Transcript

And welcome to the Strategic Development Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Iqbal Hussein. I will be chairing this meeting as the Chair, Councillor Chaudhry, has sent an apology. Although, however, I will be changing over to one of my colleagues for the application that I was on, I cannot participate in. This meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in this room. Only the committee members present in the room will be able to vote. Other persons may be also attending remotely. Committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by the committee officer that should technical difficulty prevent their full participation in this meeting, it may proceed in their absence if I feel it is necessary. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting procedure. Participants must address the meeting through myself as a Chair. If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact the Democratic Service Officer as soon as possible via email. However, however, officers may not be able to respond to all such requests. You should keep your microphones and cameras switched off at 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 will now ask the committee members to present to introduce themselves and if you are substituting, can you please say who you are substituting for? Please, can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in any agenda items and the nature of the interest? Let me start with, let me start with, let me start first, for transparency. I am a councillor, Valensbury Ward, which relates to item 5.1 and have received text messages, but haven't replied. Good evening, my name is councillor, Valensbury Ward, I was deputising for last, councillor, but it was a deferred item sitting for the first agenda. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Good evening, all. My name is councillor Gulamkibji Achudri, Popular Word. And nothing to declare. Kamrul Hussein, no DPI. councillor, I'm in Roman, nothing to declare. councillor, Sma Began, Beau West, Labour, no DPIs. councillor, I would like to amend my declaration. I did receive a mail and I also replied, but didn't commit anything. Thank you, I think I also received an email from an application, which I noted. Just confirm received, but I didn't say anything else. I did, noted. Yeah, received and noted, thank you. In that case, I'm not 100% sure, I have received some emails as well, I can't remember exactly which item it is. Same as well, I've received a few emails as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, same. Thank you. That's fine, Chair and councillors, as you know, the main thing is that you keep an open mind when determining the applications. Thank you. Thanks, Paul, for clarification. Farhana, now to the apologies. Have you received any apologies? Yes, Chair, we've received apologies from councillor Jahid Chowdhury. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. As in item two, it's the minutes from the previous meeting. The minutes from 13 November will be presented at future meeting. Is there any reason for that, Paul? Chair, I think it's just due to the quite quick succession of the meetings, so I think it was agreed that those minutes will be at the next one. I don't think the officers were able to turn them around in time for this meeting. Thanks, Paul. Agenda item three are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance. I will now ask Paul Bacchanan, Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control, to present the guidance, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Good evening, committee members and members of the public and officers who are joining the meeting this evening. So, this item on the agenda sets out what we call the standing advice for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations. When we come to the reports, the running order will go as follows. So, I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation. Officers will then present the report. Anyone registered to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three minutes each, and then similarly, we will hear from any who are registered in support, including the applicant, for three minutes each, and then any councillors who are registered for three minutes each. The committee can ask points of clarification of the speakers, and then the committee will go on to consider the officer recommendation, including any further questions or debates or requests for advice. The committee will then reach a decision that's based on a 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 propose make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions of the development plan or if it could have further legal implications, then the item may be deferred for a further report from officers. Dealing with the proposed course of action. There is an update report. There is an update report, Chair, that's been circulated this evening to the committee and published online that deals with some clarifications and representations that have arisen since the publication of the agenda. And that concludes my address. Thank you, Chair. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks, Paul, for explaining the procedure and guidance. We now need to elect a chair for the deferred item 4.1, 7 Burnham Street. And that's because Councillor Iqbal Hussain can't participate in that item. So can I please have nominations for the chair for this item? I need a member to move and a member to second the motion. So can I have a mover please? Cameral Hussain, who are you nominating? Councilor Amin Rahman. Amin Rahman. Can I have a seconder? Okay. Are there any other nominations? Okay. So we'll move to a vote on that. So is everybody happy for Councillor Amin Rahman to chair for item 4.1? Please raise your hands to confirm. Okay. Any abstentions? Okay. You too. Any opposition? Okay. So Councillor Amin Rahman, you've been elected to chair for item 4.1. So please come and take your seat. Okay. Do you want to get your nameplate? Yes, I am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much everyone. The first deferred item is a full planning application for development at 7 Brannan Street, Woodworth. Mr Beckenham, will you introduce the application for consideration? And Nicholas Jahan, planning case officer, will summarise. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. So this is a planning application for 7 Brannan Street, which is part of the Wood Wharf development. And it's an application for redevelopment of the site to provide purpose-built student accommodation with associated amenity space and class E floor space within the building up to 46 storeys with a basement. Together with plants, car and cycle parking facilities, associated servicing access and landscape, and all associated ancillary works and structures. This is an application that was accompanied by an environmental statement under the EIA regulations. As the committee will know, this is an application that was deferred by the committee at the last meeting on 13 November for a site visit. There is an update report which just simply clarifies those members. I think there were two members that were able to attend the site visit. And also, it just goes into... Sorry, there's also an image of the site within the update report from the same place that the members looked at for their site visit. And also, there's been just a couple of updates to London plan guidance. So, at the time that the committee was considering the application last time, the GLA had published some draft guidance on student accommodation, which has subsequently been adopted. It's not formally part of the development plan, but it is a material consideration. So, within the update report, we've gone through that and assessed the application in terms of the new guidance. We're satisfied that the application would comply with that, and very happy to go into that in more detail if members would find that helpful. There was also a second piece of guidance adopted by the Mayor of London, which was digital connectivity. But again, the application is deemed to comply with that. So, the recommendation of the committee is, as per the previous report, which is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning obligations. Chair, there is just a brief update presentation from Mr. Gihan as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gihan. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members, members of the public in the room and dialling in our home. As Paul mentioned, we'll just give you a very brief kind of précis of the application, just to kind of jog your memories from the 13th. So, the application site here is the site in red, with the section here in orange representing the sections which are just below ground. The buildings in yellow are all the buildings which have been constructed or under construction as part of the Wood Wharf Master Plan. This image here, again, just shows the site in red, and this is kind of taken from the same vantage point where we went on the site visit the last week, which shows kind of the various different development plots which have been built out. As a reminder, this is the proposed tower block. It's a 46-storey tower block with 912 rooms of student accommodation with immunity space at ground floor level 9 and level 44 at the top. The rooms are a mixture of studio and cluster rooms. There'll be 35% affordable student accommodation. As discussed at the previous meeting, the proposal has, or the site already has, permission for a building of a similar size, although the permission currently has a building of a much taller, is permitted for a much taller building than is currently proposed. And the only other difference is a slight step out of the building at level 9 here to make room for the various different room layouts at different floors above. So the proposed building is significantly shorter than the approved building. At the last meeting, members raised a few concerns about security and social behaviour, and we thought it might just be worth just quickly running through the student management plan, which has been submitted with the application and would be secured by condition. So the management plan sets out that there'll be on-site staff 24-7 who would also have access directly to escalate issues if issues arise. There's an anti-social behaviour escalation procedure in place for residents of the building, which involves when complaints are received, they're investigated, and the meetings are held, and it can ultimately result in eviction of the student. The student also signs an assured shorthold tenancy agreement, which sets out their obligations as to ASB. And then there's also a complaints procedure where neighbouring residents can complain directly in person at the building to the management company, and that will be dealt with through the previously mentioned escalation procedure. And then some images on the right here just showing some examples of similar spaces in other student blocks, which have been developed elsewhere. These are from Vauxhall, I believe, which just shows the sorts of kind of student spaces which would be within the building for their use and how they would be intended to be used. Just to remind you of the obligations and SIL which would be secured with the agreement. So obligations include 35% of the rooms to be affordable, student rooms with the majority secured via nominations agreement, the standards employment obligations, including 25 construction apprenticeships, and a contribution of just under £300,000, a contribution just under £350,000 for carbon offsetting. Then, notably, there would be £12.5 million of borough SIL, which would be payable, which wouldn't be payable if the scheme were to proceed under the current outline permission. So, as Paul mentioned, the recommendation remains to grant planning permission, subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, conditions set out in the report, and obligations set out in the report. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you very much. The Council's constitution does not allow public speaking for deferred application. I will now move on to members' question. Do members have any questions? The Council has said. It might not be related, but I was wondering, would this development have any contributions towards this local school that's on the Woodworth side? One of the reasons why I raised this is because I've had residents get in touch with me because the playground is incomplete and some of the site is not fully developed yet. So, one of the reasons why I question this is because there's an organisation on the actual Woodworth development which is not complete. So, that's just my question. So, the application doesn't include any contributions towards the school because the school was secured as part of the original outline permission and opened for kind of service, I guess, this September, I believe. So, it's kind of, as far as this application is concerned, the school is complete. There wouldn't be any impact of the proposals on the school itself which would require any sort of mitigation or anything to justify securing any contribution towards it. I guess, I guess, any issues to do with the completion of the school or not would be picked up as a result of kind of just general kind of other obligations on the developer or kind of the council, I guess. But they wouldn't be able to be addressed by this planning application. Any more questions? Yep. It's not about the development itself. If I come to the supplementary minutes here and I look at number 1.4 on it, it says members who voted against a resolution to defer for a site visit. I just wanted you to add another line to that because I think I voted against the deferral to do a site visit based on the fact that we had a site visit prior to SDC. So, if that could be added into the notes. I mean, the minutes will record kind of the voting for it. The report is just dealing with the consequences of that vote. Thank you, Chair. Just a brief question to you, obviously. Was there any other proposal? I mean, I know it may go back, but for this proposed development to, was there any different proposal that which may make useful to the existence, bar as any other issues such as housing? Was there any proposal or it just was the only one? So, there is an existing approval on this particular plot within the outline application. This plot was designated for housing. But, as mentioned at the last meeting and within the report, the applicant has delivered 3,300 homes under the outline permission and their minimum requirement was 1,700. So, they've significantly exceeded the minimum requirement. They haven't quite hit the maximum, but as far as we're concerned, they're under no obligation to continue delivering housing on the plot. And we have assessed the current application as a proposed alternative use for the plot, which seeks to optimize the site and provide as much of a mixed and balanced community as possible. And we consider it to be an acceptable use that doesn't undermine housing supply. So, there have been no other sort of proposals come forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think last week we visited this area and we have seen a number of residential buildings are there and this development will disrupt established residential atmosphere because students often have different schedules with late-night gathering and social activities that lead to noise and disturbance for family and long-term resident. How do you justify this? And my second one is, students are often short-term resident leading to a transient population that can weaken community ties and our cohesion. How do you justify this one as well? Thank you for your questions. So, on that first question regarding the kind of different schedules for students and residents, obviously, I mentioned before the security and ASB measures introduced within the management plan set out exactly how antisocial behaviour would be dealt with by the management of the building. So, any antisocial behaviour would be investigated by the management and escalated as necessary. But this is a very different kind of student accommodation to kind of your traditional kind of concept of a student housing which you might kind of think of with kind of house parties and things like that, where it's kind of a terrace house in a long line of terrace houses which are the ones which tend to kind of develop antisocial behaviour. This is a building which has been purpose-built and designed to be acoustically secure for residents of the building itself, which also has the impact of reducing the amount of noise which can leave the building as well. And it's kind of a very different type of student accommodation. They have their own purpose-built amenity spaces within the building which they can use and where they can socialise within the building. And, you know, any misuse of that would be investigated by the management company and residents nearby have the opportunity to complain directly to the company in person or via an email or any kind of way really. And it would be escalated up via the management plan. The management plan would be secured as a condition. And we could then enforce against that if there is any kind of high level of kind of noise complaints submitted to the council. We'd have a direct way of kind of addressing that with the applicant. You know, we can go straight to this condition and say, you're not complying with your management plan. Please address this. Additionally, kind of the Canary Wharf estate as well is kind of has its own kind of security protocols as well. And, you know, is is policed by the Canary Wharf estate team. So, you know, if there are kind of any is there any sort of gathering outdoors, then that can be kind of broken up and moved along very quickly. And it's also of note that the the kind of the way the scheme has been set out is there is significant distance between the different buildings, which is unlike other areas in the borough where it's very densely populated. And, you know, buildings can go up next to each other and it's much more difficult to address those noise concerns. The buildings which have been built adjacent to it have been designed in a way to mitigate kind of any kind of amenity concerns that may arise as a result of developments. For instance, the building shown here in the front doesn't have any residential windows for the majority of the facade, which faces onto the building, kind of onto our development plot and a similar sort of arrangement where residential windows have been minimized and there's only one row of balconies on the facade of plot F2 here, which looks out onto the site as well. And so that hopefully that kind of provides a relatively comprehensive response to your first question. And in terms of your second question, obviously students are slightly more transient, but they still need places to live and they require accommodation. There is an identified need for student accommodation in the borough, even with the student accommodation, which is coming forwards, there would still be an identified need. And so it's meeting a housing need is meeting or contributing towards our housing targets. It's kind of, it's kind of, it's kind of, it's, it's an identified need that needs to be met and, and would be by the development. Thank you. Is it okay for coming on that point as well? I think, um, being a transient population isn't, there isn't a policy position on that. We don't have a policy that makes reference to transient populations. But however, this is 912 units. Um, you know, the, the, the, the Wood Wharf is delivering 3,300 homes. It's got offices, it's got a hotel uses, it's got a mix of different uses. So we're not seeking to bring the student development in the middle of a tiny residential area. It's a mixed use area. So in terms of social cohesion, we're talking about vitality, vibrancy, and bringing a whole different mix of uses along with the wall. So I think, um, the, the, the idea that the student, you know, units would, would be disadvantageous to, um, social cohesion, I think, and it's something that we don't feel was appropriate. Do members have any further questions for offices? Yep. So just to come back, Nicholas, on what you've said about meeting the housing targets. Um, and how does that impact our housing targets? Sure. Yeah. So the London plan sets out that student accommodation can count towards housing targets. The updated or kind of adopted guidance also goes quite in depth about why that is and things. So the idea is that one student bedroom, uh, no, 2.5 student bedrooms is the equivalent of one home towards our housing targets. So, um, I think it's in, I can't remember the exact figure, but in the, in my first report, it sets out that actually the contribution towards our housing targets of this particular development with the number of student rooms actually exceeds the number of homes that could be delivered under the existing outline. Um, and obviously as part of the kind of, the, the reasoning for that ratio is the, the movement of students into these purpose-built blocks helps to free up housing elsewhere in the borough, particularly if you think of the number of HMOs, which is your kind of traditional kind of old school student accommodation where people are living in what could be a very nice family home, um, are taking up kind of, uh, living in an HMO instead. So they, the theory is that they then move to these purpose-built accommodations, which are located in ideal locations for students. Um, and it just frees up those homes because they then, yeah, they then become free and can be accommodated in a different way. Um, so that's kind of the idea of how, or kind of, how they would kind of contribute towards our housing targets really. Yeah. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Councillor Kabir-Zinn. Thank you, Chair. I think we had a discussion on this last SDC meeting. Uh, the members were raised the concern about the site visit. Uh, so may I know, uh, what's the findings, uh, they received on the site visit? Uh, if may the members, Chair, would be grateful to you. Um, to be honest with you, that was for me to go and see the site. You had the options to come and see as well. Um, obviously you didn't want to. However, um, what we saw is, um, where the development will be located. Um, and, um, it was good to see how it's going to be and the surrounding around it. For me, um, the surrounding, um, were obviously other buildings, other, um, residential units, theatres coming nearby. Uh, a lot of, uh, a lot of stuff is happening surrounding, around the surroundings. Um, I've obviously identified where the development's going to happen and, um, what it could bring to the area and what it won't bring to the area. For me, um, that was something, um, I took to myself and, um, I'll come to that afterwards. I want to pray for you too. Do members have further questions for officers? Would members like to share thoughts on, or debate on the report? Sorry, just take me just, um, quick question, if I may, here. Um, um, I'm just finding, uh, the difficulties, um, in understanding, um, this is to the offices. How do we prioritise student accommodation rather than social housing or housing in the borough where we're facing so much crisis of the housing? I mean, how do you value this to a different scale, like what should be prioritised first? And the students are being accommodated throughout the borough. We know, as you mentioned before, that you may have students moving to the new accommodation, may empty other houses, but they are where they are. But how do you... Can you just give a bit of details on it? Thank you. Yes. Chair, perhaps if I can come in on that one. I think that I understand sort of where you're coming from on that question. But however, I think it would be wrong to say that we're prioritising student accommodation in favour... Sorry, in lieu of affordable housing, because I think the important point to remember with this particular application is it's one plot within a much wider development. And that development, as we said, had a minimum, maximum range, because it was an outline application. The applicant has delivered or will be delivering based on reserve matters approvals, well in excess of the minimum that they were required to deliver, including the affordable housing element. There is still a policy requirement to provide student accommodation as part of that broader mix of housing. I think the other thing, maybe just to mention, which we did talk about last time, and Chair, if I may, I might defer to Mr. Bell, just to come in on this. Is there's also a relationship with student accommodation that's been approved in a completely different permission at North Quay. And the applicant, it's the same applicant, and they have submitted an application that will amend, if this one is granted, that will amend that one, so that we don't get both sets of student accommodation coming forward. So it's almost like reducing it in North Quay and allowing it on Wood Wharf, so we don't get that over-concentration in the same area. So I think that's also another important factor. Is it all right to bring Mr. Bell in just to explain that in a bit more detail? Yeah, thanks. There is going to be a separate application, which is called the 96A application, which we will deal with under dedicated authority to vary the permission of North Quay, to reduce the number of student accommodation needs by exactly the same amount in terms of floor space as it's being proposed here. So in effect, they'll be nil. They'll cancel each other out, so there's not going to be additional student accommodation in this area. And I don't think we're prioritising student accommodation of all of our housing. What we are faced with is a situation where the application site or the applicant has delivered more housing than they're required to do. They're required to deliver 1,700. They're delivered nearly double, but not quite the amount of housing that they're required to do under the current plan of permission. So it's a situation where the site is now available for them to deliver something else. I think the other thing we have to bear in mind also is that they have the option of allowing the permission to run its course after a period of, I think it's five years, after which time they're not required to do any of the housing and they can come forward with a completely different application without having to consider what's being approved before. So it delivers, I think here we've recognised that this site delivers the student accommodation, but it also delivers a windfall in terms of SIL, because we're getting £12.5 billion worth of SIL that we wouldn't have otherwise got because it was a nil-rated site. So there are benefits that are coming forward that we wouldn't see otherwise. So that's, so we haven't prioritised student accommodation over affordable housing. We've made sure that it's a neutral impact, but at the same time still being able to receive the infrastructure of the SIL contributions, which we can now maybe help to deliver some of the issues that you've concerned about in terms of the school, if we can get the mayor to do that. But, so there is, there are benefits that are coming out of this scheme, which go beyond just student accommodation. Thank you. Consulant Shubur, sir. This is a question to Gerry. It is just for clarification, really, if the committee were minded, got the permission on the other side. If the application was refused, I mean, I guess the applicant would have to go in and consider their position, but they certainly wouldn't necessarily secure on his civil funding if it was refused. Then the applicant would have to decide how they didn't want to deal with the matter, whether they got to appeal or not. And if they got to appeal, they might look at different ways of dealing with the application. I don't know. Thank you for clarifying. Would members like to give the final thoughts before we go to votes? No. Can I ask Paul and Ian Austin to share final advice before we move to votes? Thank you, Chair. I think, in a way, I've probably said in answer to questions some of the things that I would say. I mean, the application has been robustly assessed against development plan policies. It does comply with those policies. It doesn't seek to prioritise this particular use over and above any other uses. It's actually more, I would say, it's complementary within the wider Woodworth Master Plan. I think it's an important material consideration that the student accommodation already approved on a different site would be varied if this was granted, so there isn't over-concentration in the area. And as a committee, you are allowed to take into account community infrastructure levy payments as a local finance consideration as part of your determination of the application. The reason that, just in answer to Council's question around Sill, when the Outland Planning Commission was granted for Woodworth, it was prior to the Council Sill being adopted. So that's why anything built out under the original Planning Commission isn't liable for Sill. Anything that is built out under a sort of a slot in application, which is what this one is, would be liable for Sill, because it's the timing, obviously, of that. Beyond that, I don't know if I have a lot further to add, Chair, but Mr Austin may do. The only thing, Members, is to remind you that any decision must be taken on the basis of the local planning or material considerations to make your decision on the potential noise element, if I can use that expression. And, again, Nick covered that in some detail, but I'll just remind you that the experts are not reporting concerns in respect of noise, any concerns in respect of that sort of thing. That includes the consultation with the police, and the police were solely concerned, we've said this before, but there are no concerns being highlighted. Even the residents in the extensive consultation undertaken by the applicants weren't raising that as a concern. So, other than that, it's just a reminder to look at the local plan policies, and you've had those outlined in detail, and that's what you assess it against. Okay, please note, only Members physically present at the meeting held on 13 November are able to vote. Can I see those in favour of the application? All those against? Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision? So, the committee has voted with three in favour of the officer recommendation to grant planning commission, and four against. So, the recommendation hasn't been carried, so it would now fall to the committee to propose an alternative decision, bearing in mind that the officer recommendation was to grant, and to set out the planning reasons for that. So, perhaps if I can ask you, Chair, to leave that with colleagues, please. Councillor, would you want to give your reasonings? Sorry to interrupt you, Chair, first of all, but before we go to deferral first, and the reasons for the deferral. Councillor, would you like to defer the item, or would you like to refuse the item? I guess it's going to be refused, yeah. Can I see, um, Councillor Chaudhry, would you want to give your reasonings first? First one already I mentioned, and second one is, the student lifestyle choices, such as parties and late-night gathering, can lead to friction, even without overnight antisocial behaviour. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm not against any students. First of all, this is a student accommodation, and there is need for student accommodation in the country, that's fine, but where it is located, I think the applicant already has got C3 consent. So, I know there is no obligation to bid more social housing or normal housing, but he can go these rules. He's not, uh, he's not going to lose any money, even though he don't do this, and I know this is not a planning material. Uh, but on the planning material, uh, I would say, uh, I would echo with Councillor Chaudhry from, uh, that there is a student behaviour, noise pollution, uh, yeah, and I don't feel that this is the right place to do a student accommodation. Thank you. Would you like to say anything? Uh, I just, I can only echo, uh, my colleagues, uh, because I, I have witnessed, um, complained from similar, um, similar territories, similar, uh, similar, uh, development, uh, which is existing, that there is a anti-social behaviour concerns, and especially, uh, a big, uh, project like this. I mean, it's to accommodate nearly a thousand, uh, students in, under one roof, would I say, uh, it's, it doesn't really, um, um, um, guess my opinion that it will be, and that it will be maintained in, in, um, in a manner that the locals aren't be disturbed, uh, by the facility. Thank you, Councillor. Um, Mr. Paul, would you like to come in and address anything else, or is that okay? Thank you, Chair. So, I just think, procedurally, I think, I'm just checking the next stage, I think, which is to be, to confirm, on a vote, that those reasons are the reasons that the committee would like to adopt for refusing the permission, but I, I just want to check with Ian whether there's anything else we need to do first. Yes, if those are the reasons that members are putting forward, and we'll just take a vote to see if those are the ones that are adopted, but I think, before we go to that vote, um, Paul and I, uh, have our duty bound to give you advice, the case for permission would be refused, their option would be to appeal it to the planning inspectorate, we would lose full stop. There is no evidence of the antisocial problems, the residents weren't complaining, the occupants of the, absolutely no suggestion, um, that this is a problem, and we have no evidence to back that up. And I know if we went to an appeal on this, it had a huge bill of costs for paying the other side, because it's unreasonable behaviour. I'm sorry to speak bluntly councillors, but that reason just doesn't stack up. And would that mean we lose money that could have potentially... I'm taking no questions, sir. I'm not taking no questions. I'm not taking no questions. I'm not taking any questions at the moment. Clarity. For clarity for... For what he just said. Do you want to ask? I want to... If it's okay, Chair. Go on. I just want you, Ian, to clarify, what is the reason for the rejection? Obviously, I've heard it, you know, you've come up with your reasoning and your suggestion, but what is it that you... Because I've got noise down as one of it, and in my mind, I know in terms of planning, that's not a rationale reason for rejection. The reasons I scribbled down were the antisocial behaviour and the noise pollution. They were the two that I had, and they were the two that we... The terms of occupancy of any property. It's the same with Tower Hamlet's Council House. If you don't behave properly, you get evicted. It'll be the same for instance, not raising any concerns. Okay. So, I guess we've got to take the vote on the reasoning councillors have given. So, and after listening to Ian, do councillors still agree to what they have suggested? Is that how it is, Ian? I think so, because the advice is now being given, and if the councils want to revisit the decision as a result of that advice, that is a matter for them. So... So... But, Chair, having said that, if your decision is still to proceed on the reasons, then that is your decision. We'll... Yes. Okay. Can I see all those who want to carry on with the refusal, with the reasoning? All those against? Yes. Reasonings. Thank you. Thank you very much, Paul. Would you like to address the committee? Thank you, Chair. So, the committee has voted four in favour and three against, refusing planning permission, for reasons that relate to antisocial behaviour, noise and disturbance, linked to lifestyle choices and late-night deliveries, and also linked to the scale of developments, and the number of student bedrooms, and on that basis, it being considered to be an inappropriate location for student accommodation. I hope, Chair, I've summarised those reasons. Thank you. The next stage is, we still do need to do the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London anyway. That happens whatever the committee's decision is. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you very much. This concludes Item 4.1. I will now hand the Chair back over to Councillor Iqbal Hussain. Hello, everyone. I'm back again, as a Chair. We'll have a five-minute break to sort of something. They will join us. They will join us. We are encouraged. The only thing is Chair. The second refer item is Section 73 application for an amendment at Blackhall Way, Yard Jetty. Blackhall Way, London. Paul Bakhanam will introduce the applicant's application for consideration, and Alexander Malintiwik. I beg your pardon. I haven't pronounced this properly. Planning Officer will summarise. As within Item 4.1, the Council Constitution does not usually permit public speaking. For different application, however, we are referring to this one as a substantive item pursuant to the Part D, Section 54, Rule 11.2. As there has been substantive changes to the wording of this proposed condition since the previous meeting, I will now move on to the registered speaker. Chair, I'll introduce the item, and then we'll hear from the brief presentation from the case officers. So, as the Chair said, this is an application made under Section 73 of the 1990 Act, which is to amend the wording of Condition 2, which is the operational requirements for a previous planning permission granted in 2022. The recommendation is to grant this application, subject to a changed, insertion of a changed condition. As the Chair mentioned, since this was deferred on the 9th of October, there's been some work done looking at the detailed wording of that condition, because that is arguably substantively different, we have agreed to allow for public speaking on this one. But before we hear from speakers, there is a brief presentation from Alexander and Tijewicz just to go through what those changes are and how those have been assessed. So, thank you for that. Thanks. Thank you, Paul, and thank you, Chair. Good evening, members of the committee and members of the public. In the first few slides, I will set out the details of the site and consented application as a context, following which I will explain the details of the amended condition. The site can be seen within the borough context on the left image in this slide. It is situated within the Blackwall and Cubittown ward. As seen in the right image on this slide, the application site includes an area along the northern bank of the River Thames. The plan on the left shows the extent of the red line boundary for this Section 73 application. The blue line indicated on the plan is the adjacent Blackwall yard site, which is also within the ownership of the applicant. This part of the site has a planning permission for a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment, as seen in the image on the right in this slide. The original consent relates to a river boat station, which would represent an additional stop to the existing uber boat service on the Thames. All boats that will stop at the jetty already operate in the Thames and will continue to do so. This slide shows the appearance of the consented jetty structure as viewed from the river Thames. No changes are proposed to the consented jetty in terms of its appearance. This slide shows the appearance of the consented jetty structure as viewed from the adjacent Thames path. As already mentioned, the proposals under this application seek to vary condition 22, which sets out the operating requirements for the jetty. The wording of the condition has been worked through with the applicant's team since the committee in early October, taking into consideration additional consideration raised by speakers and committee members. This slide sets out the consented wording of condition 22, which is set out in three parts. Part A sets out the operating hours as per the uber boat timetables. Part B states that there should be no more than five clipper movements per hour. Part C sets out the vessel requirements relating to the engine capacity and emissions of nitrogen oxides. The consented condition was based on the applicant's carried out assessment as part of the original permission, and it was opposed as such. However, the applicant explained that the requirements are too restrictive to work in practice. The condition restricts the operating hours to peak times during weekdays. However, the river boat route indicated in the consented wording of the condition operates throughout the day, and not only during the hours indicated in the consented wording. The applicant explained that the consented wording of the condition does not represent a workable option for uber boats, as it would significantly restrict the servicing of the Blackboard jetty station. As such, the main aim of this section 73 application is to ensure that the jetty can be used, while ensuring that the proposed changes do not have a significant impact on the residents and the area. The changes to the wording of condition 22 as previously presented to committee on 9 October set out in this slide. The condition is also a form part of three sections and considers the following. Part A references the average of engine emissions at full power, although not clarifying that it refers to nitrogen oxides. Part B makes a reference to the annual average daily traffic of 212 movements to and from the jetty, which results in a total of 106 stops at the jetty. Part C of the condition sets out the nighttime limitations between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. to have no more than six movements per hour, allowing a such 24-hour operation. The discussions at the committee meeting on 9 October criticized the wording of the condition for not having clear intentions and not ensuring that the restrictions relate to maximum ones allowed. The speakers also raised concerns with the 24-hour operation of the jetty. Since the last committee, officers have worked on a reworded condition with the applicant, taking into consideration the points made by speakers and members, as well as the additionally received representations. Three additional representations were received since the committee meeting in October and have been addressed in the committee update report. The condition as set out now has five different parts, whereas the first two relate to air quality, the second two relate to noise, and the final one relates to noise and amenity considerations for the area. Before explaining each part of the proposed condition as set out now, this slide sets out a summary of changes to condition 22 since the committee on 9 October. The condition is now based on maximum rather than average parameters, which means that any breach above the indicated parameters, whether in relation to NOx, nitrogen oxides, or number of vessels throughout the day represents a clear breach in condition. Verification has been provided where technical details are set out, ensuring that the parameters of the condition are easily understood and can be directly enforced. An improvement is made to the condition where the operating hours would no longer be 24-7, given that the hours between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. would not allow any vessel movements. A clarification has been included to make it clear that river cruise vessels are also excluded from being able to serve the riverboat station, given that these are different vessel types to public transport vessels being provided by Uber Boats, which is licensed by Transport for London. An additional change from the previous committee meeting to the condition relates to an obligation to secure air quality and noise monitoring devices, which would be installed and maintained by the applicant for three years. A log of all vessel movements would be kept for the lifetime of the development as per the requirement of the condition itself rather than an obligation. Monitoring devices would be situated 70 metres from the jetty, which would have a two-fold reason. Firstly, it would relate to the noise enforcement location, and secondly, it would allow for air-polluted monitoring to be closer to the residents. Part A of the condition is set up now. Set up the requirement for all vessels stopping at the jetty to comply with the International Maritime Organization's Tier 2 vessel types. Whilst it is acknowledged that Tier 3 vessels referred to in the consenting conditions are better in terms of nitrogen oxide emissions, Tier 2 vessels are needed for the servicing of the Blackboard jetty station, noting that Uber Boats stated that they are looking to improve their fleet overall in the future. In addition, Condition 25 set up a requirement for a carbon strategy to set out how carbon negative and carbon zero vessels would be employed. It should be noted that Tier 2 vessels are still allowed to operate within the River Thames. Part A of the condition also references the annual tonnage per calendar year relating to Uber Boats vessels as based on the applicant's updated air quality assessment. Part B of the condition now sets out a maximum cap of number of vessels that can service the jetty each day rather than an average as previously. This part of the condition changed in a way that it now sets up also how maximum daily is calculated. Officers recognised that there would be an increase in nitrogen oxide levels. However, this is not considered to be to an acceptable level. Also, it is important to acknowledge that the pollutants would disperse when moving away from the jetty as the source of pollution towards residential buildings along the riverbank. Part C of the condition seeks to limit the noise pollution arising from the jetty. These two parts of the condition split the night time hours from 11pm to 6am into two. Part C sets out that between the hours of 11pm to 1am and 5am to 6am there would be up to 12 movements per hour at the jetty representing six individual boat stops per hour. As previously indicated, this part of the condition strengthens the wording to state that the distance for measuring noise compliance would be no more than 70 metres from the pier. Part D now states that no vessel movement to and from the jetty would be allowed between the hours of 1am to 5am. This is considered an improvement when compared to the previously proposed wording of the condition discussed at committee meeting in early October, which was proposed for a full 24 hour operation. This is no longer the case. The applicant has explained that the flexibility during the indicated working hours under Part C is required to ensure that the riverboat station complies with the public transport timetables as well as the potential use of the jetty for the provision of public service from the outer arena when the need arises. The final part of the condition Part E has been added as a standalone to the condition to ensure that it relates to the riverboat station as a whole and ensuring that there will be no private boat hire but also river cruise vessels which are seen differently from the public transport river provided by Uberboats. This slide sets out the test that any planning condition has to meet as required by the National Planning Policy Framework. The first three points are easily ensured given that the proposed condition 22 is necessary and relevant to the operational part of the jetty development. However, the second three points are the ones that the amended wording of the condition seeks to strengthen. This relates to the condition being enforceable and precise by ensuring a clear set of restrictions indicated therein and finally being reasonable in all other aspects which for this case includes the fact that the consented condition cannot allow the operation of the jetty. The scope of section 73 application is a matter of judgment for the local planning authority based on the context for each case. It is acknowledged that the proposed changes to condition 22 would allow an increase in movements at the jetty. However, officers consider that the nature of the development stays as consented including its description. Accordingly, it has been acknowledged that the additional movements at the jetty would result in an increase of air quality and noise pollution in the area, although slightly. However, the indicated impacts are not deemed to be harmful to the extent that permission should be withheld, particularly when balanced against the benefits of the proposed jetty providing a means of sustainable transport and ensuring that those benefits are maximized. To conclude, the officers' recommendation is to grant section 73 application to vary condition 22, subject to the wording of condition 22 as set out a committee deferral report dated 25 November, a deed of variation securing a planning obligation for air quality and monitoring services, and conditions and informatives set out in committee report dated 9 October. This is the end of my presentation. We have colleagues from the environmental health team to respond to any queries in terms of technical nature to air quality and noise. Thank you. Thanks, Alizimda, for the presentation. I now invite Kate McLean to address the committee in objection to the application. You have up to three minutes. Can I explain? Paul, can you explain a bit? Yes, there's a provision within the Constitution that when there's a deferred item but the application itself changes, which it has as you've just seen in the presentation, then we can allow for public speaking. I know the committee chair has changed, but when Councillor, I believe Councillor Armand, who was committee chair at the time, who felt that that was appropriate for that part of the process. It's rare that we do it, but it's because the application itself has moved on since your committee looked at it last time. Thank you, Chair. I'm Keith McLean from the Residence Association at New Providence Wharf. I have three points to make in addition to our previous representations. The first one is to note that, yet again, there has been no consultation or dialogue with residents. We see this appearing as a breach of your own statement of community involvement. In contrast, you engage regularly with the applicant in clear breach of planning process impartiality. Despite deferral from the October meeting to clarify the noise and emissions impact on residents, there was no contact with residents. There were no responses to our positive offers of engagement or communications, not even a simple acknowledgement or receipt. Our offer of constructive collaboration has therefore been rejected. Nevertheless, we still wish to engage. The second point is with regard to the fundamental nature of the changes compared to the original proposal, not to the last amendment. The new amendment allows three times as many movements to the jetty as the original permission did. Three times. It allows new nighttime services that were never considered in the original one, with 126 movements per week at night. It reduces the nighttime hours of respite from nine hours originally to four hours now. That's less than half. That means only four hours a night or 28 hours a week of respite from the noisiest things on the river, which was how they were described by Danny from Mimicelli, the specialist acoustic consultant at the applicant last meeting. London City Airport gives us three times as much respite, and you rightly objected when the airport applied to reduce the amount of respite that was available. These are major changes which individually and cumulatively result in a materially different development from the one that has been approved under the original permission. And perhaps officers can explain the consequences of that to you for Section 73. And finally, the new condition 22 discriminates against Tower Hamlets residents in an unacceptable manner. It tolerates the use of old combustion engines to power ferries through Tower Hamlets. Newer ferries have the option to operate with low noise, zero emissions electric propulsion. But this is being reserved for the exclusive benefit of residents in central London. Worse still, the combustion engines will have to run overtime in Tower Hamlets with even more noise and emissions in order to recharge the batteries to allow the boats to go back quietly and emissions-free into central London. Do not accept this. At one stroke, you can reduce or even eliminate the main air and noise pollution burden for residents in Tower Hamlets. Amend Condition 22 to require that electric mode be used wherever possible when near to population dense areas like the Blackwall Jetty and New Providence Wharf. Especially during times when people are likely to be most disturbed like late evenings, night time and early mornings. I would be very grateful if you consider that constructive proposal for an amendment of the condition which would deal with by far the most of the concerns that I have addressed tonight. Thank you. I now invite Ralph Hardwick on behalf of Michel Lobrick to address the committee in objection to the application. You have up to three minutes. Good evening, councillors. Hopefully, you might have seen a copy of this submission that I made. Can somebody confirm that that was given out to the councillors before this meeting? OK. So, development is required to be air quality neutral as identified in many plan policy documents. Condition 22 and IMO Tier 3, when written as part of the original consent, is actually in this particular notice signed off by Mr Bell. So, the question should be, why have officers now decided that Tier 2 is acceptable? Tier 2 allows four times more the pollution, NOx pollution, than what Tier 3 does, as identified in this particular graph from the International Maritime Organization. Behind this development, behind the jetty is, as we've already heard, is a mixed-use development. So, these residents, at this point in time, do not have the opportunity to actually make comment with regard to the air quality issues that will be coming from this site. There is also a problem with the information provided to the officers, because Addison Young identified, he said, condition, wording of condition 22, this is the revision, due to the simple fact that Uber Boat, Ken's Clipper vessels, currently in operation, are unable to comply with the current wording of the condition. That has to be a complete lie. They've got three new hybrid vessels that have been working on the Thames. One of them has been going since September last year. So, it's quite feasible for the Uber Boat Thames Clippers to actually operate using the hybrid clippers to visit Blackwall Yard jetty. There's no reason why they should be using older vessels. They also claim about how they are going to improve the vessels going forward. So, clearly, there's a big issue with regard to how it has been described. Uber Boat Thames Clippers wrote on the 1st of December, 2023, about wishing to use their low emission fleet. Well, clearly, if they're talking about or backing off this... You have 30 more seconds. Okay. But if they're backing off to Tier 2, it's not low emission. And in theory, there should be zero emission. So, vessels... I'm just saying that you need to actually impose a Tier 3 condition on all vessels meeting this jetty. Basically, that's about it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I want to invite the applicant, Alex Portlock of Hadley Property Group alongside Jonathan Rhynon of Boro Huppel and Mark Nibbs. of Yves and Yves of Yves and Yves of Yves and Yves and Yves. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors, and thank you for allowing us to speak again this evening. Members of this committee voted to defer this item at October's SDC in order to obtain further detail and clarity around the wording of the proposed condition amendment. Following the deferral of this application, we have worked closely with your officers to appropriately improve the wording of condition 22 and have also agreed to a planning obligation that will enable noise and air quality emissions to be closely monitored in accordance with the parameters set out therein. We have also listened to concerns raised by local residents in relation to the proposed nighttime movements and, as such, have sought to remove the requirement for nighttime Uber boat movements to and from the pier between the hours of 1am and 5am. As explained at October's SDC meeting, we have spent two years negotiating the technical parameters of this condition with independent air quality and noise specialists, as well as Tower Hamlets environmental officers. We are pleased that all aspects of these detailed assessments have been approved by Tower Hamlets planning and technical teams. The existing Uber boat service has been in operation and has sailed past Blackpool Yard and New Providence Wharf for over a decade. And the approval of this condition amendment will enable this service to operate from Blackpool Yard also, providing a new sustainable transportation service for Tower Hamlets and its residents. Enabling the stopping of this existing service at Blackpool Yard will present a less than 1% change to the already existing background air quality position. As such, the proposed changes to the operational requirements of condition 22 would continue to be non-significant as set out within your planning officer's report. This proposed amendment has strategic support at all levels, including the Mayor of London, TfL and, of course, your planning officers. Should we gain approval from the committee this evening, we are committed to delivering this essential new transportation service as soon as possible. I'd like to thank you again for your time and members of the project team and I are available should you have any questions you'd like to ask. Thank you. Take part in speaking in support of the application. I want to invite Kalam Chowdhury to address the committee in support of the application. You have three minutes. Hi. Good evening, everyone. So my name is Kalam Chowdhury. I'm a resident of Virginia Keys. Our garden backs up onto the car park, which is now the proposed building site of this development. I came across Hadley Group four years ago when we first found out that there was a proposed planning application for this yard, Blackpool Yard. We reached out as part of the community and, to be honest with you, our interactions with Hadley Group has been much more positive than maybe the gentleman opposite myself. They've been very receptive. They've engaged with us as part of Virginia Keys and, if anything, we are much more closer to Blackpool Yard than New Providence Wharf. The residents of Virginia Keys, at the very least, we are very much in favour of this housing development and I think having the jetty on this as part of this development only adds to our location and where we live. And we see boats every day. We've been living in Virginia Keys for coming up to 25 years now. I've seen boats the size of Armageddon pass through the Thames. So, having these jetties pass through every now and again, if anything, we get to use them now. It just reminds me of a story 15 years ago. One of my friends from work, he used to brag that he takes a boat into work every day and we thought, you know, he had his own private boat. Actually, it was one of these Uber boats, these clippers. So, to have this now stop where we live, I think it's just an added plus. Hadley Group, on top of everything that they've been working with us over the last four years, they've listened to us as a community. We can have a gardening space for the older generation within the community who go there and they grow vegetables, etc. So, as part of Virginia Keys, we would say, please do vote in favour of this application. Thank you. I know the item is very familiar to the members, but do members have any further questions for official objector and applicant? Councillor Chowdhury. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Opposition has raised concern concerned about consultation and community involvement. How do you clarify this, justify this? First one. And the second question was, lack of compliance with local plan and London plan policies in relation to air quality neutral or positive. How do you justify this? Thank you. Councillor Chowdhury. Thank you for the questions. I'll just show a couple of supplementary slides to show you how the consultation actually complies with the statement of community involvement. So, in this row here that you can see, it talks about applications for minor material amendments, which is the section 73 applications. It sets out what's the minimum set of consultation requirements and essentially the first consultation that was carried out did comply with the same requirements as the original application. So that's how the first consultation actually complies with the statement of community involvement that the council sets out. And then secondly, these are the minimum requirements for reconsultations for applications. And the last row that you can see here, it talks about amendments to applications where consultation has already taken place. So this is not required by the national requirements. However, the Tower Hamlets notification period is for 14 days, which is what the officers have done for the second and third consultation details in terms of the dates which are set out in committee, the original committee report and the committee deferral report as well. So, your second question related to air quality positive and neutral requirements. So, in terms of how policies are implemented, air quality neutral London flight guidance is relevant. And the LPG, the London plan guidance sets out different emissions that need to be satisfied for air quality neutral. One of them relates to building emissions benchmark, which is not relevant in this case as there is no building proposed. It's the jetty station, riverboat station. And the second one relates to transport emissions benchmark. And the second one relates to transport emissions benchmark, but that only relates to private vehicles. So, air quality neutral would not be applicable to public transport as per the guidance set out by the GLA. In terms of air quality, there is also London plan guidance for air quality positive. That relates to a list of large-scale developments that would be referable to the Greater London Authority under the Town and Country Planning Mayor of London Order 2008. In that particular list of large-scale developments that actually requires developments that actually requires developments to be air quality positive, category 2C1I, which is under major infrastructure, which refers to a passenger pair on the River Thames, is excluded. So, air quality positive is also not relevant in this case. And that's how it complies with the policies. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your answer. But what about nitrogen oxide? We don't have any guideline for nitrogen oxide emission, specifically for nitrogen oxide. Thank you. Thank you. So, I think this is a point that is probably best answered by the Council's air quality officer, who's joined on teams. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, good evening, everyone. My name is Mohamed Estabong, the innovation team leader. So, in terms of NOx, nitrogen oxide, this is the oxides of nitrogen. So, this is the primary emissions. This contains nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. There is a legal limit. UK legal limit is 40 micrograms per cubic metre, which is an annual limit. And the assessment that the developer has done shows that it is well below the UK legal limit. Thank you. Thank you. Members, do you have any more questions? Any member? Any questions? Yes, I do. Yeah. Brilliant. So, can I thank you all for coming in and doing your presentation? I think there was a few things I wanted some clarity on, and I was hoping that you could have some clarity on. And I was hoping that you could perhaps give me that. So, you spoke about the hours of respite. So, it would be good to get a bit more understanding of the hours of respite from the previous application to the application that has been presented to us today. Okay. And I would like to hear a little bit more about the consultation. So, we've got it in the papers. We can see how many people responded in the consultation, but I would like to get a better understanding from yourselves around that consultation process. Thank you, Councillor, for the question. So, the respite in the original draft condition 22 on weekdays was between 2100 hours, so 9 o'clock in the evening, and 7 o'clock in the morning. That was what was allowed previously. So, it meant that the ferries were going to have to stop at 9 o'clock and they wouldn't start before 7 o'clock. Now, that may have been an error, but that's nonetheless what was approved by the council in that application. At the weekend, it was longer, so it was up to 10 o'clock in the evening. So, the 9 hours that I gave as my example was, taking the worst case example, it would be 10 o'clock on a weekend to 7 o'clock on a weekday. So, that would be the 9 hours that were previously given as respite. So, there would be no ferries operating at that time. It's now gone down to 4 o'clock. And I appreciate the effort that's been made to avoid night-time ferries. But for most people, the night goes on longer than 4 hours, between 1 and 5. London City Airport recognises that. You recognise that in objecting to London City Airport's application to extend its operating hours into hours that you're allowing the ferry to use. So, it really is a significant issue. You look at the planning inquiry that there was into the noise and the importance of respite for residents from the noise and the arguments that were put forward originally that we're already putting up with the aircraft noise, so a bit of ferry noise on top of that isn't going to make any difference. Well, it certainly does if the aircraft stop much earlier than at 10 o'clock than the 1 o'clock, which the ferries will be allowed to use. And if the ferries are starting at 5 and the aircraft are not starting until 6.30. So, that's on the respite. I hope that gives you some clarity on that. The question of consultation is that there's two things. One is the formal consultation process, and it's all laid out there in detail. But the other is actually part of the research that should be done to actually establish proactively what residents think about this. And in particular, when groups of residents like ourselves put forward positive, collaborative proposals for how it could be made better, to not even have the politeness to respond to a request to acknowledge that you've even received that. The first that we knew that our response had actually been received was to see an anonymous reference to it in the officer's report. So, what I'm talking about is engagement rather than a formal consultation process. And even on this one here, we're being allowed to speak here because these are significant amendments that have been made. Yet, we could only see what those significant amendments were a week ago when the papers were published. So, that doesn't even live up to the 14-day limitation there. And somebody could quite easily have sent us something in advance. What do you think of this? Does this actually take into account what you've written to us? Would this be acceptable to you? Because they've already clearly been on the phone to the applicant to check it's acceptable at that end. Yet, there are many, many thousands of residents that we represent and our views were not sought on that. And we are not trying to stop this. We're trying to find an acceptable way. We accept what the other gentleman was saying about the benefits for this. We would like those benefits, but we would also like to continue sleeping at night and not being subject to more air pollution. And the suggested amendment that I put forward for the hybrid vehicles and the electric vehicles being used when they're passing us and using the jetty, I think is a very sensible way of achieving that without stopping any ferries from operating at all. May I add to that? Yes, go on. I live by the river, but a little bit further away. And what doesn't seem to get considered is that although they sort of have a published schedule of perhaps starting at about 6.30 in the morning, what we tend to have is from 5 o'clock in the morning, the clippers hammering down the river to go to Putney to start the service. So although we talk about what's permitted, it doesn't actually include the other activities that are taking place that are quite disturbing. The more modern vessels, the hybrid vessels, are considerably quieter, either if they're using on battery only, but also on the noise that they make. Nobody has ever said or identified, and they've never been given any opportunity, for anybody to measure the noise from a vessel. Because they've got so many different vessels, they vary considerably, whether they're going past on full power or just cruising at a light speed. There's quite a variance, and I think one of the reasons about it is that we need to have a better assessment of the noise. Any more questions, councillor? Okay. Who do you want to put your question to? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So my question was to the applicant. And I do apologise to the person in the white jumper. I forgot to write your name down. It's probably to you. It was once you were making your representation. Is he allowed to answer questions? Yeah? So I think... So thank you for your presentation. That was actually really helpful in terms of understanding some of the consultation and the response to that consultation as well. And I think I wanted to ask, you spoke about your locality and where you live. How far is that from the river itself? It's the properties right behind the car park. So our gardens face that car park. In terms of distance, we are the closest to the jetty out of all the residents. That are nearby this jetty. We are the closest. So Virginia Key backs up onto the jetty. And is... So you spoke about the block. Virginia Keys? Virginia Keys is an estate, not a block. It's an estate. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's helpful. And is that a social estate or is that a private estate? It's a combination of social and private. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question to the applicant. Your operating hour is 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock for night time. Just two hours. And in the early morning, 05 to 06 is one hour. In total, three hours. And only 12 basals movement per hour to from and in to the jetty. Is it not possible to reduce this operating hour? Do you understand what I mean? I think I do. I think, first of all, as we explained earlier, one of the things that we wanted to try and achieve by introducing movements in those night time hours was to allow flexibility at points in when perhaps there might be delays to the timetable service, and that would then enable perhaps people that can't get back before 11 o'clock, let's say, to be able to get back, let's say, at 11.10. Whereas the wording of the condition before didn't enable that flexibility. So that was one part of it. But for the reason for the number of movements within that two-hour window between 11 and 1, and also that one-hour window between 5 and 6, is purely to align with the parameters of the noise assessment that we've set out, and also the air quality assessment. And that's it. Any other members have any questions? Councillor Asma. Yeah, thank you. So to the officers, around air quality, you spoke about the impact of air quality. I heard it as there's not going to be a significant amount of impact on the air quality of the people that live in that vicinity. Am I correct in hearing that? Or is there going to be an impact to the air quality? Because I would assume if there are more boats, there is a degree of impact. Whether there's capacity to cope with that impact, or if there's mitigations to cope with that impact, that would be quite helpful to understand a little bit more about that as well. Sure. Thank you for the question. So when it comes to air quality, again, the starting point should be that this is an existing service. So it's not bringing new vessels onto the river. It's just the existing vessels that would just stop at the jetty. Now, that would create some additional air quality pollution. However, it was assessed on the basis that it would not be more than 1% of the background pollutant levels. So that is where the non-significant comes in. Essentially, if something is less than 1% in terms of being an adverse impact, it's not considered to be significant. So that's correct. Yeah. Could you ask the applicant to address the objectors concern about or suggestion about the hybrid, using hybrid vessel? Do you want to respond to that? Of course, the speaker was, of course, right. There are three hybrid vessels currently on the river at the moment. Uberboats, our partners, are working very hard to introduce new vessels into their current fleet. That is happening. They've also got a commitment to become net zero by 2040. So the ambition is clearly there for this to become a very green fleet. However, of course, there is a phasing out process to that. There are existing vessels which are slowly going offline, and as part of that transitional process, there is a need for those boats to still operate as they're phased out. So I can confirm those three hybrid vessels will be operating from this pier in addition to the others, and the ambition is for more of those hybrid vessels to come online up until 2040. Thank you. Councillor Hussain. Thank you, Chair. I think I stated my opinion on last meeting. It was quite clear. Any communication in the Barra we welcome. It's good for Barra. Not to penalise with the residents and making an obstacle for them in terms of air quality, and other stuff. I put forward my recommendation last meeting. On the other hand... Councillor, are you summarising your thoughts or are you asking questions? No, no, it's a question. Question. I'm going to question now. On the paragraph 3.25, saying, following the expiry of the three years, the applicant will no longer be required to maintain the monitoring station. So my question is, who will monitor the station? On the other hand, saying, the applicant will remain responsible to keep all the monitoring and information relating to the operational requirements set up in the amended condition 22 for the lifetime of the development. May I get some clarification on that, Chair? Officer or maybe applicant? Thank you. Thank you for the question. So the two details actually relate, one to the condition and the other one to the planning obligation. So the planning obligation will be secured for the applicant to install and maintain the monitoring stations 70 metres from the jetty, and that's for a minimum of three years. So essentially, the three years was envisaged as a way to see how the condition operates in the early stages of its operation in terms of compliance. Once the three years expire, the actual monitoring devices can be removed by the applicant. The onus on the applicant to still keep all of the monitoring information to the operational requirements, that's in relation to the condition. So once the monitoring stations go away, there will be a log of vehicles, vessels, sorry, which come to the jetty, and then if there's an issue, for example, further down the line in five, ten years' time, there will be that log that the condition can be, again, kind of considered in terms of enforcement. Thank you. In that case, I would like to remember, if you would like to share your final thoughts before we move into voting, anyone interested to share the final thoughts of debate on this report. In that case, I'm going to go on voting. I would like to, I would like, I would like now, Paul and Ian to share their final advice before we move into voting. Thank you, Chair. As you know, the reason this was deferred last time was to do more work on the wording of the condition. I think members have identified that there is a balance between allowing better communications with the likes of river transport versus the impact on residents. There are people living nearby that will indeed be, if it is delivered, there is planning permission for a new housing development, also close. I just wanted to address the point that I think one of the objectives made, that the impact on that future development has also been considered. So, the fact there's no one living there now doesn't mean it hasn't been assessed. It's been assessed in terms of proximity. I think, in our view, the application does comply with a number of national and international standards. We've heard a lot about Tier 2 and Tier 3. Obviously, whilst, yes, there is a difference, Tier 2 doesn't mean that Tier 2 isn't allowed. It's just what will accommodate the current fleet until it is modernised in the future. So, I suppose I would sum up, Chair, to say that we feel that we've done the best to strike a balance between what will work operationally for Uber boats if the jetty is delivered and trying to protect the amenity and air quality for not just existing residents but future residents as well. Thank you, Chair. No, members, just a reminder that this is an application under Section 73 for the variation of a condition. You're not looking at the principle of permission that's been dealt with elsewhere. It's the variation of the condition that you are looking at. And the effect, if you were to grant it tonight, would be to create a new permission and all the necessary conditions from the existing permission will also be picked up in any decision notice that is granted. Members, I also think it's fair to say to you that because you're looking at this specific condition, it would be up to you if you felt it was appropriate and it met the six tests that Alex put up about the imposition of conditions, reasonable, necessary, enforceable, etc., then alternative hours could be looked at. But again, if that were an avenue, I think Paul and I would have to discuss with you the way that... Members, we are now moving and voting on the item. Please note, only members physically present at the meeting held on 9th of October are able to vote. Note that Councillor Sulu Kahmad cannot vote on this item. I believe Councillor Mufayda Bastin was substituting for Councillor Asma Abegum. Can I see all those in favour of this application? You spoke at the last meeting, didn't you, of this? Well. Of this at meeting. There's taking too many of your therapists. I think that the minutes indicate you were present and do not say that you left. I mean, yeah, I mean, only those members who were present can actually vote. So if it's a deferred item, then a Councillor, I mean, how much should be chairing the meeting? Not necessarily, doesn't it? It doesn't quite work in that way. I know why you're raising that. Wouldn't it have meant that Mufayda Bastin and, I think it was Councillor Sabina Khan, shouldn't have they got an invite? You know. Okay. The position is that we have here those members who were present at the first meeting who are still. Chair, if it helps, Councillor Rahman has said that Asma Abegum is here at the... No. No, sorry. Sabina Aktor was there. No, Sabina Khan, Khan, Sabina Khan. And Mufayda Bastin, yeah. I don't think Councillor Asma Aislam was... Asma Abegum, sorry, Bagum was here. And Councillor Mufayda Bastin was substituting. She can't. Because Mufayda Bastin... Can I pay attention, please? Councillor Mufayda Bastin was substituting for Councillor Asma Abegum, so, unfortunately, sadly, Councillor Asma Abegum can vote. I can vote. No, unfortunately, you have to be present at the first meeting to carry on, so, yeah. Thank you, thank you, yeah, for the clarification. Can I now see all those in favor of the application, please? All those in against? Thank you, Chair. So, the committee, for those who are able to vote, the committee has voted six in favor and no votes against, the variation of Commission 22 set out in the report on the agenda and subject to the amendments in the deferral report. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Paul, for notifying the decision of the committee. Agenda Item 5, are the planning application for decision. We have one application to consider this evening. Agenda Item 5.1 is Planning Application Act, Popular Gas Holder, Site PHASES 2 and 3, 11.0 London E14. I will now invite Paul to introduce the application, please. Thank you, Chair. So, this planning application is, it's what we call a hybrid planning application because part of it is in detail and part of it is in outline. And it affects Phases 2 and Phases 3 of quite a large site, Master Plan site. Phase 1 is already under construction. If granted, what this effectively would do is provide an alternative form of development that could be built out for Phases 2 and 3. I'm not going to go through all of the description because it's in your report and you'll see it in the presentation in due course. But just with regard to the update report, there are a large number of planning conditions that have been recommended. However, we've just done a bit of a review of those and there's four that we would suggest are not actually needed either because they've already been discharged or because they're dealt with elsewhere in different conditions or they don't quite comply with the tests. But everything else still stands. And also, just in the update report, a clarification around some of the plans and documents that would be enforced if permission were to be granted. The application is subject to environmental impact assessment and the recommendation to your committee is to grant planning permissions subject to planning conditions and a deed of variation in terms of planning obligations. Thank you, Chair. Thanks. I will now invite Connor Gullfoyle, planning case officer, to present the application, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Good evening, councillors and good evening, members of the public. The application site is in the east of the borough. It borders the River Lee to the north and Leaven Road to its south. The image on the right shows the application site in red and it sits within a larger application site which has planning permission and is being built out, which is the site in blue, encompassing the red site as well. There are terrace properties on Oban Street to the bottom right here on the southeast and there is the Blackwall Trading Estate on the far northeast. To the very southwest of the site there is residential development called Leaven Wharf. In terms of its wider context, the site lies to the north of Aberfeldy, to the west of the A12 and Langdon Park DLR station and to the east of Langdon Park DLR station and to the west of Canning Town tube station. The next slide shows a plan of the wider 2019 planning permission application site which includes this application site. That planning application was permitted in 2019, it has been implemented and it is therefore an extended planning permission which is a fallback use. The wider site encompassing both permissions is a site in our local planning site allocation and it also is encouraged for optimisation of development under London Plan Policy D3 because it sits in a London Plan Opportunity Area. The wider planning permission site has permission for up to 2,800 homes. Phase 1 was a detailed planning application and Phase 2, 3 and 4, which are the residential phases, were outlined planning permission. There is also two park phases. Park phase A, which sits in between Phase 1 and Phase 2 and Park phase B, which sits next to the top end of Phase 2 and finally there is also a school phase on the bottom part of the site as well. The 2019 planning permission can be seen here in red where Phase 1 is being built out right now. It is due for completion late next year and Phases 2 and 3 are in purple in this approximate area here with the River Lee to the rear. The current proposal seeks to amend Phases 2 and 3 in the existing scheme and the reasons for the revised scheme are several-fold. First of all, it provides more homes, up to 100 more homes, which brings the total up to 2,900. That means more affordable homes and improved viability, which overall means better quality housing provision. The revised proposal has an improved design and improved quality and standards. That includes the buildings as well as the spaces in between them. Overall, it leads to a better optimisation of the site, which is encouraged by the London plan. And finally, the revised proposal aligns with the new fire regulations, which require two staircases for tall buildings. The next slide shows the phasing of the site in the context of the overall phase development in the 2019 scheme. So again, the bottom left is Phase 1. Park Phase A is the area to the north, also in red. And Park Phase B is above that. Phase 2 is these blocks here, labelled A, B, C, D, E, F in this proposal. And that's full detailed planning permission. And Phase 3, which will be outlined, is to the rear in the blue, which is several blocks along here. And Phase 4 to the south and the school beyond remain unaltered. And so overall, the proposal for Phase 2 and 3 here is compatible with and ties in with that existing scheme. So for example, the access routes, the interactions with the park and the river all remain compatible and in sync. This application is subject to, sorry, this proposal is subject to two applications to allow the proposal. First of all, there's this planning application, which is for part full and part outline planning permission. And secondly, there is a Section 73 application, which is not a committee and which will be dealt with under delegated powers. And that application is a procedural application to allow the scheme to slot into and supersede its equivalent in the existing planning permission. In terms of the main differences between this scheme and the 2019 scheme in Phases 2 and 3, first of all, the affordable housing and family units differ. This proposal has more family-sized affordable rented units. The density and housing numbers are increased up to 100 more homes. The building height and massing are fundamentally different. This proposal has taller buildings, but less bulk at lower levels and reduced building footprints. That means there is more high-quality amenity spaces, landscaping and public realm between the buildings. In terms of how the buildings function and operate, the design and housing quality is improved. This proposal has what's called a slip block building typology, which is effectively two rectangles put together. So there are multiple aspects on the same block. And that is an improvement over the previous scheme, which allows for more daylight, more sunlight, more dual aspect units and greater privacy protection for residents. In terms of public and private open spaces, this proposal has better design spaces and higher quality public realm and more open space compared to the 2019 scheme. In terms of urban design, this proposal has better quality architecture, detailing, layout, form and function. Overall, that is an improved placemaking function. And finally, in terms of environmental standards and infrastructure, this proposal has stricter compliance with current policies and regulations and carbon reduction targets. The next slide shows a before and after of the phase two in the 2019 proposal on the left and the current proposal on the right. You can see in purple and orange the phase two and three of the previous scheme where the buildings occupy much more footprint and have a more informal, you could see, unorganised layout. On the right-hand side, you can see instead that this proposal has an arc in phase two, which leads from buildings A to F. And at the rear, the outline phase building locations would be in a more formal pattern. The next slide shows a schematic from right to left showing phase two. So the buildings on the very far right here where the laser is pointing is buildings A and B. The building types are composed of a ground level which is continuous with housing on the ground floor and a rooftop podium space between the buildings which rise above. And that's replicated throughout the scheme. So the very far building is building A. The next building is building B. In the middle, you have the same group again, the same pattern of building C and D. And on the very far left in the darker colours, you have buildings E and F. And F is the tallest marker building on the site. On the next slide, you can see building F in elevation form on the top left. And in the rest of the slide, you can see a close-up of what the street level detailing would be like. As part of the pre-application proposals, it was emphasised that in terms of placemaking, the design quality should be of a very high standard and the approach taken by the applicant is to have a double height, effectively shop-fronted units which animate the street to provide activation and detailing and visual interest. The next slide shows the base with the commercial units of buildings C and E which face onto park phase A and likewise with buildings E and F again with commercial units facing onto the park phase A and B. And finally, another slide is showing the interaction of street level between the landscaping and the buildings. This slide shows the podium roof space between the two buildings in each building group which would be and that would be elevated on the first floor. In terms of consultation, the application was carried out in accordance with the Council's statutory consultation process in January. So that involved 2,780 neighbour letters, site notices, press notices and in response one public letter of objection was received. Further to that, in July this year an additional consultation was carried out and that was because as part of the environmental impact assessment process any further information required and need for reconsultation. In terms of the public consultation response, the single objection is summarised as not enough affordable housing because of the habitable room measure used to calculate this figure. An objection because private tenure dwellings could be rented out and leading to a transient population without rent controls. The proposed duty units would not provide sufficient living space with the opinion giving that they would be bedsits. A loss of light in neighbouring occupiers and finally inadequate consultation by the developer. The committee reports details the officer response on these points but in summary the affordable housing measure calculated by habitable room is what's required by planning policy. In terms of private tenure dwellings being rented out and the rent levels that's not a factor for the planning system to control for private market housing. In terms of the size of the units they meet the minimum space standards and likewise in terms of daylight the standards are considered acceptable. And finally in terms of consultation the consultation is carried out by the council which meets the statutory obligations and anything beyond that is carried out by the developer in their own measure. Finally the next slide shows the key issues in the committee report which are the environmental impact assessment considerations the principle and land use of the development housing details design and heritage details impacts on neighbouring amenity transport and highways details environmental considerations finance considerations the planning balance of all the considerations put together and finally equalities and human rights considerations. This slide shows details of the housing mix and tenure so the proposal would maintain 35% affordable housing as per the original permission. The detailed phase 2 which actually contains full details of the housing numbers unlike the outline phase which has to be reserved maintains 989 units. Phase 2 again would maintain 35% based on 223 affordable housing units and of those 223 units there would be a 96 to 4 split that would be 212 social housing units and 11 intermediate units in the form of shared ownership. Of the 212 social rental units 134 would be family sized units so that means 3 or 4 bed units and overall the provision of family sized homes goes above the planning policy target by 19%. The social rent would be provided and delivered early in buildings A and B which are the first buildings in phase 2. just to summarise the differences from the 2019 scheme in terms of housing delivery as a site-wide level the consented scheme and the proposed scheme would rise from 161 to 266 family social rented homes the overall affordable homes would rise from 760 to 816 and the overall number of homes would rise from 2,800 to 2,900 and that figure is up too because some of those will be resolved at future outline planning stage. In terms of highways and parking the scheme is a car-free development which effectively means no private parking spaces for private dwellers with the exception of accessible parking. It maintains policy compliant levels of accessible parking that is 49 spaces in phase 2 with parking on the ground floors of each of the three individual blocks. The proposal also seeks rather also provides extra funding for Transport for London 150,000 pounds will go towards transport improvements at Canning Town Station and there would be an uplift in the existing secure transport connectivity improvement measures on the site. In terms of financial planning obligations the slide here shows the amounts but effectively it is short of half a million pounds towards construction phase employment skills training just below £34,000 towards end-user phase employment skills training £1.5 million towards carbon emission offsetting £221,000 towards the transport connectivity improvements above and beyond those already secured and £150,000 of new transport contributions to TfL. Finally there would be just short of £100,000 for a development coordination and integration fee for phase 2 with a further fee for phase 3 when that's built out and finally there is a monitoring fee which is a standard fee on all section 106 planning obligations In terms of the planning balance there are public benefits and these are listed as above policy target for provision of much needed family sized affordable housing early affordable delivery of that affordable housing in a dedicated phase of part 2 increased financial contribution towards local infrastructure and employment skills and training better housing quality through a different building form than the 2019 scheme provision of high quality open spaces play areas landscaping public and private amenity spaces all to a superior standard than the 2019 scheme good quality urban design which contributes towards successful placemaking and environmental benefits including energy efficiency sustainability measures and biodiversity slash ecological improvements and measures again all superior to the 2019 scheme so in conclusion the benefits of the scheme significantly outweigh any identified harm as a result the officer recommendation is grant subject to planning conditions and section 106 agreement and the following slides just give a landscape overview and some elevation plans of these thank you connor for presenting this application and i now invite paul murphy to address the committee an objection to the application and you have up to three minutes can you hear me can you hear me would you like to come forward a row can you hear me now thank you yeah so my name is paul murphy i leave i live on the abbefeldia state on leaven road my main objection that i'd like to to make i mean i'm not i'm not against a development as a whole but i have several objections the main objection i have is insufficient level of affordable housing so i did i mean i did a calculation um see the figure that counts is actually the number of homes it's not actually the number of rooms and when you work out well i did a calculation in terms of the number of homes which is slightly different to the figures that were quoted by uh the principal planner i did a rough calculation based on the figures he just gave in his presentation and they work out about the same uh they work out at 23.6 percent uh affordable housing um now um this is even less than uh the figure for the alafeldi estate which which got 28 percent by by dwelling uh affordable housing now um everybody knows that there's a crisis in affordable housing london wide and in tower hamlets uh tower hamlets behind with its own target of meeting affordable um units it has a target of 4 000 homes to be built affordable homes to be built between 22 and 26 uh of which only 1 148 uh was started as of 2024 the gla has uh had a had a target of 35 000 affordable homes they've scaled that target down to 23 900 to uh i think to i think that to about 23 to 27 200 um but they but as of march 2024 they then started 1 777 homes so there's there's you know there's there's a both a way short of the number of affordable homes that we need so i'd like i the key thing i'd like to see is the number of affordable homes built um second um i'm also concerned by the definition in the in the planning permission uh of the remaining over three quarters of the homes as defined as private rooms quote unquote which is a very vague description what is a private room is it for sale is it for you know commercial purposes it can be used can be used for anything and i've never seen that definition used in in in in planning in planning commission um i'm also uh the area is not a tall building zone um and yet we already have seven tower blocks in in the area um so 30 more seconds um i thought this development added two more two more tall buildings of over 20 stories but that picture indicates that they've got uh they've they've built up to make more tall buildings um so um and i'm and consultation has been very poor as well the planner uh only their own consultation and had two responses and i only got one tiny leaflet through the door so there's been a complete lack of consultation by the developer um on this so um uh i think i think i'll leave it there but i'd like to see this this this brought back with a significantly increased level of affordable homes thank you i'll now invite the applicant richard picture of kennedy kenny sweeney and daniela admiral so good evening chair um and members and thank you um my name is paul pritchard and i'm the development director for st william the organization bringing forward poplar riverside um your case officer has very clearly presented these application proposals to you for phase two and three at poplar riverside which continue to reinforce uh the place making the social and the economic benefits that development of this brownfield site will bring to this area of the borough and to the local community as you're aware there's been only one unsupportive voice for these proposals uh expressed this evening um and i'd just like to clarify the responses to those points raised if i may um just to reinforce that the affordable housing provision of poplar riverside is 35 percent by habitable room um and that is entirely in accordance with the london plan and the tower hamlet's local plan policy that's the way that um for affordable housing and housing is counted uh phase two will bring forward um itself 989 homes in total of which 223 will be affordable homes and of those 212 that's 96 percent of those affordable uh will be the larger social rent family homes so that's very really important in terms of these application proposals and they will be brought forward in buildings a and b which will be the first of the six buildings to be built so you'll you'll get and receive the affordable delivery uh very early in the process the remainder will be market homes and all of these homes will be designed to meet or exceed minimum design standards as sat in the london plan and your own policies uh that will include private balconies for each of the homes as well so there's private amenities space sorry to interrupt you are you sharing the three minutes between yourself or you just uh i'm just speaking myself yeah thank you yeah sorry um and they will be built to the highest of barclay uh sir williams standards um with several buildings slightly taller uh the as the officer has said the scheme seeks to optimize the use of the site uh in accordance with national policy and there's no detrimental environmental impacts um and only minor but acceptable sunlight and daylight impacts on neighboring properties um in terms of the objection raised in on consultation um as your officer pointed out the council issued 2780 neighbor letters published press notice posted site notices around the site there were two public consultations undertaken by st william in november 22 and august 23 and a further council consultation in july 24 all summarized in a statement of community involvement so chair importantly across phases two and three these proposals will deliver uh 1934 high quality sustainable homes to meet the borough's housing needs um landmark buildings of high architectural quality appropriate to their riverside location the provision of biodiverse sustainable landscape publicly accessible um together with uh immunity space and play areas the provision of policy compliant parking including blue blue badge parking together with improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity uh within the local vicinity and at canning town and collectively with mayoral and borough sill plus the financial contributions that your officer set out of 17.4 million infrastructure and training employment needs uh chair if if um your committee is minded to approve these this evening st william will be to press on with delivery on this site thank you thank you for your contribution so if if committee is minded to approve if miss if committee is minded to approve this the priority at the morning of this evening um st william will press on with development on the site thank you do you members have any questions to the opisur applicant objector thanks sir um whilst um we were going through the presentation could you just confirm the overall percentage of social housing working of social as in social rent yes I can so the social rent of the 223 units 212 of those units would be social rent so that's 96% of that amount and 4% or 11 of those units would be intermediate rent which intermediate which would be shared ownership I'm sorry overall percentage of the whole development it would be 35% so it maintains 35 throughout so how the scheme works is there's a bit of variance in every phase but by the time each each cumulative phase develops alongside the next it should always maintain maintain 35 and at the end it will be 35 but the mix and the type of provision like in this scheme there's nearly entirely social housing very little intermediate it varies but what matters is the overall balance on the entire site by development balances out at the end so that's 35% social and affordable homes 35% affordable housing which is in this in this development is comprised of a split between 96% and 4% of that as social rented and intermediate so together the social rent and the intermediate make the entire affordable housing product and would I be oh well I don't have an opinion on it I have a fact on it 223 divided by 989 number of homes is 23.6% this is the con that developers always try and pull over the world over council's eyes they quote the number of rooms that's not the number of homes so people need to be very clear of that and I mean I did the math for the whole development 1934 that's 302 social rent 15.61% of homes 167 for intermediate rent 8.63% out of 1934 homes so the number of buildings which is what counts is is less than the number of habitable rooms thank you thank you do you want to come in chair if I may chair I understand the point that Mr Murphy's making but the it's not I think it's wrong to say it's described as a con it's not a con it's a long established policy that members will be aware of that affordable housing is measured by habitable rooms the reason behind that is a number of reasons firstly it's the nearest equivalent of floor floor space within the scheme secondly you'll be aware that the policy requirements around mix reflect need in different tenures so within affordable housing obviously the policy is skewed much more towards larger family homes in the market for sale tenure under market conditions then it's skewed much more towards smaller properties so that's why it's always been so Tower Hamlets London plan every other borough in London measures it that way that it is correct to say that then if you do the calculation by number of actual homes it will be less than 35% that is correct mathematically but there's nothing wrong with the way that the applicant has done it is exactly the same as every other application that is measured in that way thanks for clarifying this issue any more question for any more members yeah thank you it's for the applicant so there's going to be six phases is it six you're going to do is it first is it the a and b phase you're doing how long would it take do you think roughly thank you councillor um four phases over the whole of the master plan we've delivered the first phase nearly completed the second phase which is before you this evening is six buildings each building shares a podium with a garden on top of that so you've got three sub sub phases and each of those phases um will take approximately three years to build out thank you thank you councillor Hussain thank you chair um yes this is car free development uh I understand and the local council have the PTS transfer scheme for the residents if anybody moving two bedroom to above and over they will get the permit so my question is on the street are they getting the permit if any moving to above and over two bedroom properties although this is car free development I think an answer for the local council rather developer the pd the public transfer scheme is allows existing residents with permits for family sized units to move um and use obviously the the the parking available in the local streets around the area that is a council it's not a planning policy it's a corporate position that the council has taken and it's not something we as planners can take into account so the council as a corporate body has decided to implement this um as part of its uh it's corporate policy and not a planning policy so we can't we can't legislate against it we can't we can't i mean obviously we take it into account when we do the transport assessment but we can't then say an application has to be um approved or refused because of the PTS corporate policy not planning policy one more question uh chair uh are you facilitating any any space for car club for three years excuse me could you repeat the question please the car club getting permission yes um if you just bear with me a moment councillor so we have measures in the planning conditions to secure a car club membership for eligible occupiers rahman so um thank you for the uh just a quick one i've i've missed on something um you said there was a uh uh is it contribution towards canning town station can you tell me what that is and why it's going to canning town station yes councillor that contribution arose from the consultation with transport for london and the gla in effect this application site has a low public transport accessibility level so two things were considered when we granted permission originally and this builds upon that the first thing is that um there should be safeguarded land for two bridges which is in the old permission and it is again safeguarded here um in the previous permission they wanted us to secure funding for the bridge but we couldn't do that they will secure some transport connectivity funding and building upon that the same thing arose again here where we couldn't support funding directly for the bridges but in order to deliver level this application site needed to improve its links with canning town which is the nearest tube station which most people will use and secondly there's stress on that station so this is a a proportionate and necessitated improvement um to meet the planning tests to account for in that case i'm going to ask if you want to do it or share a final thoughts on this application um thank you chair uh i think um i'm i'm not going to debate i'm just sharing my final thoughts if that's okay i think it's a beautiful application to be honest with you i it needs uh it needs more houses with time it needs more houses and it needs bigger houses so chair i think it's a very lovely application that's come through to us and um and to say your final do you share your final thoughts on this uh yes obviously we have a huge number of uh you know overcoding in this bar we need more housing in this community and uh such a such application is quite significantly impact on the housing crisis reducing the housing crisis so i'm up for for it thank you mr chair i want to echo with my colleagues and we need more homes more housing as long as it complies with our local plan and london plan and london plan is okay for us um thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you um same as my colleague grandma uh it's a good proposal i always uh challenge officers uh but i was looking at the whole proposal and i couldn't find the whole proposal and i couldn't find anything um is is a very good thing for our barra uh and i only i hope once they get the permission they can deliver as soon as possible thank you thank you councillor so and i i i would now like to pull and ian to share the final advice before we move into board thank you chair so uh excuse me again i guess to sum up the the the application as you've heard it provides an alternative for phases two and three that or they do already have an outline consent that this scheme um provides some additional housing and arguably uh a slightly better approach to sort of urban design and placemaking which i think as offices we support um yes it is increasing the density of the scheme but but that is outweighed by the the placemaking that the park is still maintained and the and the proposed approach to urban design the quality of the housing that's being proposed um i we did hear from the from um local residents about tall buildings um the buildings will be slightly taller than what was permitted previously but that that that's the way that the site's being optimized um and the trade-off of that is a more sort of rational layout if you like in terms of of what's being proposed it is a site allocation so tall buildings are allowed in this location under the local plan um and finally you've heard about the affordable housing um don't really want to sort of reiterate that too much but other than to say that the actual mix within the affordable housing is arguably a better mix in terms of meeting housing need because it has more family-sized housing within it than the planning permission that currently exists does so i think i'll finish there thank you chair thanks thanks yeah i don't think i have thanks thank you now i would like to move into voting can i see all those in favor of this application please no question to ask anybody in against uh is there any abstention no irrelevant paul could you please confirm the committee thank you so the committee has voted unanimously with seven members in favor of granting planning permission for the redevelopment of poplar riverside phases two and three um as set out in um item 5.1 of the agenda subject to the conditions and obligations mentioned there and the the minor changes that i spoke about at the beginning in the in the update report thank you chair thank you for your time the that concludes the business for tonight the next meeting will be taking place on monday 9th december 2024 thank you