, highlighting the impact that it's having on the conservation area and really just making a request that the developer respect those aspects of the conservation area, because the contribution made by this scheme is significant, even just the contribution by block E alone, if it was smaller, is still significant. So, yeah, a reduction in height of block E is what's being put forward to the Councillors. Just to follow up to the officers and along those lines, what are the mitigations, I've seen pictures they've shown before of block E during summer times and winter times, what is the impact in terms of just the assessments that you've carried out, not just visually, but all the other objections that objecters have raised. Sure, yeah, so, obviously, we have identified that the building does introduce a level of harm to the conservation area. We can't kind of hide away from that. But what we have decided is that the public benefits outweigh the overall level of harm provided by the whole scheme. So, we're not trying to hide the fact that this building is kind of higher than some of the others around it. I guess in terms of mitigation, the bottom story is actually set down below the road level of the junction here, so it kind of almost hides half of that story at least. And then the top story is also set back at the corners, so that it kind of reduces the height as it goes. And then the objectives have mentioned that there's a plant room on top, which does tick the building over 30 meters, but that's only really visible from quite discrete angles and is set back from the edges of the roof so that it kind of is only visible from those specific angles. And then, I guess, in some of these, the building is largely hidden by the trees. The top of the building would still be visible, but the set back means that the visibility of the building is reduced. And I mean, this is the tallest, this is the area where it's considered that the height in the scheme could be located most appropriately, instead of other areas on the site, because obviously a certain amount of housing has to be delivered in order to be able to make the scheme viable. So, by reducing height here, there's a potential that height may need to be integrated elsewhere to deliver those homes. So, the fact that this is on the corner of the site, next to another relatively tall building inside the B Cord, and it is kind of surrounded by trees. It's set back from the edge of the site. The design of it has been mitigated, or designed, so that it mitigates the height. It means that we found the level of harm it introduces to be acceptable on this occasion. If I can, I would just like to address the Sotheby Court application as well, that's all right. Obviously that application was refused, but that scheme provided no affordable housing, no affordable housing contribution, only provided nine new homes. The design probably wasn't quite as good as some of the design in this scheme, but the building itself is set right up to the edge of the road, isn't surrounded by trees, isn't set back in any way. So obviously, the setting of that building is significantly different to where we are here, and then there are virtually no public benefits to speak of, to outweigh the harm that was identified as part of that scheme. So, in office's opinion, it isn't really comparable to justify the reduction of height of this building on this occasion. Thank you Chair. My question to the officers, from the public representation, I can see one of the matters says 38% of proposed homes will be inadequate ventilation and poor light levels. So what measure did you take to mitigate this circumstance, or is it legal to have this sort of less ventilation and light levels? Sure, yeah, so the light levels of the new homes have been reviewed by the independent consultant and is stated that the proposed levels of light are not unusual for a scheme of this size in this sort of location. So the internal light levels of the properties, although some of them do fall below usual BRE guidelines, they have been considered acceptable on the basis of kind of taking everything into the round into the balance of the scheme. In terms of ventilation, I think the units which are kind of being pinpointed there are probably some of the single aspect units where natural ventilation isn't quite as possible. But mitigation has been secured as part of the scheme, including inserting new windows or additional windows. If I show you on the plan here, this home here is a single aspect home, but there's an additional window here, inserted, which means that ventilation will be able to be provided. And again, here, this is a single aspect home with additional windows that natural ventilation provided as well. So really, there's kind of been efforts to where the homes kind of do not necessarily meet the peak standards. There's been efforts to mitigate that wherever possible. And then in terms of the overheating of the homes, there will be mechanical ventilation inserted into all the homes as well, which has been considered as part of the sustainability strategy. And by a sustainability officer has been considered acceptable. So those homes where it's not possible to get that natural ventilation will have mechanical ventilation as well to ensure they can stay cool. Just make a couple of additional points. So with respect to single aspect units, obviously, we're also dealing with the listed building, the main listed building, and the heritage constraints of that building mean that realistically it's not feasible to achieve the last bit units on B. And if you're talking about 12 units on part of that building, and then additionally, with respect to the social rented homes, those that are in block A and B, they are, as Nick said in the presentation, 99% of those, basically, are dual aspect. That officers can quite confidently say that we think they're the best units in the scheme in terms of the residential quality, in terms of the amount of outlook they have in terms of the cross ventilation. Yeah, so the self-hasing as well, so just thought it's worthwhile re-encracing that point as well. Thank you, Chair. I've got another question. So social housing and private rented house or private owned housing, is it going to be the same material used or the same functioning for the board type of housing? Yeah, that's a really good question. So there is no difference in terms of the quality of architecture between any of the buildings. They are all exceptional levels of architecture, and we've spent significant amount of time with the applicants during the pre-application process, ensuring that the quality of the social housing being delivered is at that same level as the rest of the site. All the buildings will be the same sort of red brick as the main hospital building, so there will be no difference in terms of the main materiality. So there will be no way you're able to tell the difference between the social housing and the private housing on the site, really. All it is that the social housing is located at the south, and then most of the market housing is in the north. But the benefits of that for the social tenants is that they are right next to the child place base, and they're right next to the pedestrian routes, and they're right next to the new square and the cafe, so they do get significant benefits from all being located in that area. So, yeah, there isn't really any difference at all in terms of quality of the homes, and in fact, as we say, kind of the social homes are kind of weird, which say the best on the site. Okay, thank you Mr. Chair, my questions to you similar to my previous colleague, because this tall building specially is E1 block, E1 will hamper the privacy of neighbouring properties and shadowing of neighbouring properties. How do you mitigate this or justify this is 1, and secondly, just object and a race concern about is the affordable housing. They have even evidence just market this rent is 80% of market rate. Then how do you think this is, will be affordable housing, because it is 80% rent is truly not affordable. How do you mean justify this? Number 3, if you look into the previous development history, we will see, previously, this development was quest by high court for some flowing review. How confident you are if this development is past today or go through. It will not be faced against high court judicially. Thank you. Sure, I will definitely answer the first two of those. In terms of daylight and privacy, block E is set significantly far away from the neighbouring blocks, and it has been lined with all separation distance guidelines above 18 metres. There will not be any impacts on privacy to neighbouring properties outside of the site. There are some tighter constraints within the new development itself, where the separation distance between block E and C are slightly tighter than that. They are around 10 to 11 metres and then the same with blocks A and B in the hospital building. Obviously, the site itself has so many constraints in terms of the heritage, the number of trees around the perimeter. The actual developer area on the site is quite small. The applicant has really worked quite hard to make sure that the maximum amount of housing can be delivered. The maximum amount of affordable housing. To ensure that that can be delivered, we have had to concede on those separation distances of the new blocks. But to mitigate that, the windows are offset from each other, where they face onto each other, so that there is no direct into visibility between the windows. And also, they are only restricted to those points where the buildings are facing onto each other. It is only a small number of homes. All the rest of the homes will have adequate levels of privacy, more than adequate levels of privacy. After the daylight, we have reviewed the Parkview's shadowing study, which obviously demonstrates how the shadows move across the site during the day. But that isn't the accepted way of assessing the impacts on the windows of the neighbouring buildings. The accepted way of doing that is in line with the BRE guidelines, which is the assessment the applicant undertook and has been reviewed by our consultant. And we do have our consultant on the line this evening, if any particular technical questions need to be asked. But he has satisfied that the level of losses to neighbouring properties is acceptable and typical of the development of this sort. And where the impacts are most highly felt is where windows are already particularly constrained by balconies and other kind of obstructions. So, they already receive very low levels of light, so the impacts of the buildings are always going to be more greatly felt. Whereas, the applicant has undertaken an assessment without those balconies, and the numbers do shift relatively significantly away from those failures - they're not failures - where those numbers don't quite meet the guidelines. So, in summary, I guess it has been reviewed independently and has been considered acceptable. And the numbers of losses and windows affected are relatively small compared to other schemes of this scale, which we regularly see. If I could just supplement that. If I take you to page 249 of the report, and Figure 64, which sets out the mass in terms of neighbouring properties for the daylight sunlight assessment. So, the speed lock is on the corner, and the two nearest properties are Cleland House, which is in Parkview Residence Association and then Saudi House. And the impact - the daylight's impacts on that are really very minimal. So, in terms of Cleland House, we've got one major adverse impacts and one moderate adverse. But, in terms of the other daylight assessment, there's no sky limit. We've got full compliance against the Brie guidance. And then, in terms of sourbee court, which is what the residents have spoken about, and the recently reviewed scheme, we've got 67 windows were tested, 87% with full compliance. And, with one moderate adverse, and 95% compliance against the no sky limit. So, as Nick said, there have been some adverse impacts, but actually, they're not in relationship to those neighbouring properties, they're nearest to blocky. I can just go back to a second question on rent levels. That is an objection which plays by an objector, which is actually factually incorrect. The social rent levels won't actually be 80% of market value. They will be social rent, which are set by central government agencies, and will be, as I showed earlier on the slides, the caps of social rents are - these are cheaper than are usual, kind of, London affordable rent, and Tyre Handepch living rent levels. The actual rent levels are worked out based on kind of local rent levels and local earnings, I believe. So, yeah, it is the cheapest possible level of social housing that can be provided, and all of the social affordable rent units will be this social rent level, which is nothing to do with kind of 80% of market rent or anything like that. So, yeah, that was just kind of a factual inaccuracy, but obviously, we have to report the objections as they are raised. I think, in terms of the object, what they're referring to is the definition of affordable in the MPPA, which says something is affordable if it's 80% of the market rate. So, that applies nationally, but what we're saying is that this product isn't just meeting the definition of affordable, it's going way beyond that. It's social rent, which is the most affordable product that we can deliver, essentially. So, I think that the reason I was very concerned about this, you know, vote me. Councillor Ray raised the points about the legal challenge last time. So, the legal challenge did result in the planning commission being quashed, but the courts, when the judge looked at that, it was very much around one particular issue, which was the advice given by officers to the committee in terms of planning and it was about the laundry tree. And it was to do with the laundry tree, in that proposal, was going to be removed from where it currently is and replanted on the front lawn of the hospital. And it was the advice given around the likelihood of the tree sort of surviving that transplanting process. This particular scheme doesn't involve any changes to the location of the laundry tree, it will stay where it is. In fact, it will be, as we've heard in the presentation, it will be protected, A, during the construction, but B, it will also have a form of protection afterwards as well to help it adjust to the change in the environment with the new buildings. In terms of the likelihood of a challenge, well, any decision the Council makes in theory could be challenged. Obviously, our role as officers is to give you advice that we believe would result in whatever decision you make being a robust decision and hopefully challenge-proof. Obviously, in theory, any challenge, any decision could be subject to a challenge. Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, Chair. So my question is relating to Councillor Candon's question. I'm just trying to reconfirm my understanding. It says 76 units are affordable rent. So that means it's not only meeting affordable rent, it's going to be rent kept by even cheaper by social rent, so it's going to be kept by the national social rent. So it's much cheaper than affordable rent. Yes, that's right. References in the report to affordable rent are just because that's kind of the name of the product that we would secure as 70% at least of the... Exactly, so it is true social rent in this case. Councillor Ossobienocha? I just saw clarification. Could you tell me about the applicant? Is it the same applicant as the first? Are they both the same? And yes, I just want to understand about the applicant. Yeah, so the applicant was involved in the previous scheme in one respect in that they were kind of a joint venture with the then developer. The then developer, after the JR was successful, sold off their share to Latimer. Latimer is now the developer for the applicant. I'm sure the applicant might be able to better respond to that than I can, but... Oh, for it, yeah. Thanks. Yeah, so the previous involvement we had was through a different subsidiary company, which is not the development arm. So Latimer, us as the applicant today, is the development arm of Clarion Housing Group, the largest affordable housing provider in the UK. The previous involvement was a different sort of company within the Clarion Housing Group enjoyed venture with Kress Nicholson, but we didn't have sort of, as much or really an active role in the development management of that scheme. Kress Nicholson were leading the previous scheme from a developer and applicant standpoint. I'd like to add, the identity of the applicant can't be a material consideration in the consideration of the scheme, but I guess it's useful to understand their involvement in history within the kind of process. Can you explain to us regarding the refuse truck as well, would it affect any residence or how would the system work? Sure, yeah, let me just get up to the relevant slide. So yeah, so the refuse vehicles will enter the site down this route here, and they'll stop off here to collect refuse bins from the refuse store in Building A and then the refuse store in Building B, and they'll then exit the site in the onto Bonner Road. The other collection route is in through this route here, they'll come in and collect refuse from the waste store here, and then they will reverse down to the bottom of Building D where the waste store is located for buildings D and F. Obviously, we acknowledge that it's not ideal to have refuse vehicles coming into the site, but this will be on only relatively limited occasions, and we did challenge the applicant on this during the application, and they presented kind of the other options that might have been possible, and this was kind of the option which would cause kind of lease disruption to the scheme as a whole. And I guess as part of the previous application, the waste refuse was going to be collected along St. James's Avenue, which was one of the proposals that might have been able to be put forward. So waste would have had to be dragged by the managing agent to St. James's Avenue and kind of stored whilst waiting for waste vehicles to come and collect it, which obviously puts a lot of strain on St. James's Avenue. And another waste storage location was identified as in front of the listed building, but obviously that detracts from the character of the listed building having 20 or 30 bins set outside for what could be kind of up to a day if the refuse vehicle is late or anything. So yeah, it has been considered as kind of the most appropriate way for the refuse to be collected. Thank you. And what about emergency services? So yeah, emergency services will access the site in a very similar way. So emergency vehicles will obviously be able to access through the front here, but will also access down through this route, and then will access buildings, do any via this route here as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, one of the questions I had is about the fiber grade and they've put something in the report here as well. Right, there we go. The London fiber grade is various concerns about various detailed aspects of the construction and the layout. So it would be good to know a little bit more about that. It says in the report that there's been a conversation outside of this, whatever's been reported on this particular report. In terms of it being social rented, I understand that the GLA, the Greater London Assembly are also funding elements of this proposal. If I'm correct, correct me, if I'm wrong, so would like to know a little bit more about that. The Victorian society have also made quite a few suggestions. So right at the beginning, they're much more broadly happier with this scheme. And then I think later on in the report, 7.213, you speak about some of the suggestions that they've made and why they, how they were considered. But one thing stands out, particularly for me, is around the restoration of the, what's it called, the tower. And they've made that proposal. So I guess from the applicant, I would like to know a little bit more about how you've looked into that. And if you've put thought into it as well. And again, around that immunity space. So we briefly spoke about the immunity space, the CASF. Again, I would like to know how that would be utilized, given that, you know, we've had developments that do have these kind of immunity space, but they don't go into residential use and then they're boarded up for a prolonged period of time. And I think you did speak a little bit in your presentation about how you would tackle that particular issue. And I did have one more, but it might come to me. What else are you guys answering my questions? Sure. Thank you. I'll try and answer as many as I can. So in terms of the London fire brigade concerns that were raised. So initially, the London fire brigade, they got a council team response quite early on in the process, saying absolutely no objection. And then quite late on in the day, they provided an updated response raising quite technical concerns about kind of building regulations rather than planning matters. So the scheme is, well, it's preferable to planning gateway one, which is where we consult health and safety executive, who are the statutory consul team for fire safety matters. So we consult them with a fire statement that they review and then they confirm that there was absolutely no objections and that the scheme was fine. They also noted a couple of points for later down the line to comply with building regulations. This is a regular occurrence with schemes like this for planning purposes. There aren't really any concerns from a fire safety perspective. It's been reviewed by the HSE who have confirmed it's OK for land use planning terms. It's been reviewed in line with London Plan policy, D12, in relation to fire safety. So the fire statement, the applicants submitted, complies with that. There are two staircles in each of the buildings where staircles are required, and there are evacuation lifts were required. So we're satisfied from a planning perspective that the scheme complies with fire safety matters. The matters raised by the London fire brigade are usually things that kind of get sorted out in choice of materials or kind of inner workings of how a wall is formed and the insulation materials and things like that. So they are more covered by building regulations than planning regulations. So I hope that answers the question. In terms of the community space. I'll go to next I think. We'll agree an obligation with the applicant as part of the Section 106 whereby they'll be required to submit a community strategy sort of talking about how the cafe space will be run. There are successful community cafes within the borough. There's a one relatively close by the beehive and then there's the yerk cafe. These are the kinds of things we were pointing the applicant towards to provide. So it's a genuine community benefit of the scheme and not just kind of a commercial cafe. Obviously finding those operators might be difficult. So it would be agreed that if after a certain period of time an operator can't be found then it could be let to just a standard operation. But the requirement would be that the unit once it's closed by the cafe could be rented out by residents of the scheme, of the neighbouring area, of anywhere in the borough for free for an amount of time in the evening to run community events or kind of any sort of community clubs or anything like that. So that's kind of how that space we envisage will be run but that would all be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement. In terms of GLA funding, the requirement to follow the fast track route is that the scheme provides 50% affordable housing in a mix which is acceptable to the borough. This is what is provided and we are happy with the mix. But there is obviously a caveat to that which states that provided there's no level of funding involved or anything. But the GLA have since confirmed that they would treat the scheme as fast track, provided it provides 50% affordable housing regardless of commitment to funding. So we've kind of got that from the GLA to make sure that we'll genuinely be a fast track scheme. And then the restoration of the tower is a question to the applicant. If possible, I could call upon the architects to provide comments. Well, definitely, come through. Can you introduce yourself? Yes, good evening. My name is Paul Jones. I'm part of Oilfall and Mona Hamporas Architects. The Victorian Society's suggestion to reinstate the original Capola was reviewed. And the original Capola was actually removed during 1937 prior to the First World War. There was structural damage and a report was done at the time which noted the unsatisfactory weathering conditions and structural implications upon the building. At that point in time, the smaller tower was built, which is what stands today. We've taken the view to retain that tower to express the history of the building. It's also noted that if we were to reintroduce that original tower, there are no existing drawings or detailing of that. So it would be a facsimile and best placed from a couple of grainy images. And it would also push the main building over 18 metres, which could actually begin to be classified as a high-risk building from a Gateway 1 or Gateway 2 submission to the HSE. So we thought that this would be detrimental to this could further impact the heritage asset. So we decided to keep it as it was to preserve its features as it currently stands. Thank you. To the officers, we've development such as these with a lot more social or affordable housing. We know that we're going in bigger families coming into that particular area. These are car-free developments with very limited parking facilities. I don't know how it would be for the kind of private developments particularly, but the social aspects of it will be car-free. Given that families and we as a Council have the permit transfer scheme, have we thought about that and the impact it would have within that locality? So the permit transfer scheme would apply to any residents moving into the property with the existing permit. There was a parking assessment undertaken by the applicant's transport consultants, which has been reviewed by our highways consultant as well. And there was quite a few empty spaces around at the time of the assessment. And so it was considered that there would be capacity to kind of accommodate additional kind of cars for residents with existing permits. Obviously it's a policy requirement that schemes like this are car-free and it needs to be secured as car-free. It's sort of - so it will be secured as car-free as part of the section 106. But our highway's office was comfortable with the proposals and the level of parking that might be required in the area. Last one, check. Quick. Let's just have started this new entity of this new arm. I just wanted to understand what experience the developers have with heritage and listed buildings and how much confidence do we have in making sure that there is any issue in those areas. And second one could be somewhat confidential. Maybe you just want to understand what the projected cost is for the whole entire package here. Thank you. I'll answer the second one. First, the projected cost I think stated in our economic statement. It's about 98 million pounds of construction value, which in turn provides a certain number of jobs requirement and local employment. First part of the question. So, Latimer, the development arm of Firing is not necessarily a new entity. It's - we've got a vast amount of experience around the UK alongside the housing association part of our business. So we develop homes on all sorts of sites around the UK. A huge amount in London as well. We've got several examples of heritage and listed buildings. Not just in London, but also in places like York. And sort of historic cities like that. What we've done here is tried to, throughout the pre-application process, is be as mindful and considered with the listed building as possible. We've agreed with the officers and the council that we could do some very sort of light soft strip works to remove the modern hospital fit out of the NHS. So buildings that's allowed us to get as much of an idea about the risks and the sort of heritage construction within that building so that we can really confidently know what we're designing and take forward to the next stage. Chair, if I just may say, one of the planning obligations we will impose an architectural retention clause on it. So the architects are AHMM, who obviously are responsible for the building we sit in so, I think, hopefully other. It was members agree with us that they've got a good record in terms of bringing forward new development alongside heritage buildings, and so they will be retained to build out the scheme. So that gives us as officers assurance. Again, I think just a profession about this application is that the development is being brought forward by housing association. So it's been very helpful in those conversations because obviously they know they know the needs of a house association. So that's that's been certainly very positive for us. And I think probably has been true for the project architects as well. Thank you, Garif. Councilor Egg mill. Thank you, Chair. I just want to know what plan do you have an even emergency for disabled people to do you have any personal education plan for disabled people and the event emergency? How do you get them out of the building? Do you have any plan in place? I have a question in relation to sort of the emergency, um, yeah of that. Might call on the architect to ask if that's okay. Sorry, can you please repeat the question? Yes, please. What personal emergency education plan do you have for disabled people? So within each of the buildings, there are evacuation lifts to all floors. Within the heritage building, we have installed, because that building is actually raised above the ground, we have installed a platform lift and we have additional access to the rear of the site. As previously presented on the firetender and refuse plan, there is full access for emergency services throughout the site within 18 metres of each of the front doors. And the widths of all the main corridors are in excess in line with GLA guidance or above that for the deck access areas. So I'm going to ask that you have an opportunity to talk about a little bit more about the building which has been discussed. We'll share accessible housing has been provided and has been assessed by the LPA in addition to our inclusive design team member who's not with us this evening. Hi, sorry for asking tough questions. We're talking a lot about affordable rent, but one of the things residents complain later on when they move on, moving is the service charges. I mean, would they be managing it or was the consideration if given to that because it's quite impacting it has impact on residents later on, as well as the rent. Sometimes it's quite disproportionate. That might be a question, but they're answered by the applicant because they'll have full details of the levels of service charges and who pays what and things. Yeah, so service charge also huge consideration for when we're designing buildings, especially for social housing and shared ownership. So we've designed the buildings and of course a public realm with making sure that we don't push up service charges by design which isn't necessary. So the social housing has the lowest service charge when we've done our service charge estimates. And that will be managed managed by and administered by the housing association so helping residents understand and service charge how it's allocated on the site. Thank you. Can you answer that as well? And thank you, too. Is a quick question. And the last question, yes, so the objectives spoke about and so did the applicant. And I guess this question goes to you spoke about the site as being a direct site which is boarded up. So if the committee is minded to give you planning permission today, how soon are you thinking of taking that permission and delivering or are we going to see ourselves here again in the next couple of months with another application. Yeah, fair question. So absolutely as a housing association with the absolute purpose to deliver affordable homes and social homes, the most important tenure, we are completely committed to deliver on this scheme. And subject to the section 106 and being agreed in the decision notice, we will then move into the phase of discharging any pre-commencement conditions and we'd hope to be doing undertaking sort of demolition and enabling works early next year. Just to add as well, members who did join us on the site visit will have seen that works have already commenced in terms of the soft strip and also asbestos removal. And that works with the works that don't require listed building consent, but these are what's a part of the program of clarity and so that they are immediately once the section 106 agreement is signed. Yeah, so we've already invested in the repairs, like temporary repairs to the list of building to ensure it's not deteriorating any further. So that's repairs to stop any water ingress. We've invested money in soft strip of the model hospital fit out to make sure we understand the building better. And it's a process for us to protect their businesses sort of arguing up to hopefully subject to the success of approval to actually commence in construction and delivering. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. I had a question and I've seen in other parts of the world where social housing residents in private developments don't have the same access to services and amenities within the state. And if that's the case in this development or would the social housing tenants have access to those same accesses as the private residents? Yeah, so in terms of the open space public space and the development there's absolutely no space which is segregated from any tenure. So all the public space, even the sort of, well, and including the central courtyard which appears as a semi private space because of its, you see it there because of its relationship with the other buildings. That's open, actually, not just to the residents, but open to the local community and 24/7 apart from dental dusk, which is noted in the report that access to the wider community is restricted from, sorry, dust or dawn. And to account for the privacy of residents. But in terms of open space, no tenure is segregation. They play space as we've heard is located in front of the social housing so actually they benefit from that to the highest sort of degree. And there are elements in terms of back to the service charge point. So it's likely to be proposed that there is a concierge type level service and in this, it's likely that the social housing tenant wouldn't be like have access to that, but that is primarily to keep service charges reduced and minimized for those residents because we know that's such a huge issue for social housing. Thank you. Last question about the iconic mulberry tree. Is it access to the public at all times or any requirements? Yeah, so the, the mulberry tree will be accessible to the public at all times. The landscaping of the tree is designed so that it can be accessed by the public. And there's a viewing platform, bench, these things they can enjoy the tree. It's just part of the open space which we secured as open 24/7. So yeah, be accessible and reintroduced to the community. Thank you very much. Now, would members like to share the thoughts or debate on the application? Starting from Miss. No? Sure, I won't see. Any thoughts? [ Pause ] Such a comment. There are areas in the borough we will see and we will have very tall buildings, like 20 stories, 20 stories, 30 stories coming up. And on the balance of probability, on the balance of benefit, I think this project will bring a huge benefit to the community and will help us out to see over the crowd in the borough. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I would like to echo similarly, like this project will bring a lot of new homes and a few larger homes as well. I know from the previous rejection regarding the tree, like the officers have explained, the tree will be accessible for the public and will be looked after. So, something I think in the borough, it will give a nice little uplift as well. I'd like to ask Diane Phillips and Principal Lawyer and Paul for any final advice before we move on to the votes. Thank you very much, Chair. Not too much to add, really. I'm grateful for Committee members sort of detail to the scrutiny of the application. They're questions this evening. As you can see, the application site has layers of different heritage protection and has lots of different constraints. And I think from the officers' points of view, we feel that the applicants and their architects have worked hard to address those and deliver also a design scheme that's deliverable and also has a number of public benefits to it. There are areas of harm to heritage assets, and we've talked about those, and in particular, residents have mentioned the height of blocky. However, we feel that generally the development complies with a development plan, and it also complies with the statutory obligations around heritage assets. And really, although there are perhaps some compromises in terms of the height of that particular block, we're not convinced that a reduction in that would actually achieve much benefit and arguably could affect other aspects of the scheme and possibly reduce the overall benefits that the scheme would bring. So I think we feel that complies with the development plan in the round and we're happy to recommend approval subject to the various conditions and obligations that you see set out in the report. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Just three points I'd like to raise. The I matters which are not material considerations, the identity of the applicant, and the management of the affordable housing units and the calculation of service charges. Obviously, there'll be a duty on the part of the developer as a housing association to make sure that the service charges are reasonable, but it's not a matter for consideration by members here. Thank you. Okay, now we move on to the vote. Can I see all those in favor of the application? I guess no one's against. Okay. I'll take it straight to Paul. Can you confirm to the committee that it is important? I can, Joe, just before I do, and I should have mentioned this at the beginning, because there's two applications we should really take to to vote. Just to clarify, if we take the votes on the application for planning permission first, is that what members believe that they were voting on the application to grant plan? Yes, okay. In case that was unanimous support for the recommendation to grant planning permission. Sorry, it's the parallel application that deals just with the impacts on the Greate to listed building, so it's an application for listed building consent. So, Chair, we should also take a vote on recommendation to grant listed building consent as well. Yeah, can we see all those in favor? Okay. Thank you, Chair. So, again, that was unanimous vote in support of the recommendation to grant listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in the report. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] Guys, just to let you know, we're going to take a ten minutes comfort break. Thank you. And we'll be back in ten minutes. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you everyone. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you very much, Chair. So as the Chair has said, this is a planning application effective for harbor exchange square. And the planning application is for the demolition of the existing building. And the erection of a mixed use residential lead building with 450 homes. The new podium levels will accommodate flexible retail community creative and amenity uses, as well as basement level blue budget parking, new public realm and landscaping and all associated works. The recommendation to your committee this evening, Chair, is to grant an information subject to the conditions and planning obligations listed in the report and of course, any direction by the mayor of London. There is an update report as well for this that just deals with the clarification provided by the applicants, and it relates to an area of land that sits underneath the DLR line which is proposed, as what we might call the supplemental area for play. So it's not in the main area because that's all accommodated within the applications you'll see in the presentation. But we do welcome the additional play area given that this is quite a high density residential scheme. Other than that, no further comments on the update report. And I believe there's nobody registered to speak on this one either, so thank you. Thank you. I will now invite Jane Tin, team leader, estate planning and building control to present the application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. Good evening and thank you both very good evening to members of the public in the gallery. As Mr. Buckham have explained, this is a residential led mixed-use development or a redevelopment of four and five harbor exchange. My presentation tonight will be possible no longer than ten minutes. It's quite straightforward. So the slide here shows a site location. And it's outlined in red at the site location in the context of the blackboard, in the context and it is in the blackboard and COVID-19 ward. This slide shows the site as existing as an office building, and it's just an aerial photograph to show you a bit more context of the site. The site is bounded by March Wall to the north, three harbor exchange to the east and one harbor exchange square to the south. There is a public way of joining the Mill Wall Dock, along down here. Which ten harbor exchange is situated, which is a low-scale floating structure providing commercial activity. The existing building contained two office buildings. And it is located adjacent to the South Key DLR. The two following slides I'll show you contains photos of the existing sites to give you a bit more understanding of the site. So the site at the top is taken from standing somewhat outside of the DLR station. The two photos below are the views within the state. More photos, again, photo at the top is from under the DLR. And the photos below show the existing public footpath, public realm. Public consultation has been carried out with over 1,400 neighbours being consulted, and site notices and press notices will also be put up. We have received one letter of objection. It's an objection from a resident from Penn Peninsula. Who they say they represent all the residents of that building and also two further comments. We also highlight general support in principle, but raises some objection of the scheme in some elements. But also it just provides general comments. The applicants have also carried out their own public engagement prior to submission of the application through direct contact emails about the scheme, webinars, dedicated websites, and also did a lot of drops to the stakeholders and the residents nearby so they can form with the Council's statement of community involvement. And these are detailed in paragraph four of the reports. The scheme has also been through the design review panel, which is now renamed as a quality review panel, but because of the time when it was taken, it was called the gallery review panel, which supported the scheme and also has been to the Isle of Dogs community panel. So just in terms of the proposed land uses for the building, it contains a 450 residential units in total of which 120 affordable housing units. There are mixture of retail uses, creative uses and community uses, which are for within the use class E and F2. And these are located on the ground and the first floor, which is accessed by a public accessible podium deck level to activate the mill wall frontage. This is the support, the proposed uses are supported given that the site context within the activity zone. And so mixed use in this location is welcomed. And before I'll just go back to that slide, just before I touch on that, there is a policy about the loss of office use, we have to, there's a criteria set out in the policy. DEMP 3, which we have to assess whether there's a need for one. The site itself is not in an office location. However, we do have to assess the loss of the employment uses. So the applicant have provided a office demand study, and we have reviewed that in detail. And we have reviewed the projected use of the office demand in this locality as well as a Canary Wolf. And basically the results of that was that there was a declining demand for office at this location. And therefore, the applicants have satisfied the policy requirements and we can see that we find that the loss of office in this location to be acceptable given the provision of housing that's coming on board, which is much needed in the borough and supported through policy. The following slide shows a general layout of the site, which includes the parts under the DLLA. Proposing includes the improvements of the public realm and the interface, the buildings interface with the pedestrian walkway along the dock. And the proposal will see enhancements under the DLLA through land soft landscaping. And as Paul mentioned, not through the updated report, the applicant is providing further supplemental play areas in addition to what's been dedicated on the site within the proposal. I'm just going to go through the height context, so basically the application sits within the line hub side allocation, middle wall in a dock tool building zone, which are earmarks site for significant housing delivery. The building within the middle wall in a dock tool building zone is shown in red on the slide. I'm required to step down from the Canary Wolf cluster, which is shown in blue. And as you can see as annotated by the green, it's the proposed height of the building, which demonstrates it's comfortably between the two building zones and within the immediate townscape. And so therefore it satisfies a policy, D dot DH6. The proposed building is 52 stories on the height, reaching up to 175.75 meters AOD. This is a verified view of the Western elevation of the proposed tower. Looking in the eastward direction, the proposed building has been designed in a clear, with a clear podium level and focus on delivering active frontages on the dockside and interacting with a south key DLLA. The facade is predominantly metal framing inspired by the industrial heritage and framing helps with a vertical emphasis whilst breaking up the building down into a reddle, legible, separate segments of residential blocks, which is successful in reducing the overall bulk of their parents. This just shows you another view looking northerly direction from the Millwall dock. And another view from the south dock. And you can see the relationship with the Madison tower on the left and the ring the tower further below down into the dock. Which are the residential towers. Another view is looking at the building on the ground level and the first floor level where the commercial activities are from the DLR underlying. Which also shows self landscaping improvements as part of this proposal. And again just another view from a south key DLLA kind of direction looking into the site, showing activation of the frontage of the buildings and its interface with the dock. So basically the planning issues for your consideration tonight are listed out in page 101 of the main report. The land use housing design heritage neighbouring and maintenance of transport environment are all part of the consideration. I'll kind of focus on the housing and design which I've touched upon which officers find acceptable in the context of the site. So just from the housing point of view as I mentioned it is delivering 450 residential units of 120 affordable units. And that is 35% provision. And the listed out on the slide are that the proposal includes 43% of affordable rented family size homes and that's by unit. And I think it's key important to note that quite uniquely and the development does provide all the policy targets within the dwelling within the affordable housing provision. So it is meeting the requirements of one, two and three beds in both affordable rent and intermediate provision. In the private sector however it is secure to us one in two bed units but it also does provide three beds within the private but given that the full compliance within the affordable housing tenure we consider this acceptable. The slide shows a general layout of the lower element of the building. Due to its unique design and layout it does result in 96% of the proposed units having dual aspects. So it's the one bed right at the top of the tower because of the size they they're the ones that have a single aspect. However, 96% is quite high for an urban location and a building of this size so it's quite commendable in terms of how it's been designed. The proposal provides or hits all the minimum required place space, communal amenities space and private mgee space provisions. As we touched up on earlier the updated report shows that there's further commitment by the developers to provide more place outdoor place space provision within the public realm around the DLR. Whilst it already has a dedicated place space provision externally however because this is a high density development the place space provision is shared across part external and part internal. And so the second floor as you see on the slide does show a large area of internal play area for all age groups which is separated into different types of uses but then they spill out onto a deck level external play area as well. So it has a combination of internal within the building external within the building footprint but also externally outside the building and underneath the DLR which is all part of the red line boundary which can be secured through this planning application. Just to note the level two place space area this area can be accessed by all the residents of the tower so that includes private and affordable. This shows the area of the how the communal amenity space has been designed within the tower so again it provides external internal spaces at different levels at level 24 and 41 and 48 to be accessed by the residents of the tower. Given the arrangement of the affordable housing in the private tenure it is that the level 24 will be accessed by the affordable housing ten years and upper levels because of the how the lifts are arranged that could only be accessed by the private residents. But again when you break down the space requirements for each of those ten years at their meet the minimum requirements as required for this development. In terms of the neighbouring properties it is quite a unique situation where on I-Law dogs you don't have much residential buildings nearby so thereby it doesn't create much impact to the neighbouring properties. The residents of Pan Peninsula did raise concerns about the sunlight daylight issues and we have tested that and basically it's that there's six windows that will be affected. However they are generally worse and that they like conditions are worse and because of the over hanging balconies of their own development so it's not necessarily the symptom of disdevelopment itself but it's how that building has been designed and given that it's only six out of so many of the Pan Peninsula that we consider that it's not an impact that's as significant as what other taller buildings would do. And also as I mentioned due to the location distances of the residential properties and try to highlight the nearest residential properties on that map there. Pan Peninsula skylines two to five marshmores three mil harbour South keypliers that arena tower and some other residential moorings within the nearby docks. They're too far to consider to have any significant impact so facade assessments have been carried out but no detailed analysis have been carried out because due to distances it wasn't required to do so. Likewise with the cumulative impacts again because due to the distances it was not going to have a significant impact to the neighbouring properties. One building which was assessed was the Madison tower which is currently on the slide shown as proposed but it's been built and occupied now. So that's been assessed in details of the facades that actually faces on to the development and again it was quite a low number of rooms and windows that were being affected. So in the context of the number of rooms that was assessed it is that the impacts are not significant to warrant any concerns it does comply with the BRE guidance. Just heading into a waste and parking provision there is a basement level proposed with this application whereby 14 parking spaces are provided which are blue badge and they are accessed by two car lifts. Otherwise it is a car for redevelopment all the cycle storage and locate on the basement level and on the street level which all meet the minimum requirements. And also the waste provision there is a storage and the basement level as well as on the ground level where it will be collected within the state roads. So due to the location of the site there is no immediate highway impact. In terms of the financial planning obligations they are listed out on the slide and it aligns with councils planning obligation as PD. So they use your employment and skills and training in carbon offsetting way finding which has been requested by TFL and development coordination. Non financial obligations are to secure affordable housing as proposed at 35 percent excess employment training transport related issues. And again with this one due to the high quality of architecture we want to retain at the quality to a finish level so that architect retention is also secured will be secured. A mini space provision management. Any delivery of management community spaces with public access through including the areas under DLL and operational manuals such as waste those things will need to be secured. So the officers recommendations to grant planning permission and as listed out on the slide thank you for taking your questions. Thank you Jane. As we have knowledge to speak for this application I will now move on to questions. Do members have any questions for officer? [ Pause ] I would have liked to say we have the waiting in Tamara. I would have liked to see more larger houses. There are a lot of one bedroom and two bedrooms. Very limited three bedrooms. Thank you Mr. Chair. If I have not mistaken because previously we have 450 residential unit. After the completion of development we will get total affordable unit. A 2 7 7 + 1 2 3 is actually 400 unit. Do you reducing from original unit from original unit? Because previously we have 450 residential unit and after the demolition we are getting total affordable unit 2 7 7 and 1 2 3 including is a multi intermediate and a social unit. Are we reducing is 50 unit? Not quite sure what the question is sorry can you just clarify yeah. Previously we had 450 residential unit. I mean before the demolition idea just the previously this building continue and after the demolition we are getting only 400 unit just apart from marketing unit. Can I just clarify this. This is a size office there was no residential units on the side it is an office. There was this is the only residential. The office is an office they were never started from scratch so there is no residential units on the side at all. The office building, every unit every. For example if you see to tell we had previously is 400 and resident 450 residential unit. Is page 83 and if you look into page 105. If my mathematics have not correct me mistaken is affordable housing our socials rent unit is all together 2 7 7 and intermediate is 1 to 3 is all together is 400 unit apart from your market housing unit is a market housing unit is 742 but residential unit we have only 400 so the development description says demolition of existing building which is just to be clear it is an office building with no residential on the side and then it is the then and it is an erection of residential development of 450. Building containing 450 residential units so there is no demolition of existing residential unit because the existing building is an office and you are right in terms of the affordable housing numbers it is providing 83 units of affordable rent and 37 units of intermediate rent and then 330 market rent which it all equates to 450 new units yet. Is that OK? The answer. I think I can see what the confusion may have arisen because the table on page 105 of account can refer to is mainly dealing with units but the bottom line of the table then goes into habits for room so I think I can understand that might be a bit confusing but as has been explained if you look at the number of units it does up correctly so it is 450 which is made up of 83 plus 37 plus 330 so but then the row below that is actually dealing with the habits of room calculation so I appreciate I think maybe that is something just for us to take away for next time just to perhaps make that a little bit clearer. Thanks. Sabina Conn? Councillor? Hi. I want to understand about carbon offsetting and the waste which will generate during the construction phase what measures are in place to protect the residents. The residents, the air quality and the disturbance to the area, residents and businesses but also looks quite huge and giant like building. How do you make sure it is energy efficient in the future when it is in use? There are two parts to your question, one is about impact during the construction activity and the energy efficiency around that. Yes, so with the carbon emission you have put there you are going to be charging a fees and could you tell me just more details on that. Sure, and the second part is the environmental impact when it is in use. How do you make it sustainable and environmental-friendly? So there are two ways we do that in terms of the assessment of the development itself of energy efficiency. The applicants are required to submit an energy statement to outline how efficient the building will function. So there is a target set out in the London Plan as well as the Council's own local plan. So basically, the current proposal will meet 61% against the building regulation baseline. Depending on top of that will be captured through a financial obligation for the developed pay council because there is a slight shortfall. So our energy officer have assessed the application detail and the proposed building is going to be delivered with a source of heat pumps to heat the building together with providing hot water. So that meets the requirements of the criteria that is set out within the London Plan. So that is satisfactory from our energy officer point of view and in terms of meeting to policy requirements. In terms of during the construction phase there is a policy required for the carbon life cycle assessment so that will need to be delivered through and then we are securing the planning obligation as well to ensure that the demolition of the buildings and reuse itself in any materials for the site, the carbon whole life cycle is maximised so that it can be a more efficient way of delivering it. The money that we collect for the Commonwealth Hospital goes into a central port and then the Council identifies projects where we seek to maybe improve schools, improve other council buildings to try and reduce the emissions because air quality does not sit in one place. It is across the whole borough so we then use that money to try and save energy and maybe retrofit existing buildings to make sure they are more energy efficient and part of the energy saving for this building includes as James said as well as the communal air source heat pumps they will be using for total cost and so it must be PV panels on the site to help to reduce the energy consumption and all of these things put together meet and policy with regards to ensure that the buildings energy efficient. Thank you, sir. The applicant present here, yes. No, okay. My question could go to the probably the offices and it will be doing hard work for the council. It is a huge building and I just want to explain to us about the waste management plan and fire safety, please. The waste and fire safety, fire safety. Yeah, I mean the application as previously mentioned in the previous application would have been we have consulted the HFC to make sure that it is compliant in terms of fire safety for instance, there will be two double stair cores all tool buildings have to have two stair cores and that is one of the key things from a fire safety perspective that all those have to have two stair cores to ensure that if there is a fire you have got the fire that is going to have one stair core that people have to go through another one and this building has included all of those things. It would have been part of what we call gateway one where we can see the HFC and all of them have an evacuation plan and the materials that are using the building to make sure that there is a fire and they meet the current regulations with regards to fire safety. All of these things get looked at by the HFC and it has to be done as part of the planning proposals and then it is objects to get a building Toronto stage. So we are satisfied that it meets the fire policies and with regards to fire safety. So waste management is there is a central gravity fed waste disposal on every level to be disposed down to the basement level and on the collection days there will be brought up to the ground level for collection and as I said just in terms of actual collection points it is off the highway which is actually beneficial as well just in terms of the congestion on the local highway network. So it has been designed quite well just in terms of you know there is always a concern about residents carrying their rubbish two distance but all waste streams recycling food waste and bulky goods storage areas will be designed into the scheme so it is satisfied that requirement in terms of waste policies. Councillor interjecting. Thank you Chair. First of all this I know the area of Docklands really well provided in the mine of dogs and there are actually a number of developments around that site large scale developments going on. A lot of them are coming to sort of completion. But I think there has been a lot of you know destruction around the area in terms of construction side coming in and out and this particular site from what we understand is behind DLR tracks. It is a little bit tucked away and given that there is already an existing office in place which needs to be demolished and then we have got this large scale development that is about to go on that particular site I think it is going to be useful for the committee to go and have a site visit and understand the scale of the project because I think this is actually quite big and for what we see on paper then what it actually is going to be for that particular site within marsh wall along that stretch of road. So I think I will propose to defer this and we go and have a site visit and then see what we would have sort of considered going forward for the committee. Excuse me, can you just in terms of advice, I mean we have tried to put as much as possible into the report so if members do have any sort of questions or feels anything but we can help decision making and please do ask but having said that equally we want you to be clearly confident and make robust decisions so if you feel that it is not possible to resolve issues today then certainly you can defer the application for a site visit and the process would be to have it proposed seconded and then voted. Yes, that is my proposal chair, thank you. Can I just ask for a little bit of clarity if that is okay. Do we not need to have a reason why we are deferring the site and for a site visit instead of just saying, defer it for a site visit. They did give a reason. I want to hear the reason, sorry, I probably missed that. Do you want to repeat everything I said? Yes. I do apologize if you did say why your reasons were for the site, defer or for a site visit? I said to start with again, I said I know this site pretty well, when I said the site the area of Docklands, one of the Councillors of the Docklands which is far from the Black Wokey town, we go around this area very often, there is a lot of construction going on already in marsh wall, there is a lot of destruction in place for residents using the streets because of other construction sites but looking at this site in particular, it is a little bit away from the other construction, I get that, but it is tucked away behind the DLR tracks and there is already an existing building in place as you can see. I think you will be good for the committee to go out there to understand what the severity of this construction is of this whole project before we make this decision because it is going to be quite large scale and it is going to go for a few years, I believe, so I'm going to be a quick one, so I think we should have a thoughtful process behind it. Thank you Councillor. I will take it to a vote as it is being deferred and seconded, so can I just before you that just a little bit more advice, the two things to mention the recommendation to submit to a conditional requirement construction management plan and I do take the points around the cumulative impact of construction particularly in the marsh wall area although planning commission is word to be granted, then there is three years to commence development so it does not necessarily follow, for example, that it would be going on at exactly the same time as other construction projects, but that is something we need to mitigate, and then secondly to that the new style of construction management plan condition requires engagement with the Council's new monitoring service for construction which is quite a new initiative that has come in last year in fact following the adoption of the new code of construction practice and that has a much more hands on approach to officers, not planning officers, I hasten to add, but there are two new construction management offices in post, they are based in highways although they actually consider a range of issues not just highway issues but they also consider environmental issues such as pollution, noise etc and they are funded through new contributions that developers are required to make to fund to fund that service and it's in recognition of the, I suppose the, there are certain parts of the borough where construction impacts are quite severe and this is one of them and therefore this was a new process that was brought in following the adoption of the code of construction practiced by a cabinet last April, so there are ways of controlling because you know completely valid point but there are ways of controlling construction and I think the Council has a much more sophisticated approach now than it perhaps took in the past. But Diane want to come in and say anything before I take it to a vote for site visit. It's been deferred by Councillor Said for a site visit, can I see all those in favour for a site visit? I don't mind [inaudible] That's right, what would you like to give the outcome? Thank you Chair. So, the committee has voted to seven in favour and won a gate to defer the application for a site visit. So, the process now is we will arrange that at the earliest opportunities to notify everybody and then following the site visit we will bring the report back and we can add a supplemental report if there are any particular issues that the committee members wish to be addressed. I'm taking from the construction impacts and cumulative construction impacts of particular concern as raised by Councillor Said so we'll add a supplemental report that will deal with those issues in a bit more detail. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our final item relates to other planning matters. PA/24/00657 37 1 at the former Bishops Gate Goode Yard site, Bright White Street, London e1 pages 41 to 483. I now invite Paul Beckenham to introduce the planning matter. Thank you, Chair. So, apologies for that. I was just finding the right page in the agenda. So, as Chair said, this is a planning application that has actually not submitted to theTara atham that has actually submitted to the Great London Authority who are dealing with all of the, what we call reserved matters following the grant of Outline Planning Commission at Bishops Gate Goode Yard and this is the Reserve Matters for Plot 1 which is a commercial building. It sits geographically, it sits in Hackney. It's, we are invited as the Council to make our representations to the Great London Authority as to what we think about the proposals and the Strategic Development Committee at its last meeting. Did look at a report that agreed that whilst we are able to make representations under delegated powers because of the significance of Bishops Gate Goode Yard that any representations should come before your Committee first and that's the same process that our colleagues at Hackney Council have adopted as well. So, the recommendation to your Committee this evening is a slightly different recommendation because I said we're not the final decision-makers but this is, we are recommending that we actually raise objections and a number of detailed comments in response to the request for observations. The objections are largely around two very specific points that you'll see in the report and in the presentation. I think the Chair, the presentation isn't overly long on this particular application. I am mindful of time if we should go on beyond just checking we just need about half past nine then committee would just need to agree to extend the meeting to cover that business. Thank you Chair. I will now invite Riki Planning Case Officer to present the report. Good evening members. The Reserve Matters application site is located on the western boundary of the Barra Straddling Shoric Science Street Station. As mentioned, this presentation relates to observations that Tower Hammers provides the GLA on the Reserve Matters application. Officers have raised objections on the public realm around Shoric Science Street Station and the massive impact on Gravity and Green Roads and future residential buildings. The Reserve Matters application site boundaries outlined in red, the site known as plot 1 of the Waiter Bishop's Gate Good'z Yard Highway Planning permission site which is outlined in blue, the Barra Boundary of Hackney is shown in black. The image shows that the majority of plot 1 is within Hackney. The part of in Tower Hammers includes the entrance to the Shoric Shoric Street Station. Plot 1 is consented and outlined and requires reserve matters of approval. The hybrid planning application listed building consent was submitted in 2014. The Mayor of London took over the determination of the applications from Hackney and Tower Hammers in September 2015. Officers are calling amendments were submitted significantly reducing the scale and quantum development. In November 2020, STC resolved to raise objections to the GLA and also resolved that future Reserve Matters application shall be determined by the committee. When approving the application in March 2022, the GLA confirmed they will be keeping determination of Reserve Matters application to themselves. Therefore, Tower Hammers will only be able to provide Barra observations to the GLA. All saturated consultations gone through the GLA although Tower Hammers have received free objections to the scheme as detailed in the committee report. The consented development consists of up to 500 new homes with 50% affordable housing, along with extensive office, retail, hotel, community and cultural space, a public park and new public routes through the site. The list of Reserve Matters details to be submitted for each outline plot are shown in yellow. This image shows the maximum parameter massing and land uses of the wider consented development from plot 1 shown by Red Arrow. This image shows the Bishops Bureau site allocation as illustrated in the Tower Hammers Local Plan, the wider development broadly aligns with site allocation aspirations. The Hybrid Planning Commission consented plots in detail and plots in outline. For outline plots, the consent included minimum and maximum parameter plans, a development specification to control uses and details and a design guide to establish robust design framework. Plot 1 consented in outline as per the image on the right shows the maximum parameter massing of plot 1 in red outline with the minimum parameter massing in gray within. The larger image to the left shows a proposed development at plot 1. The building would be 12 to 16 stories and would consist of retail at ground floor with office place on upper floors along with surrounding public realm servicing areas and plant. The image shows the proposed plot 1 development of Red Arrow with plot 2 to the right which is already consented in detail. This view is from Commercial Street and is within the Borough of Hackney. Office of Commons are focused on the parts of development within Tal Hamlets, but this image is helpful for context. This image shows a typical proposed upper level office floor plate including an amenity terrace. The table shows the consented land uses for plot 1 and demonstrates that the proposed land uses fall within the ranges approved and are therefore acceptable. This is the north elevation of plot 1 with Tal Hamlets to the left of the Red Borough boundary. The green outline shows the maximum parameter massing and the blue outline shows the minimum parameters. The development would be within approved massing parameters. This is a south elevation of plot 1 with Tal Hamlets to the right of the green boundary line. This side of the building would front a new west east pedestrian route from Shortich High Street to Brick Lane known as Middle Road. This is the proposed east elevation within Tal Hamlets that ends above the entrance to Shortich High Street station. This proposed ground floor plan shows minimum parameter footprint in blue and maximum parameters in green. Retail units are around the perimeter of the site. Shaded red areas are exclusion zones for over ground infrastructure. The yellow line is the boundary with Tal Hamlets to the right where the train station is shown. The site includes a servicing yard from Beethbroon Green Road as per the parent permission. There is also an internal shortcut route which is to be open to the public during the day. Office entrance lobby, cycle parking and ancillary areas make up the remainder of the ground floor. Plot 1 broadly follows the design guide to development specification details and parameter plans as detailed in the committee report. This image is a view looking west from Beethbroon Green Road. The future residential plot four is shown indignity to the left and the gap in between is Braith Wake Street which leads to Shortich High Street station. The outline, design and control documents along with impacts on heritage assets were approved and so the scope of assessment is generally limited to how the proposals comply with the control documents. This image shows the plot 1 office scheme from further east on Beethbroon Green Road, again with the outlined future plot floor to the left. In the SDC meeting in 2020, members raised an objection to the height and massing of the development, particularly in terms of the impact on Beethbroon Green Road, although the GLA did subsequently approve the development. The proposal is generally built to the maximum parameters of massing and footprint. Officers recommend objection to the visual impact on Beethbroon Green Road, also related to public realm and immediately matters which will be covered later. This image shows the proposed public realm improvements around plot 1. Proposals include the new West East walkway middle roads with associated trees in blue outline is Braith Wake Street and the approach to Shortich High Street station. Officers raised a number of comments, claverations and suggestions on the scheme, as listed in the committee report and shown later. This is a closer look at Braith Wake Street public realm proposals to the east of plot 1 adjacent to the station entrance. The approved desired guide states that increased public space will be provided at the northeast corner of the plot to ensure adequate and appropriate public realm is delivered, this potentially busy location, and that this will be achieved by a building to the minimum parameter or if built into the maximum parameter introducing a cantilevered recess or a colonnade. The development would not provide any additional public realm but has proposed an internal cut through show number 2 by the side of a retail unit. These images are from the design guide and in illustrate the necessary additional public realm which should be provided at this key busy pedestrian junction. The top left shows building to the minimum parameter to allow additional public realm. The top right shows a cantilevered recess and the bottom left shows a colonnade which would both also allow additional ground floor circulation space. The bottom right shows building out to the maximum parameter with no additional public realm with the red cross as unacceptable which is essentially what the proposed relevance put forward. This image shows the existing situation with box park set back from the roadside allowing some additional openness and public realm. This is the proposed station square of the overground totem and station signage removed or obscured and if opposed to signed. Officer suggests that any signage should announce the overground station rather than the development and that the bollards around the site should be rationalised. Officer's raised objection to the treatment of station square as it offers no additional public realm as required by the design guide and local plan site allocation. The wider development introduced a number of significant adverse impacts on neighbouring residents in terms of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, outlook, sense of enclosure and construction. The development was approved with an extensive range of conditions and legal obligations to mitigate these impacts. The main immediate concerns were related to other plots on the site rather than plot one. In terms of plot one the nearest residential units are shown in the image. These are sufficiently limited and well separated from development. The conclusions from the hybrid consent assessment remain valid and the impact on nearby homes is considered to be acceptable in relation to plot one. Officers have raised comments to ensure that light pollution matters from the plot one officer is fully considered. In terms of impacts on future residential units, considered on the wider sites, plot one is shown above in relation to plots for 10A and 8A. Plot one would be 16 stories to the east and only 13.5 metres from plot four and 11.9 metres from plot A. Taking into consideration the high capacity and close proximity, less than the recommended 18 metres separation distance, officers raise objection to the impact on the medium to future occupiers and suggest that plot one is reduced in footprint in this location. In terms of highways servicing and environment impacts of the proposals, GLA officers will need to scrutinise technical elements, however a number of comments have been raised, including a request to maximise trees and urban green factor around the site. Comments have also been provided from Tahamnitz waste and highways teams, however, generally the details appear to conform with control documents. In conclusion, officers recommend that two objections were raised with the GLA, namely that the station square is not in accordance with design guide and site allocation aspirations for additional public realm, therefore the building massing and/or footprint should be reduced to the minimum parameter extent. Secondly, that the close proximity of plot one built massing will result in unacceptable immunity impacts on the future residential plots and so plot one should be reduced to the minimum parameter massing extent at the eastern end of the building. Officers also recommend the following comments raised with the GLA in regard to rationalising visualisations, the service yard entrance, softness and balconies design, lighting, brace weight sign posting, ball art strategy, shopfront signage, materials detailing, internal office lighting, a sexable car parking and maximising biodiversity. One last point adds, last night an objection received from the Boundary Estate, TRA, and officers subsequently recommend the further comment to request winter views including night views from the Boundary Estate. At this stage, we would welcome any questions or additional comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ricky. Do members have any questions for officers? I'd like to ask Paul and Diane to share final advice before we go to approval to the observation. Thank you, chair. As I said earlier, it's a slightly different type of report and it's not that we're saying that the GLA should just go ahead and refuse the reserve matters. What we are trying to do is put, if you like, our point forward that these are important issues that we would want, the GLA has a lot of planning authority to take into account when they assess the application. So as we've said, there's largely two main design points so that conflict with the original design guidance that was in the outline, permission, and then the second one, is that kind of, if you like, maxing out of the office envelope, which, you know, on one level, the parameter plans allow applicant to do, but what we're trying to do is safeguard the quality of the housing that would then be designed on the next plot to come forward. So we hope that if the committee agree, then we would be able to send off these detailed comments to the GLA and then they would take those into account in their assessment of the application. But we can't obviously comment on other things like land use or anything else, because that's already been decided in the outline permission. But thank you, chair, for all I have to say. Does the committee agree to what Paul has advised us? Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you for all your time. That concludes the business for this meeting. Next meeting will be placed on Wednesday 28th August 2024. Thank you very much. [APPLAUSE]