Transcript

inevitable. Good evening and welcome to the Development Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Iqbal Hussain and I will be chairing this meeting. This meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in this meeting room. Only the committee members present in the meeting room will be able to vote. Other persons maybe also attending remotely. Committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by the committee so that should technical difficulty prevent their full participation in the meeting, it may proceed in their absence if I feel it is necessary. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly but before that I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting procedure. Participants must address the meeting through myself as the chair. If you are participating online and you are experiencing any technical difficulties, you must contact the Democratic address officer as soon as possible via email. However officers may not be able to respond to all such requests. You should keep your microphone and camera switched off all other times. Please do not use the meeting chart facility. Any information added to the chart facility will be discarded. If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic service officer as soon as possible. I would remind all members and other participants that this meeting is taking place within the formal pre-election or part of the period leading to the by-election taking place on 12th September. You therefore reminded that discussion must not involve any election or party political content and must stick closely to the matters set out for discussion. I will now ask committee members present to introduce themselves and can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interest.

Good evening. I have nothing to declare. >> Good evening. My name is Councillor Gulam Kibre. >> Nothing to declare. Council for islands and gardens, nothing to declare. Thank you, members. Now two apologies. Thomas, have you received any apologies for absence. >> Good evening, chair. No apologies. Thank you. >> Agenda item 2 is the minutes from the previous meeting. Can we approve the minutes from the 12th of June, 2024, members? Thank you for your preparation. >> Agenda item 3 are the recommendations and procedure for hearing, objection and meeting guidelines. I will now ask Jerry Bell, area planning manager, to represent the guidance, please. Thank you. Good evening, chair, committee members, members of the public, officers and those of you who are joining us. Item 3 on the agenda sets out the process for considering the report, the recommendations and the procedure for public speaking. I will outline this briefly. The procedure for considering the report applications, considering the report applications, and for decisions will be as follows. I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation. Officers will present the report. Anyone registered to speak in objection will address the committee for up to three minutes each. Anyone registered to speak in support, including the applicant, or the applicant's representative will address the committee for up to three minutes each. Any councillors registered to speak will address the committee for three minutes each. The committee may ask points of clarification of each speaker and the committee will consider the recommendation, including questions and debate. The committee will reach a decision based on the majority vote, and I will confirm the decision to the chamber. Should the committee propose changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, such as to add, delete or amend planning conditions, any obligations or informacies, or even the reason for refusal, the task of formalising those changes is dedicated to the corporate director of place. In the event that the committee do not accept the officer's recommendation, they must clearly state their reasons and then propose and agree an alternative course of action. The committee may be adjourned briefly for further planning or legal advice, and the task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is dedicated to the corporate director of place. In circumstances where the committee proposed to make a decision in which it would go against the provisions of the development plan, the item may be deferred for a further report from officers dealing with the committee's proposed course of action. There is an update report, and the report has been circulated to committees dealing with clarifications, corrections and matters that have arisen since the publication of the agenda. In the update report, which is agenda 5.1, which is Compass Point, there's an area in the affordable housing figure, and agenda 5.2, which is Empson Street, there are clarifications with regards to the employment floor space, the site map, the internal floor areas, the number of apprentices, an update on the affordable workspace by diversity conditions and Section 106 provisions. If the phone line rings, please follow the instructions of the facility staff who will direct you to the exit, and finally, can I please remind everyone to show courtesy to all present and do not interrupt the meeting, and please ensure that your mobile phones are turned off or turned to silent during the meeting. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jerry. We have no different item to consider tonight. Moving on to the main item for tonight. Agenda item 5 are the planning application for decision. We have two planning applications to consider this evening. Agenda item 5.1. Agenda item 5.1 is the Compass Point 5, Granite Street, London E14-8HL. I now invite Jerry to introduce the application, please. Thank you, Chair. The application that Compass Point is for the additional story to the building to create six new residential apartments with ancillary cycle storage and refuse stores. The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to affordable housing and car-free Section 106 agreement and the relevant conditions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I will now invite Shahin Amin, Planning Case Officer, to present the application. Shahin, over to you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening to the members of the committee and members of the public. The scheme I am presenting today relates to Compass Point 5, Granite Street, located in the Limehouse area. The scheme is for the construction of an additional story to create six new residential apartments, which consist of three one-bed flats, two two-bed flats and one three-bed flat. This is a site plan which shows the application site outlined in red. The site contains a modern U-shaped building which gained planning permission in 1996. Compass Point is bounded by Salter Street to the east, Granite Street to the north, Ridge Street to the west and the raised DLR line to the south. The site is located in the Isle of Dogs opportunity area, which is designated for housing growth. There are no heritage designations in the proximity of the site. This is an aerial image of the site within its context outlined in red. As existing, there are 44 dwellings in the building, 18 flats are one bed and 26 flats are two beds. There is a large residence car park to the south of the building which is accessed off Ridge Street, which also contains refuse facilities and hard and soft landscaping. This photograph shows Compass Point from Granite Street, the north elevation. As you can see, the building is three stories high, except at the northwestern and northeastern corners, where it rises to four stories. This photograph shows Compass Point from Salter Street, east elevation and its placement relative to the residential block Cayman Court. This image is looking into the residential car park of Compass Point along Ridge Street. This slide illustrates the existing and proposed third floor layout. The plan on the left, shows the existing third floor layout. As existing, it consists of two flats located in the northeastern and northwestern corners of the building. The proposed plan on the right-hand side shows the development and would feature two separate extensions, each adding one additional story to Compass Point. The first extension is located in the southern corner of the block along Salter Street and would contain two new two-bedroom flats. The existing stair call along Salter Street would be extended to the new third floor. The second extension is located to the north along Granite Street and would contain three one-bedroom flats and one three-bedroom flat. The existing stair calls would be extended where necessary to access these flats. These drawings show the existing and proposed elevation along Salter Street. The outline red area shows the first of the two one-story extensions in relation to both the application building and the residential block Cayman Court. This is the proposed internal elevation. These drawings show the existing and proposed elevations along Granite Street. The outline red area illustrates the placement of the proposed infill third floor extension. In terms of public consultation, we sent out consultation letters to 277 neighbouring owners and occupiers. Two rounds of consultation took place due to amendments made during the course of the application to the location of the proposed cycle parking and refills stores. Overall, a total of 54 letters of objections received in response. A petition with 115 signatures were received. The main objections focused mainly on the noise, disturbance and disruption from construction-related impacts, also amenity impacts. Objections also raised that the proposal would be out of character with the area and that there would be a strain on communal areas and the waste services and also increased pressure on local services. More details are provided in the committee report. The majority of the objections have come from the existing residents of the building and also from neighbouring properties within the immediate vicinity. Some of the notable issues are listed on this slide here. In terms of land use, the existing building comprises residential dwellings and therefore intensifying this use, in principle, is considered to be acceptable. The MPPF supports opportunities to use the airspace above residential properties for the provision of new homes. In terms of housing, design, neighbouring amenity and refuse and transport, I will discuss these in the following slides. In terms of design, the first of the two extensions outlined in red alongomena, would be in keeping with the height of the existing four-storey building and would remain lower than the adjacent building south, Cayman Court. The extension is designed with a hipped roof and grey interlocking roof tiles to match the existing building. Grey windows and cladding will also be used to ensure the extension blends seamlessly with the current structure. The second extension along Granade Street will serve as an infill between the existing third floor flats, aligning with the four-storey sections at the north-eastern and western corners of the building to create a symmetrical effect. The roof form, grey clad and windows will all be consistent with the existing design of the building. The proposal is considered to be carefully designed to incorporate architectural features of the existing building. Overall, the proposal would be in keeping with the heights of the surrounding development. Both the extensions are considered to be well-designed, reflecting the characteristics of the surrounding area. For housing, the proposal would provide six additional homes towards the borough's housing targets. An affordable housing contribution is required by policy for developments which provide between two to nine units. The applicant has agreed that a contribution of 120,000 will be made, and this was found to be the maximal viable contribution that could be provided for the scheme. This will be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement. This contribution will go towards providing affordable housing within the borough. In terms of housing mix, due to the nature of the development which is building on top of an existing building, the site is constrained by the layout that can be provided and consequently the dwelling sizes. The proposed housing mix, shown in the table here, is considered to be acceptable with one good-sized family unit coming forward and two two-bed units and three one-bedroom units. The development would contribute towards the borough's housing supply and the housing targets. These are the floor plans which demonstrate the typical layout of the proposed flats. All flats meet the space standards and would have good levels of light and outlook. All flats would be provided with private amenity space in the form of a balcony, located along here, here and here. And, overall, the development would provide a good standard of living for future occupiers. In terms of amenity impacts, the neighbouring development at RICH, 1 to 32 R PD, lies to the north-west. The results within the daylight and sunlight assessment demonstrates that the proposed development would have no undue impacts on daylight or sunlight received by the closest southern-facing windows of the development. In terms of privacy, there is mutual overlooking between the lower floors of both buildings and, therefore, no undue loss of privacy would take place. In terms of outlook and enclosure, there is approximately a 13 metre distance between both buildings and this neighbouring development would retain the open aspect to the west and east. Given the separation distances and open aspects in other directions, there would be no undue loss of privacy and outlook for neighbouring occupiers. Moving to Cayman Court, due to the relationship between the extension and Cayman Court to the south, there would be no undue impacts to the occupiers of Cayman Court in relation to outlook, enclosure and privacy. Similarly, there would be no undue losses in daylight and sunlight for the occupants of Cayman Court. Moving on to the occupiers of Compass Point, due to the rooftop nature of the development, there would be no undue losses to the sunlight and daylight of the occupiers of Compass Point and there would be no undue impacts in relation to privacy and outlook and enclosure. In terms of noise impacts, a condition will be attached to the consent to ensure all construction activities take place during standard construction and demolition hours. Furthermore, impacts relating to noise, disturbance, dust and traffic and parking would be mitigated and minimised through the submission of a detailed Construction and Environmental Management Plan, which would be scrutinised by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works. The proposal is in accordance with the planning policy D.DH8. This is an existing landscaping plan, which shows the existing car park, landscaping and the existing bin store locations. As you can see, the site has no cycle parking as existing on site. This is the proposed landscape plan, which shows the proposed bin store arrangement, located along here and here. The bin stores would hold sufficient capacity for both existing and proposed flats and would be policy compliant. In terms of car parking, all flats within the development would be car free. In terms of cycle parking, a new sheltered cycle store is proposed in the rear car park area, outlined in red and nine cycle parking spaces would be provided. A hard standing surface would replace an existing narrow grass area close to the rich street entrance to the gate. Full details of the cycle store would be secured by condition. Officers' recommendation is to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and the legal agreement set out in the committee report. Thank you. I invite the first objector to address the committee in objection to the application. You have three minutes. >> That's Hanfri joining us online. Yes, we can. Thank you. >> Okay. Do you mind, just before we start going back, showing the slide of the proposed ground floor? One of my points I will make later. Let me know when can I start the presentation. You have three minutes from now. Thank you. I stand before you today to object the planning application. On behalf of many existing residents, my background is ARB register architect who worked in London for ten years. Firstly, I would like to address the issue of communication, which other objectors will also talk in detail. In short, the objectors were not given enough time to speak, no sufficient opportunity to coordinate our objection. Like for example today, we have way more than three people to address to the committee, but we will be really short in time for that. Secondly, the application itself is flawed. There is no street feel provided with the proposal, making it extremely difficult to understand the full impact of the development of the surrounding area. And we find it really hard for how the planning officer could assess properly the size and the massing of the development without any street feel rendering given that we live in 2024. Additionally, the elevation drawing was presented in black and white. It is unclear how the office can access the proposed material are appropriate. Have they actually considered other materials like brick? It was unclear from the submitted documents. The ground floor proposal of the additional bin store will worsen the outlook for many local residents who lives in the ground floor. The very limited green spaces that we have will be very unsightly covered with bin store. The current capacity of the bins are already severely insufficient, with an increase of the bins, given the open top design, there will be a lot of flies in the summer. My last concern is about the safety joint construction phase. Defined diagonals serve as a stark reminder of the potential fire risk involving construction projects in an occupied building. To mitigate this risk, we wish that there will be some condition to govern material store on site and used on site to meet a higher safety standard. For example, an A0, A1 made BBA proof material. And even to the wooden planks on the scaffolding should be prohibited on site. Furthermore, developer or the contractor should have appropriate insurance in place covering the safety for both existing residents and the building itself as our current insurance will not cover... You have 30 seconds left, thank you. I believe the objector concluded his objections. Now I would like to invite the second objector to the committee in objection to the application. You also have up to three minutes. Next we have Alison online. Hi. Can I start? Yes. Good evening, my name is Alison Yao. I strongly object the proposed plan application PA2202363. This proposal poses significant risk to our community. Firstly, the application lacks a definitive construction end date causing prolonged hardship for residents. This indefinite timeline fails to comply with Tara Hamlet's plan policy DDHA, which mandates the minimising disruption would deserve clarity on the construction timeline. Secondly, the proposed measure to control dust and noise do not adequately address the impact on residents with pre-existing health conditions such as severe dust allergies. According to local plan policy DES9, developments must not worsen air quality or create additional health hazards. Proper safeguards and compensation for affected residents are essential. Furthermore, there is a 30 storey building nearby that was completed two years ago and yet too many of its affordable housing units remained unoccupied. If existing affordable units aren't being built, how can we justify the need for more especially given the council's target for affordable housing homes that aren't meaningfully met? The £120,000 contribution affordable housing is minimal. This is less than the price of a single flat according to current market prices. Not one of the six flats will likely be affordable housing. They will be sold as private homes. This means there will be effectively no contribution to affordable housing. How is this application beneficial to the community? Additionally, the continuous wave of development including recently approved 30 storey tower has already caused significant stress and diminished the quality of life for many residents. Local plan policy SDH1 emphasises protecting the wellbeing of existing communities. Many constructions in close proximity threatens further harms to our mental and physical health. Moreover, there has been no mention of compensation for ongoing disruptions or health impacts caused by construction. It is unacceptable that residents bear in the burden of private driven developments without a tangible benefit or support. Importantly, this application has received 115 objections from local residents, underscoring the significant concerns and negative impacts. The council's decision to move forward despite these strong objections, it seems the council is willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of 277 residents for the benefits of just six flats, raising serious concerns and questions about transparency, accountability and trustworthiness of the council. It is crucial for our local government to listen to its constituents and act in their best interest. In conclusion, the proposed development fails to meet several critical planning policies and propose significant risks to our community's health and wellbeing. I urge the planning committee to reject - We have 30 seconds left. and fight with the need and safety for current residents over short-term development gains. Thank you very much. Thank you. May I now invite third objector to the district committee meeting, objector into the application, and you have up to three minutes. Thank you very much. Taking from what the two previous persons have just said, I take it from the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031, Managing Growth and Sharing Benefits. These six additional flats are not affordable flats. There is only one flat, as she just said, for the benefit of six families against 270 local residents. Tower Hamlets states that there is an acute shortage of affordable homes, and these spread, these word affordable homes, spread throughout the 400 pages document of the Tower Hamlets Council, and relative high levels of overcrowding. This is incorrect. There is overcrowding, noise level, additional traffic, the local GP is on his knees, the DLR is overcrowded because we put a retro building next to Compass Point, which by the way is half-empty, and the primary hotel. With the primary hotel, you can imagine the level of traffic that is ongoing. The problem of the waste at Compass Point is quite acute. We have four recycling bins scattered across the common parking space and garden, where children at the moment play. Children won't be able to play when we have construction. So, we got the two enclosures, which are absolutely insufficient. Ironically, this morning, I placed a missed bin collection. This is probably the 20th that I placed with Tower Hamlets Council this year. The missed collection, and the Council has got an obligation from government policy to collect the garbage. Two years ago, I liaised with Councillor James King, and I sent photographs. I'm sorry that you didn't show the photographs that we sent. That shows the high level of garbage everywhere. So, what the colleague just said, high level of flies. We have had the rat infestation because of where the enclosures are and are insufficient. There will be problems with overshadowing, pollution, noise, public services. There will be a variety of problems. There is a concern for the ground. We saw what the environmental agency put forward on the first application that we objected with 85 signatures. Second application objected with 70 signatures. I haven't seen the document that the environmental agency accepted. This is it, basically. I've seen that what you have put there is not what we have seen. We know that… leave it. That's fine. Thank you. I now invite the agent for the applicant, Gaston Brandicchu. Gaston Brandicchu. Chair, District Committee meeting in support of the application. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Gaston Brandicchu from GBP Architects. We are… And you have nine minutes. We can comment just on the design aspect of the development. We can comment on the other aspects or the other objections. So I would like to say that in terms of the design, well mainly is an infill extension towards Granite Street. And we think, well, the design is in harmony with the street scene. Even the extension on Salter Street is emulating the towers to the two corners to Granite Street. So I think in terms of design it was carefully delineated. The materials are matching with the existing materials of the development. In terms of mitigation of construction impact noise and disturbance during construction. Well, all this will be covered by a detailed construction management plan that I can imagine. It will be part of the planning conditions. Obviously, well, in terms of noise will be restrictive hours for a high level of noise works. In terms of the duration of the construction, we can anticipate between eight and ten months of the duration of the works. About refuse and recycling areas, we have sent the details of bin stores to comply with the additional six units. And that was approved by the planning office. That's all, yes. Thank you. Do members have any questions of the official objective of the applicant? Thank you, Chihin for your presentation and your report. It's really helpful. Could I ask the applicant, so who is your client? Who's the GLO properties? So they're your acting on behalf of them. And are they the free holder of the site? What are they? The free holder is GLO properties. We're the agents. We just prepared the planning application for the client. So I've got a few questions, I suppose. So one of them is about the car-free development. So maybe I can ask you because you're here. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Yes, my name is Ariana. Ariana, so the car park at the moment, so how is that managed? Do you have parking enforcement on site? Do people have fobs to get into the car park? How does it work? Yes, there is an electric gate. People have got fobs to get in and out. Parking spaces are allocated. We don't have any enforcement at the moment. We are trying to work with the management. By the way, it's a subsidiary of the free holders. So they're all in it together. So we are already finding a lot of difficulties with the management because they act on behalf of the free holders. And obviously the free holders now are placing this application to build addition six flats on top of our head. Simple as that. Thank you. So I guess a question, Jerry, would be what can we do in order to So if it's a car free development, is there anything that we can do in order to put in, you know, what can we do as a planning committee to make sure that that is enforced? The car free development is there to prevent people from parking on the public roads. And we can only control and manage and enforce the car free agreement when it relates to the public highway. On private land we have no powers to enforce it or to have any control of how the parking arrangements work. I think as Arianna, as she said, the car parks spaces are allocated to individual flats. And I think from what I understand them, please Karima if I'm wrong, it's part of the lease. Yes, the parking spaces are part of the lease and each flat is allocated, not each, but the majority have an allocated parking space. So the parking spaces belong to the actual owners of the flats for the lease arrangements. Thank you chair. This is to the planning officers. It's about the contributions towards the affordable scheme, that 120,000 pound. How did that work on the value, I mean, they applied for six flats and to compromise with 120,000, could you talk us through that? How does this compromise to accept 120,000 pound the value of this capacity where they're building it? So if I understood your question correctly, is it around how the 120,000 was agreed? Yes, that is correct. Yes, so that applicant submitted a viability assessment which was scrutinised by the Taahamut's viability team and also cost consultants where they explore build costs and interest rates and the value of the properties and they reached a conclusion that the maximum contribution that could come forward from this development was 120,000. So that is understandable and acceptable, but how did he work out the value, what are the percentage of the actual value that he charged? I think the viability reports don't work that way. It doesn't work as a percentage. So the applicant submitted some information to the council that tells us how much it costs them to develop the, how to build it, to build the units. That information is then scrutinised by our viability team. Now, that viability report includes the cost of building it and the materials, labour, interest, charges, if they have to have development loans, that has an interest of charge to it. Included in that viability report is they have to make a level of profit as well, and that's included in the viability report. All the information goes into the report and is calculated. And then our colleagues in the viability team assess that and they work out whether or not there's enough left over after all the costs of actually delivering these units is taken into account, whether there's enough money left over to give the council some money towards affordable housing. Whatever's left over after they've worked out all the costs of bringing forward the scheme is what gets given to the council, and that's where £120,000 comes from. The original figure is what we would like to see, it's what our policy says we're aiming for, but it's subject to those costs being such that we can get that money from the applicant. Thank you for that. I may come back again, chair. Councilor Chaudry. Thank you, chair. When you said £120,000 contribution, but the paper in front of me says £280,000 something, so I'm just asking for a clarification on that. That was an error. So the original planning report mentioned £286,000. £298,000. I think that was an error in the report, so we've resolved that through the update report and given you the actual figure. So the £298,000 was the figure that we aim for, planning policies, but we can't secure that because the viability assessment that was submitted in the application means that there isn't enough money in the scheme to allow us to get to the larger sum. Thank you. Councilor technology. Question to the applicant. So if this was to be granted, so when you start the development, what are you going to do with the tenants inside the building? Are you going to move them or are they still going to be there? What will be the effect? Unfortunately, I can't answer that question because we are the architects and we prepare the planning application, but it should be the applicant to respond to that. I'm not able to respond to that, sorry. Sorry, I'm just confused. The officer said, so far, 61 complaints and the lady had enough say 85, I'm not sure which one is correct. So in relation to the number of objections that we've received, so there was an initial consultation with the neighbours and we got 37 letters of objection and a petition that had 61 names and then we did a second round of consultation because there were some changes to the plans to the landscaping area and we received an additional 13 objections, which didn't raise any new issues that hadn't already been raised in the initial consultation and then post publication of this report we received an additional four objections as well. So that's what's been received in relation to the application as a whole. Does that answer your question? I'm not able to respond to that. I still have all the petitions and the second petition contains 65 signatures. If you want to see them, they are here in paper. I've got the petition here, I've got the first petition, I've got all the emails. So there is more than that. I don't know where these numbers come from, but we have all the evidence here. And this evidence has been emailed and I emailed it back to me so that I can have the evidence back and I'm sure that has been sent. We received an initial petition. Sorry, what do you mean by initial petition? The one in 2023 please, because I don't understand. I just would like some clarification because it's not clear. I'm just going to get the date that the original petition was submitted. January 2023, the first petition. 22nd of August 2024, the second petition. So the petition was emailed to us on the 13th of December 2022. I don't think the petition, it's... Yes, so in terms of, it doesn't count the signatories, so we have manually counted the signatories and we counted 61. And then very recently after publication of the committee report, we received an addendum, so additional names to that petition. And the number of additional names that we counted was, was it 54, Shane?

1. So 61 plus 54. Any... Thank you, Mr Chair. Optar has already complained about waste stories and they have been suffering by level of flies and rodent issues. How do you justify this? So as part of this application, we've made the assessment of current waste law and we find the current waste law capacity to be policy compliant with both refuse and recycling. So there's sufficient space to store the waste. In terms of issues with rodents and flies, these aren't material planning considerations that we assess during a planning application. Councillor Bastia. Thank you. So just as a follow up to that, so I was looking at the landscaping plan. So I can see in the existing landscaping plan, there's two bin stores and then in the new one, in the proposed one, there are an additional one, two, three. So with this six extra homes, there's an additional three bin stores. So that's not really making sense to me because there's what, 40 odd homes there already with two bin stores. So what's the justification for three more for six? So the original development was approved in the late '90s. I don't know what the policy and guidance around refuse stores and amount of storage at that point, but I think it was potentially less than it is now. What is proposed in terms of refuse and recycling is sufficient in quantity for the existing and the proposed units on the site. And hopefully if there are issues at the moment with overflowing bins, this will mitigate that issue as well. Sorry, can I add something, please? Can you give me the opportunity to add something about the waste, please?
2. Can you hand it to Simon? - Yeah. Can't see the run-on. Just a quick one. How long is the development, how long would it take if it was to be granted? How long? I'm not sure about the real details of it, because I don't know the real details of it. But if it was to be granted, how long is the construction? Yes, I believe the architect has said it would take between nine to ten months. Between eight and ten months. Just to add that we obviously can't control that as part of the planning process. We have a condition that it has to commence within three years. But other than that, apart from that, we can't control the length of time of the construction. I have a question to the objector. Do you have any numbers of patients of resident known with allergy condition or asthma in the existing building? Any known people with the known condition? Yes, of course, my own daughter. The lady that lives upstairs, the lady that spoke before. I can bring my own daughter to show you. And I got photos of the scattered waste across the parking space. Sorry, it's important. Good members, we'd like to share their final thoughts on the application before we go to vote. Before that, can I ask a question to the applicant? Granted, thank you. Thank you, Chair. This is to the applicant. Were there any consultations carried out with the residents within that building? I don't know the answer. It's probably something that the chair has carried out. But we are the architects and we just prepared the planning application to be compliant with the technical aspects of the planning application. Thank you. Can I quickly ask the final question to the applicant? Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Chair. And if we were to grant the application, how would you address and solve the question they have raised? I believe that we can respond to the objector's comments through planning conditions detailed in order to respond to the objector's comments. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilor Ahmed. I'm asking you, members, to share your final thoughts now on the application. If we have any additional comments or questions, please type them into the Q&A box. Yeah, sure. Happy to go first. Something's troubling me, I've got to be honest, so I'm not quite sure what is troubling me. I think it's to do. I'm just trying, I'm just, so, Jerry, you're going to have to help me here, I think. So, the whole thing about the construction and about the time it's going to take, I think for a development like this, where you've got people living there and it's going to have a direct impact, particularly if they're living on the top floor, what can be done in terms of limiting that time and that disruption? To be honest with you, we can't limit the time it takes for them to construct the huge extension. We have a conditional planning commission that will say they have to start within a certain period of about three years. We do have conditions on the planning commission, things like standard hours of construction and demolition, we have air quality standards for the construction machinery, we have conditions related to ground-borne vibration limits and noise pollution limits, we have air quality assessments, we also have restrictions on demolition or construction activities in terms of hours, we have air quality standards in relation to boilers, so there's lots of conditions on the planning commission which will control the environmental impacts of the scheme. Those conditions will be enforceable throughout the construction period, however long that is. So if there's any breach of those conditions, we will be able to enforce it at any point during the construction period. So that's the control we've got. If there's not a lot of control the time it takes for them to build it, it can't control what happens during the course of the construction, and to try and ensure that any impacts are mitigated. So one of the objections mentioned about the storage of materials as well, is would that be included in one of those conditions? That would be included in the construction and environmental management and logistics plan. Thank you. Thank you Mr Chair. In relation to the consultation, the applicant did not know that they consulted to the resident, this existing resident. I want to ask the question to our officer, is it the planning material consideration to consult with the existing resident? With large applications, we normally ask, particularly in the pre-application, and our policy supports this what we call the Statement of Community Involvement. And these are four major strategic applications, but for smaller applications our policies don't require developers to do that level of community engagement. So I don't know whether or not the applicant spoke with residents. My understanding is that he didn't. But we don't have any mechanism to say that he should, and we haven't got, we can't refuse it on that basis. So we don't have any policies that say that he should do that, because for small applications they're not required to do so. Thank you Chair. I mean the application before you tonight seeks to deliver additional housing, and that's the planning benefit of the scheme. It's not affordable housing, it's private housing, and even private housing is a need that's required in the borough and across London. We have considered the proposal carefully. We're happy in terms of the treatment of the scheme, the scale and bulk is acceptable, it doesn't go above the existing building in terms of the ridge heights. We're satisfied that there is no impact in terms of sunlight, daylight, in terms of privacy, overlooking. We've attached relevant conditions on the Power Commission to control the impact. So we've looked at it very carefully. We feel that the scheme is acceptable, which is why the recommendation to tonight is to approve. We've heard the concerns raised by the objectors and we are satisfied that with the conditions that we've attached to the Power Commission we can address those concerns. So the recommendation stands for approval, we feel that we've assessed it by residents. Thank you Chair.
3. Thank you for your advice and clarification. Now time for us to vote on this application. Can I see all those in favour of this application please? All those against? Is there any abstention? Anyone else with any abstentions? Jerry, could you please confirm the committee decision?
4. Thank you, in relation to application 5.1 on the agenda, members have voted four in favour. One against and two abstentions to support the recommendation to approve and the recommendation tonight.
5. Thank you.
6. Anyone with any abstention please? Now we're moving to the agenda item 5.2. Councillors, agenda item 5.2. Application is PA224 of lake 00568 of lake A1. Agenda item 5.2 is Epson Street Industrial Association. Epson Street Industrial Estate. Epson Street E3. I now invite Jerry to do the application please.
7. Thank you Chair. The application tonight on Epson Street Industrial Estate is for the redevelopment of the site and that includes demolition of the existing buildings and the retention of the existing MRT garage to industrial floor space. So it's the redevelopment of the site and the retention of the MRT garage to provide flexible industrial floor space including a certain type of hub. The recommendation is to grant power permission subject to conditions and 6.6 obligations.
8. Thank you, Jerry. I will now invite Oliver Kesely Butler, Planning Officer, to present the application.
9. Thank you, Chair. Hello and thank you all for attending tonight's development committee whether that be in person or online. The application seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment of the Epson Street Industrial Estate. The proposal seek permission for a flexible industrial use which will serve to optimize the site's provision of employment floor space within the borough and in accordance with the policies of the development plan. So the application site comprises approximately 19,000, well, 19,250 square meters, so that's about 4.7 acres of industrial use land located within the east section of the Epson Street strategic industrial location. It's bounded by Epson Street and Epson Street Studios to the north. The A12 Blackwall Tunnel northern approach to the east. Towchester Road inclusive of 4 and 4A Towchester Road. Scorpio House and 17 Towchester Road which is currently occupied by Appleton and Sons Limited as well as the Lion House Cut to the southeast and south of the site. Finally, to the west of the site lays one Towchester Road currently occupied by the Lion House Art Foundation and a series of vacant warehouses located on Brickfield Road to the west as well as the rear of several large warehouses situated on St. Andrews Way. So the application site comprises of several low-rise dilapidated industrial buildings, many of which are vacant. The existing buildings situated within the application site provide 6,042 square meters of industrial floor space. In the northwest corner of the site lies an unoccupied former MOT center which the current application seeks to retain. The site is not listed but it does sit adjacent to the Lion House Cut conservation area. Additionally, the Lion House Cut is also recognized as a site of importance for nature conservation. So on the screen now are some images of the site as currently exist. Some more there for you. So the application was validated on 3rd of April, 2024. 334 letters were issued. Site notice was published on the 9th of May and public consultation closed on the 9th of June. Five letters were received in support of the proposals and one was received in objection. So the reasons for support included statements such as if traffic is properly managed on Empson Street the industrial development should uplift the area. It would bring jobs to the area and improve the general character. Additionally, it was noted that the community has been properly consulted throughout and it was raised that they'd like for this to continue if permission is granted. The sole reason for objection can be summarized as that there were concerns held that the construction phase of development may result in disruption lasting up to two years which would prevent access for businesses located to the south of the Empson Street industrial site, particularly on Taylorchester Road. Additional concerns are held that if any disruption to the existing 24 hour a day access arrangements to the site could be detrimental to those businesses. So the current proposal seek permission to demolish 5,237 square metres of light industrial commercial floor space and 33 square metres of Class E/B use which pertains to a former cafe. The scheme would have redeveloped the site to provide 11,986 square metres of flexible industrial floor space with ancillary offices spread across the site. Of the 11,986 square metres of employment floor space, 10%, so that's 1,198 square metres would be provided as affordable workspace in accordance with policy D.EMP2 in the local plan. The subsidized rate will be secured for a period of no less than 15 years at 12.5% low market rate. This would be secured by way of a section 106 agreement. It should be noted that the proposed affordable workspace contribution exceeds the minimum policy requirements and represents a significant planning benefit for the borough. Additionally, the application proposes to introduce a circular economy hub to the existing MOT building. The circular economy hub will be located within one of the two ground floor units which measures approximately 122 square metres. It will also be serviced by a private yard at the rear of the unit measuring approximately 84 square metres. So circular economy hubs are relatively new concepts. They're typically made up of clusters of businesses and organizations that are focused on repairing, reusing, recycling and reproducing waste from a local area. The point is to divert waste from a low, yeah sorry, the point is to divert waste created in the local area from landfill and make it available for reuse in an existing or a new form. So businesses in circular economy hubs will source waste from local suppliers and clean, sort and store them before mending it or reproducing it. So an example would be fabric offcuts from a wholesale market. They would arrive at the hub where they'd be cleaned and sorted and stored by the circular economy business. The circular economy business might then break the waste material up or repair it or reproduce it as a new product. And it should be noted that in this instance the circular economy hub will be provided for commercial use only. So that's business to business. It wouldn't be open to the public as a dumping ground or recycling ground in that sense. As part of the application it's been agreed that the circular economy hub will be delivered with no rental cost to the final managing organization for a period of no less than 10 years. This planning benefit again will be secured by section 106 agreement with the local planning authority and represents an important planning benefit which will support the occupation and continued viability of the hub. Not only is it envisaged that this would support local business present within the borough, but it will also reduce the quantum of waste created each year. So now to have a look at the design of the proposals. In short the design is functional, sustainable and generally of a high standard. The landscaping strategy is so successful in helping to create a strong sense of place which is indicative of both the proposed use of the site whilst also optimizing the site's level of biodiversity. So if we have consideration of the MOT building, the proposal seeks to retain and renovate the MOT building which is in the northwest corner of the site with exception to the existing low quality extensions present attached to the building. The retention and renovation of the MOT building is supported by officers and is considered to represent an enhancement to the aesthetic quality and character of the building. Now if we look at the centralized warehouse units. So the centralized warehouse units comprise of two rows which will sit opposite one another separated by centralized service yard measuring 30.44 meters in width. The northern row will comprise units one to six and the southern row will include units seven to ten. The northern row of warehouses would stand to a maximum height of 15 meters and three centimetres at ease with a pitched roof which would reduce in scale to a height of 13.65 meters both on the north and south elevations. Internally, the warehouse would benefit from a maximum floor to ceiling height of 13.29 meters reducing to a size of 12 meters at the extremities of the building. The southern row of the warehouses would stand to a maximum height of 17.54 meters at the eaves with a pitched roof which will reduce in scale to a height of 15.65 meters again on the north and south elevations of this row of warehouses. Internally, the warehouse would benefit from a maximum floor to ceiling height of 16.36 meters reducing to about 14 meters both on the north and south internal elevations. The central access yard has been designed to allow travel by foot, wheelchair, bicycle and a range of vehicular traffic. Last mile delivery via green and active travel will be supported with a commitment from the applicant team to optimise the use of non-carbon reliant transport during the operation of this site. Additionally section 106 obligations have been secured to improve the Epson Street A12 underpass and the Limehouse Cut canal towpath. Both will provide benefits to the wider community. So the proposals would not give rise to harmful impacts by way of overshadowing, loss of light any impacts to privacy or any increased sense of enclosure. It is noted that there would be some moderate adverse impacts in terms of noise and vibration arising as a result of the construction phase of development. The adverse effects would likely affect Epson Street Studios and Brickfield Studios neither of which are residential in use. Furthermore the impacts would be temporary. Additionally whilst the exact use of the industrial units is not known at this point in time it is proposed that condition be applied to secure details of a noise impact assessment for each specific unit prior to its occupation by the end user. This would ensure that the units can be put into operation without causing impacts to residential immunity for residential buildings located on the north side of Epson Street. The proposals are also supported by an environmental impact assessment which demonstrates that the scheme is acceptable subject to condition. The proposals exceed the required 10% biodiversity net gain as necessitated by the Environment Act 2021 and a carbon offsetting contribution of £62,901.00 will be secured by way of Section 106 with the recommendation of the borough's sustainable energy sustainability officer. So if we just have consideration for some of the planning benefits proposed if permitted the proposals would result in several planning benefits for the boroughs. These include the aforementioned 1198 square meters of glass storage and detachable line space marketed at 12.5% low market rate for no less than 15 years. This exceeds policy requirements and would serve as a meaningful employment contribution from the applicant. The circular economy hub will be provided at a nil rent for no less than 10 years. Additionally, £120,000 will go towards improvements to the Epson Street A12 underpass. There will be improvements for east-west movement, pedestrians and cyclists trying to pass via the A12. £60,000 has also been secured for the Canal and River Trust to carry out maintenance and upgrades to the Limehouse Cut towpath. It would also give rise to mayoral still payments of £411,757.09. Additionally, it's anticipated the proposals will increase the number of jobs provided on site from 55 at present to 325. So to conclude, we're referring the application to be approved by members subject to conditions and section 106 obligations which are on the screen now. Happy to answer any questions that you may have.
10. Thank you for the presentation. As we do not have any registered speaker on this item, I will now move onto members question. Members, if you have any question, please put your question forward.
11. Councillor Boustey.
12. Sorry. Sorry to be so predictable. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation and your report, and thank you for explaining what a circular economy hub was, some of my questions, and also what the MOT building was, 'cause it's clearly not there for MOTs. The question, I have three questions. One is about the circular economy hub. So the rent there is conditioned to be near rent for 10 years. What about the usage of it? So is that something, so after 10 years, could that change to be something completely different or is that going to be there in perpetuity or does there need to be a process around that?
13. Sorry.
14. I'll ask all my questions in one go and then I'll be done. Biodiversity net gain, how has that sort of come about? 'Cause yeah, that would be helpful to understand. And then in terms of the number of jobs, how many are those, is there any sort of enforcement that can be done or condition to be done around them being local employees?
15. So, I've forgotten the first question, sorry. (crowd member speaks off mic) Yeah, so the Empson Street has got a designated waste. It's got a waste designation of about, I think it's 412 tons per year. So this circular economy hub provides that on site and that's a whole other area. And that designation, until that's all valid, the site will need to continue to provide that. So if in future the applicant was to want to sort of amend that aspect, they'd need to change, apply for planning permission for that aspect. So there would be mechanisms. I can't say it'd be there forever and a day but that will be sort of subject to the policy at the time.
16. In terms of the biodiversity net gain, the site would, well the proposals would result in something ridiculous like a 5,000% increase in biodiversity net gain. In essence, the site already has such a limited amount of biodiversity on there. Any impacts that sort of, or, yeah, anything that's proposed is gonna have a significant impact overall.
17. I think the adoption of trees and low sort of mossy grass coverings in certain parts and then covering on the cycle racks, they're gonna have a significant impact when compared with what's existing. Whether the applicant team had explored other opportunities to further maximise that biodiversity net gain but things such as sort of the construction techniques. They basically tried to make more renewable way of building and the warehouses, they've not got the strength to sort of support that biodiversity net gain. So in terms of that, these kind of are weighing up of whether you wanna have embodied carbon or green roofs and I think the proposals are a pretty good balance of that. They've maximised, well they can but they've also reduced, producing excess carbon throughout the construction phase. And in terms of the employment, so we would have, for local jobs, there will be an end user apprenticeship so that will be one job. I think inherently jobs will be local because they'll be on site. That's not to say that people won't be able to sort of live elsewhere and then work but that's not something that we can necessarily limit. But again, throughout the consultation, I think a lot of the applicants had with the local community, things like the Circular Economy Hub, they're looking to work with the Fish Island, TechnoFish Island Development Trust and they'll be doing business with local businesses and local people so there has been meaningful steps to sort of ensure that this provision workspace is gonna meet the needs of local... Thank you Mr Chair. My question to you is relation to workspace is below the marketing rate, is less than 15 years. Can you clarify this? So the quantum of affordable workspace, yeah so policy requirements for all major schemes in terms of employment floor space require a minimum contribution of 10% of the total floor space for 10 years and a market discount rate of 10%. These proposals, they achieve the 10% floor space and they are marketing at 12.5% below market rate so it exceeds that 10% target and then it's been secured for 15 years rather than 10 so it's over exceeding in two of those three requirements. I think although it's a separate thing, the circular economy hub been secured for 10 years whilst it doesn't fall within the affordable workspace contributions, that again will be helping secure jobs onsite and local sort of commercial interests. So I hope that answers your... Additionally I think it's important to note that if there's any sort of further development with the introduction of mezzanines, that there will be a commitment to reevaluate the affordable workspace at the end of the 15 years. So this is very much the minimum amount of time that affordable workspace will be secured for but that's sort of subject to what happens in the upcoming future but at the moment it exceeds policy requirements and it's considered a real planning benefit, a meaningful contribution to employment.
18. I have a question for the applicant. We appreciate that you have increased the tenure from 10 to 15 years. That's appreciative of this offer. But I understand 10% is the minimum. What's the maximum and couldn't you offer more than 10%? Mr Chair, the applicant did not present this report here. We need to... There's no speakers, so there's no--
19. There's no speaker.
20. They can ask questions, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
21. Sorry, I'm Peter) I'm the planning consultant on behalf of the applicant. So it was considered in terms of what was the provision that could be made towards affordable workspace. Looking at the scheme as a whole and the mix of the units that we've provided on site, we considered that the floor space was appropriate in terms of the mix of those units, so it's mixed across the central industrial units. So one of those units is dedicated to that, as well as the MOT space. And as a whole that was considered to be a mix of different spaces for them.
22. I think just to, sorry, Paul Hicks from Fabrics, the applicant, just asked that. I think we look to prioritize that discount and the term that Oliver said, rather than the terms.
23. I have a final question for you. So what percentage of the job will go for to the local resident?
24. Yeah, I think, I guess it's a similar question to what was just asked to Oliver there. There's no fixed percentage that we can propose to offer to local residents. But obviously, as Oliver says, we've got the circular economy hub as well as the affordable workspace, both of which will be targeting local occupiers, as well as just where the site is and where its location is, and the unit size as well. Which are gonna be suited to some size local businesses, just given the nature of the scheme.
25. Joey, you can come in?
26. Yeah, I'm gonna come in here. I think it's important to recognize that we've got a 106 that comes along with the application, that's gonna secure five apprenticeships, or is it six, six apprenticeships, six apprenticeships, as well as a contribution towards end-use employment of 134,000 pounds and 706 pounds and change. And then we've got the construction and phase and skills training contribution, which is about 47,944 pounds. So we are getting some benefits, and also we've got a local enterprise. Yeah, so 20% of the contracts has to be got to local businesses. So we've secured quite a lot of benefits in terms of the employment for local residents. And that's normal provisions that we...
27. Do you remember our final thoughts on this item before we move into board? Councilor Acne, go ahead.
28. Thank you, Chair. This is to the applicant. This looks quite promising in my scheme, basically. But I have one concern with this. It's the access to the site, actually. There's only one road for exit and entry as well as exit. And recently what I've noticed on Epsom Street, there are a lot of parking facility that has been provided for the local resident on both sides. I have a concern, I'm concerned about the vehicle becoming in and out, trucks, lorries, and other vehicles as well. The street is gone quite limited at the moment. I mean, after those parking is provided, how will you keep the flow moving around as well as not disturbing the residents and other vehicles as well?
29. So actually, this application proposes to open up a new entrance to the site, which you can see on the plan, circled in red on the left. So at the moment, the vehicle's traveled down Epsom Street and enter on the right-hand side and then through the Toaster Road, which the officers has identified. So this proposal will actually open up a new route on that left-hand side, which means that they don't have to come down by the residential units, allowing for, to mitigate. And that, although you can still do that other entrance, that the new entrance proposes is gonna be the primary element on the residential units on that street.
30. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair.
31. Thank you. Good members would like to share their final thoughts? Thank you, Basia.
32. Thank you, Chair. The application before you is on a strategic industrial location. And I think it's very much for this type of use. We've looked at the application quite carefully, I'm happy in terms of the impacts from traffic movements. I appreciate your concern about that, but that would have gone through to our colleagues in the highway's team, and who are obviously professional in this area, and any concerns that they've raised would have been addressed and resolved through the application process. That's a good level of improvement benefits. In terms of affordable workspace, it delivers more than what policy requires. So it delivers 12.5% reduction in the cost of actually renting that space. So rather than it being a reduction by 10%, it's a reduction by 12.5%, which is a benefit in terms of the scheme for affordable workspace. And normally we'd only secure that for 10 years in that policy, but now we've secured it for 15 years. So these are additional benefits over and above what the policy position requires. The buildings look, in terms of the design, far better than what's on site now, and far cleaner. By the net gain, it's ridiculously high. Because the site currently is laid out as concrete. There's no trees, there's no grass, there's no soft landscaping. That's going to be introduced on the site. Ultimately the scheme is not one that we could reasonably refuse, or recommend refusal to you tonight. And therefore the recommendation before you is the right recommendation, Chair.
33. Thanks, Jerry. Now we are going to move on to voting on this item. Can I see all those in favour of this application, please.
34. Thank you, Chair. The housing community and the union have voted to support the officer's recommendation. Seven for none against. And the resolution to grant has been passed on item 5.2. Thank you, Chair.
35. Thank you. Meeting is closed. Thank you for your contribution, members.