Transcript

Hi, good evening, and welcome to the Strategic Development Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Zahar Chosy, and I will be chairing this meeting tonight. This meeting is being held in person. Committee members and key participants are present in the meeting room. Only the committee members present in the meeting room will be able to vote. Other persons may be also attending remotely. Committee members and others who have chosen to attend remotely have been advised by the committee officers that should technical difficulty prevent their full participation in the meeting, it may proceed in the erection 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 procedures. 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 Officers as soon as possible by email, however, Officers may not be able to respond to all such requests on time. You should keep your microphone and camera switched off at all other times, only switched on when speaking. Please do not use the meeting chart facility. Any information added to the chart facilities will be discarded. If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic Service Officers as soon as possible. I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves. Please, can you also state any DPI declaring interest that you may have in the agenda items and the nature of the interests? Let me start. First, I have no DPI's, but I have received emails in the second item, and I have not replied them. Second, can the committee members introduce themselves, please? Can I start from the right? Consider the same. Well done. Can you introduce yourself, please? Thank you, Chair. This is Councillor Lange-Barlow, Senator Lansbury-Wood, also Vice-Chair of the Committee. If for any reason, Chair, ask me to... I'm happy. Then I'm ready to listen to his command. Thank you. Yes, Chair. I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I have attended two events organized by Chinese Embassy, one of the cultural events where I was a member of the... member of the... the committee member for cultural recreation. And I also attended, along with the Speaker, Councillor Saifuddin Khalid, the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Republic of State. And that's all about this item. And about the other item, I received several emails. I just responded, noted, received and noted, without making any commitment or comments. Thank you. Yeah, Councillor Amin Rahman, Befran Green West, nothing to declare apart from loads of emails and phone calls, but didn't attend to any calls and emails. Councillor Amin Rahman, Befran Green West, nothing to declare, but like my colleague, I have received a lot of emails and phone calls, but I did not respond. Councillor Kamrul, who sent Whitechapur, no DPI. Again, for noting, I've received some phone calls, but no discussion has made. I've received some emails for both items as well. Thank you. Councillor Koburu Sayin, no DPI. Councillor Shubha Hussain, from myself, Chair, my colleagues on the road today. So just letting you know, won't be attending. And the declarations for myself are, I've had a few calls regarding Agenda 1, specifically from local ward councillors, Abdalullah and Councillor Farouk. But again, it doesn't affect my email views. And I've had a few calls and emails regarding the Agenda 2. That's it. Sorry, I need to amend my declaration. I need to add, I also received a phone call from the journalist, from the Guardian, and another news agent, I can't name, I don't have the name for it, by, you refused to have conversation, but I received a call. Thank you. No apologies. Have you received any apologies for absence? I think if just... No, Chair, I haven't received any apologies, but as Councillor Shubha Hussain has just stated, Councillor Asma Begum is unwell. Agenda 2 is minutes from the previous meeting. Can we approve the minutes from the 13 November 2024 meetings? Yes? Yes. Yes. Yes, everyone? Thank you. The minutes from 25 November, 25 November will be presented at the future meeting. Agenda item 3 are the recommendations and procedures for hearing objections and meetings guidelines. Our last, Paul Buckingham, Head of Development, Management, Planning and Building Control, to present the guidance. Paul. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Good evening, members, members of the public, and officers who are joining us in the chamber this evening or online. So, this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations. When we come to the items for decision, Chair, the process for considering the reports will go as follows. So, I'll introduce the item with a brief description of the application and the summary of the recommendation to the committee. Officers will then present the report. Those registered to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three minutes each, and those registered to speak in support, including the applicants, can address the committee for up to three minutes each, and any councillors registered to speak can also address the committee for up to three minutes each. The committee may ask points of clarification of the speakers, and then the committee will consider the recommendation, including requests for further information, debate, and advice from officers. The committee will then reach a decision based on the majority vote, and I'll confirm the decision back to the chamber. If the committee proposes changes to certain aspects of the officer recommendation, for example, to add, delete, or amend planning conditions or obligations, then the task of formalising those changes is delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration. If the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions of the development plan or could have legal implications, then the item may be deferred for a further report from officers dealing with those issues. Chair, there is an update report that's been published online and circulated this evening just dealing with some additional information that's arisen since publication of the main agenda, so I'll deal with that as we come to each individual item. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Okay, so we now move to agenda four. We have not deferred item to consider. So, agenda item five, at the planning application for decision. We have two applications tonight to consider this evening. Agenda item 5.1 is the planning application at Royal Mint Court London EC3 and 4Q1. I will now invite Paul to introduce the application. Can you introduce the application, Paul, please? Again, Chair, thank you very much. So, as the Chair said, this is a planning application affecting Royal Mint Court London. I should say, Chair, there's actually two applications. So, there's an application for planning permission, and there is a parallel application for listed building consent for works to the listed buildings within the site. So, you'll see in your report, there's actually two recommendations. So, just covering the overall development. So, the development, redevelopment of the site to provide an embassy, which is outside of the use class's order, so what we call sui generis, involving the refurbishment and restoration of the Johnson Smirt building, which is Grade 2 listed, the partial demolition and remodelling and refurbishment of the Siemens Registry, Grade 2 listed building, and alterations to the west elevation of the building, retention and park demolition, alterations and extensions to Murray House and Dexter House, and the erection of a standalone entrance, pavilion building, alterations to the existing boundary wall and demolition of the substation, associated public realm and landscaping, highway works, car and cycle parking, and all ancillary and associated works. Just a little bit of background for the context of your decision this evening. So, both applications have been called in by the Secretary of State for their determination. So, the role of the committee this evening is a little bit different to usual, but the process is exactly the same and the consideration is the same. So, because the application has been called in, there will be a local inquiry, and that's currently scheduled to commence in February. Under the process for that inquiry, by the end of this week, we must tell the Secretary of State the Council's position on the applications. So, the recommendation that officers have made is that, had the Council had the opportunity to determine the applications itself, then the recommendation would be to grant planning permissions, subject to conditions and obligations, and to grant listed building consent, subject to conditions. Chair, just very briefly in terms of the update report, just to advise the committee that since this publication, we have received some additional supporting information that includes the environmental statement addendum, biodiversity net gain assessment, and drawings. None of these change our recommendation, but that information will also go into the context of the proposed public inquiry. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Paul. I now invite Ronald Moriid, planning case officer, to present the application. Ronald. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. The application site is Royal Mint Court, which is located close to the western boundary of the borough, as shown in this map. The application site is shown outlined in red in this slide. There's a telephone exchange building amongst the buildings of the Royal Mint complex, but this is not under the ownership of the applicant, and is not included in the development proposals. This aerial photo shows the site outlined in red. Lower-rise residential buildings known as St. Mary Grace's Court, which are on land under the ownership of the applicant, are found to the rear. Beyond this is the Royal Mint estate, which includes the green open space known as Royal Mint Green, or Swan Passage Place. High-rise residential buildings known as Royal Mint Gardens are found to the north, and St. Catherine's Dock is further away to the south. The application site is surrounded by a combination of Transport for London and Tower Hamlets highways. TFL roads are shown in green on this slide, and the Tower Hamlets roads are shown in red. To the north of the site is Royal Mint Street, to the east Cartwright Street, to the south East Smithfield, and Mansell Street to the west, which forms a junction with Tower Hill and Tower Bridge approach. This image shows the layout of the existing buildings around the site. The Johnson Smirk building at the front of the site was built at the beginning of the 19th century, and is Grade 2 star listed. The Siemens Registry building to the left, also built at the beginning of the 19th century, is Grade 2 listed. This building was altered in the 1980s, with new facades facing into the site and outwards onto Mansell Street. At the rear and right-hand side of the site is Murray and Dexter House, a 1980s office building with a height ranging from 4 to 8 storeys. This slide shows the relationship of the existing buildings on site with St. Mary Grace's Court, the nearest housing buildings which are to the rear of the site. The image on the left is a bird's eye view from above the application site looking east. The image on the right is a street level view from Cartwright Street, looking west towards the application site. This image shows Royal Mint Green, aka Swan Passage Place, located to the rear of the site on Cartwright Street. In the background, the residential buildings of Royal Mint Estate can be seen. The planning commission was granted in 2017 at the site for an office-led redevelopment of 80,000 square metres commercial floor space. This consisted of more and larger buildings than the current application. The permission was not implemented and expired in 2020. Applications for planning commission and listed building consent were submitted in 2021 for the development of an embassy. The applications were recommended for approval by planning officers. However, the council's strategic development committee resolved to refuse the applications in December 2022. The applicant chose not to appeal this refusal within the available time frame and has instead submitted these current applications in which the development proposal is identical to the 2021 applications. This slide shows the existing built massing. From the late 1980s to 2013, the buildings were used as office headquarters for financial institutions. But since 2013, the site has been vacant. This slide shows the proposed built massing in comparison. The two listed buildings would be refurbished and improved. The 1980s Murray and Dexter House would be partially demolished and remodelled to produce a new building known as Embassy House, providing staff and visitor accommodation for the embassy. The existing steel frame and composite slab from the existing building, as well as the two internal cores, would be retained. At the south side of the site, the existing structure of Murray and Dexter House would be retained and redeveloped into a new, less bulky building known as the Cultural Exchange. The proposed embassy development in plan form is shown in this slide. The Johnson Smirk building, shown in yellow, would be used as the main embassy building and would be the centrepiece of the complex. The Siemens Registry building, shown in blue, would contain ancillary office functions. The Cultural Exchange building, shown in green, would include event facilities such as a lecture, theatre, a multifunctional hall, heritage interpretation spaces, as well as visa services. The building known as Embassy House, shown in red, to the rear of the site, would contain ancillary staff accommodation. This is a view of the existing site frontage from the Tower Hill Junction. The gatehouses to the front are Grade II listed. The Johnson Smirk building is the central and most prominent building on site, with the Siemens Registry, the left of this, also prominent. The boundary wall on the north side of the site entrance currently contains a disused substation from the 1980s. This is an image of the proposed site frontage, with the listed buildings appearing unchanged. The 1980s substation in the boundary wall has been removed to accommodate the creation of the northern entrance pavilion. The Cultural Exchange building can be seen rising behind the Johnson Smirk building to the right, and the top of Embassy House can just about be seen behind the Johnson Smirk. The top image is a front view of the Johnson Smirk building, and the bottom is the rear of the building. This slide illustrates the proposed external changes to the front and rear elevations of the Johnson Smirk building. The changes would be minimal and sensitive. To the left is a view of the Siemens Registry building from Mansell Street, where you can clearly see the 1980s facade alterations. To the right are the remaining Georgian frontages of this building. The proposal would replace the dated and visually discordant 1980s facades with a more sensitive design, including a brick palette to better match the original Georgian finishes of the building, as well as the brick boundary wall and Yorkstone paving of the public realm on Mansell Street. The picture to the left shows the 1980s office building, Murray and Dexter House, from the internal courtyard of the Royal Mint Complex. The photo on the right shows an external view of Murray and Dexter House from Royal Mint Street. This slide shows a view from the rear of the site on Cartwright Street, adjacent to St. Mary Grace's Court. This slide shows the proposed view of the rear of the site, where the rationalised design and massing of Embassy House would replace the existing Murray and Dexter House. The gates in the background would be the main access for staff and new security bollards can be seen in the foreground. This slide shows a view from East Smithfield, showing the existing bulky and partially overhanging massing of Murray and Dexter House. This slide shows the same view, showing the proposed cultural exchange building, which would be a new local landmark of high-quality architecture, built in cellared and green ceramic. The scaled-back building massing and reduction in the boundary wall height would allow new views of the Johnson Smirk building, which would be considered a public benefit. The glazed openings of the Heritage Interpretation Centre can be seen in the foreground, along with the redeveloped public realm and new security bollards, which provide separation from the traffic on East Smithfield. This slide shows the proposed site-wide front elevation. The red outline indicates where historical interpretation panels would be installed in the boundary wall. This slide shows the proposed site-wide view of the rear elevation of the new Embassy House. The red outline shows the existing building, which is generally taller on the sides and smaller in the middle. The proposed building would be slightly taller on the Royal Mint Street side. The blue outline shows the massing of the previous 2017 consent, which was noticeably bigger than both the proposed developments and existing buildings. This slide shows the proposed site-wide elevation from East Smithfield, showing the new views of the Johnson Smirk building, as a result of the cultural exchange, presenting a scaled-back massing compared to the existing Murray and Dexter House. This slide shows the site-wide elevation facing Royal Mint Street. Cycle access would be available from the gates at the rear of the site, shown on the left-hand side. In the middle of the image is the telephone exchange building, which is not part of the site, and to the right is the partially redesigned Siemens Registry building. For a comparison overview, the existing massing is shown in the top image, and the proposed massing is shown in the bottom image. Overall, the development provide a better rationalised and more sensitive backdrop to the listed buildings on site. The main issues relating to the planning applications are listed in this slide. The applications have attracted a lot of public interest due to the unique nature of the development proposed. This was also the case with the previous applications. The applicant undertook extensive pre-application engagement with both the Council and local residents prior to the submission of the previous applications in 2021. No pre-application advice was sought from the Council prior to the submission of the current applications. However, since submission, the applicant has undertaken some engagement with local residents. In response to public consultation, the Council has received 246 letters in support of the application and 273 letters in objection, as well as two petitions in objection. This is a significant uplift in the number of representations made in response to the previous applications. The pink outline on this map shows the wide-reaching zone where Council letters were sent out, including to Royal Mint Estates, Royal Mint Gardens and St Catherine's Dock. The zone of consultation is larger than the area usually required by the Council's statement of community involvement, and this extended boundary was agreed as appropriate for the previous applications. Parties who made representations on the previous 2021 applications were also notified of the current applications. The Council have received a large number of letters, both supporting and objecting to the proposals. A range of points have been made, some of which were not material planning considerations, and these have been summarised in the committee report, provided as background papers to members. The material planning issues raised can be grouped into the summary topics shown on this slide. The committee report gives full details on how these matters have been covered by the application, and this is summarised in this presentation. The proposed development involves the change of use of the site to an embassy. The proposal is not a personal permission for any particular nation, as use of the embassy could be switched to any nation or nations in the future without planning permission. The proposal would see a slight reduction in the amount of active floor area on site, with a provision of over 52,000 square metres of embassy floor space, including 225 accommodation units, which would be conditioned to be solely for the use of embassy staff and visitors to the embassy. The site is within the London plan's central activity zone, which identifies embassies as strategic functions, which are supported. Therefore, the loss of the existing vacant office space is acceptable, and the proposal for an embassy complies with the development plan. This slide shows the above-ground heritage assets that the proposal would affect. These include the Tower of London World Heritage Site, shown in red, the Tower of London Conservation Area, in pink, and the listed buildings within the application site, shown at the top of the image. The National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. The more important the asset, the greater the weight that should be given. In assessment of proposed new buildings, refurbishment of existing buildings, and the improvements of the public realm, which will be shown on later slides, officers have concluded that the proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, preserve the setting and significance of listed buildings, and also enhance the immediate setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site. Therefore, the scheme would be acceptable in heritage and design terms. This assessment has been made with input from Royal Historic Palaces, Historic England, and the Council's design and conservation team. The site contains nationally important archaeological ruins, including the preserved remains of a monastery from the 14th century, which are shown in the photo to the left, and the remains of the first Black Death Plague burial ground in London from around the same time. The archaeological ruins are under the internal courtyard areas of the Royal Mint Complex, and partially under Murray and Dexter House. Historic England's archaeological service have stated that there would be less than substantial harm to archaeological ruins on site through the proposed development works. Planning policies state that any harm identified must be outweighed by public benefits of the scheme. The proposal would involve new heritage display and interpretation spaces for the public on East Smithfield, as shown in the image on the right. This image shows the current private access to the ruins via a staircase within the internal courtyard of the Royal Mint Complex. A new display space would allow public access all year round and direct new views through windows at street level down to the archaeological ruins from the basement at basement level. Larger additional heritage display spaces would be available within the cultural exchange building at different times throughout the year. Officers are content that potential less than substantial harm to below-ground heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, which will be fully outlined at the end of this presentation. Overall, the scheme would provide a number of heritage benefits and would comply with heritage and design planning policies. This slide shows the most prominent areas of public realm around the application sites and indicates where hostile vehicle mitigation bollards and barriers would be installed. The Metropolitan Police Service have objected to the proposed development, citing congestion of the highway network and disruption to the local community as a result of unmanaged protests. It has been highlighted that the prominent location of the application site could result in a higher likelihood of protest activity and in the event of a large number of people attending a protest, there could be over-spill into roads. The applicant has submitted a pedestrian capacity assessment which at the request of the applicant has been kept confidential but however has been reviewed by Transport for London who agreed with its findings. It shows that the area to the front of the site could accommodate almost 2,000 people. No evidence has been submitted which makes it clear that an embassy land use would result in an unmanageable level of protest activity. During the current and previous applications officers have consulted extensively with the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London in regard to public safety and security. Officers have also listened to neighbour responses and the council's community safety team in order to secure a range of improvements around the site as listed on this slide. The measures secured would specifically address the potential risk of protests and these include an event protest management plan, the storage of protest control equipment on site for use by the Metropolitan Police, the provision of permanent parking spaces for police vehicles adjacent to the site and improved council CCTV around the site. On the left-hand side in purple are the existing buildings on site and on the right in gold is the proposed development. The main impacts on neighbouring amenity would be experienced at St Mary Grace's Court to the rear of the site and to the taller Royal Mint Gardens to the north. The council's independent consultant has assessed the impacts of daylight on both properties as minor adverse. Outlook, sense of enclosure, separation distances and privacy have also been assessed and would be acceptable as the building lines, massing and height of the proposed development would be broadly very similar to the existing development. This slide shows the existing separation distances between Royal Mint Courts and St Mary Grace's Courts. The proposed development would increase all of the mutual overlooking distances compared to the existing situation. A condition would be included to introduce additional privacy measures for some frontages where necessary. The proposed development would include car and cycle parking and delivery and servicing space provided completely within the application site at basement level accessed from East Smithfield with an exit onto Royal Mint Street. In comparison with the previously consented scheme for an office development at the application site, the proposed embassy use with staff living on site would result in a significant reduction in the number of trips to and from the site relying on public transport. The proposal would include a number of significant public realm improvements which would improve safety around the site as well as enhancing the appearance of heritage assets and the relationship with the World Heritage Site. The existing fragmented site frontage is shown on the left and the rationalised shared service and even public realm proposed is shown on the image on the right. A financial contribution would be secured from the application towards an urban realm improvement study providing a plan to help reconfigure the heavily trafficked junctions around Tower Hill facing the sites. The images on this slide show the existing and proposed East Smithfield public realm. The proposal would offer a more pleasant pedestrian footway experience including better separation from traffic through planters and bollards. Construction, car and cycle parking, delivery and servicing management details and a travel plan would be secured by condition. TFL have confirmed that they raise no objection to the development. The proposal has been assessed in terms of all environmental aspects such as energy, air quality, flood risk, biodiversity, trees and land contamination and found to be generally acceptable subject to planning conditions and obligations. the uplift in trees and urban greening is supported as well as the sustainable reuse of existing buildings on site. As has already been addressed, there were previous applications for an identical proposal in 2021 which the Strategic Development Committee resolved to refuse. Four reasons for refusal were given and these related to safety and security, impacts on tourism as a result of protests or acts of terrorism, congestion of the local highway network as a result of potential protests and events, and impact on heritage assets as a result of protests, acts of terrorism and security mitigation. planning officers recommended approval of the previous applications as it was considered that the proposals complied with development plan policies and other relevant planning considerations. The reasons for refusal given by committee for the previous applications are a material planning consideration for planning officers. However, in the assessment of the current application, officers have not seen sufficient evidence to support these reasons. furthermore, consultees have not provided information to make clear that an embassy land use at the site would result in disruption to the highway network, acts of terrorism, or significant levels of protest. There are representatives from the Met Police in attendance tonight who will be providing comments. The Borough's design and conservation team, Historic England and Royal Historic Palaces, have assessed the proposals and do not consider that the proposed security mitigation measures would be unacceptably harmful to the character, appearance, and setting of any heritage assets. Any temporary security measures to manage a protest are not a material planning consideration for their impact on the setting of heritage assets. The Borough's Heritage and Design Officer is here this evening to answer any questions on the heritage impacts of the proposed developments. General public benefits of the scheme include enhancement of the Borough's heritage assets, access to historic display spaces of nationally significant archaeological ruins, sustainable reuse of the buildings on sites, improved public realm, as well as employment benefits and community infrastructure levy financial contributions. The financial contributions secured are listed on this slide. The non-financial obligations secured are shown on this slide and the following slide. In conclusion, the officer recommendation is that the committee inform the Secretary of State that it would have resolved to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, planning conditions and the receipt of a satisfactory environmental impact assessment. Thank you for your time. I've decided to allow more registered speakers than I usually permit for this application only. I now invite Sue Hughes on behalf of the Friends of St. Catherine Docks to address the committee in objection to the application. You have up to three minutes. Thank you. My speech was written by Naz Islam, who chairs the Royal Mint Estate on the east side of Cartwright Street, but was denied a place to speak tonight, as was Mark Nygate from the other side of Cartwright Street in St. Mary Grace's Court. Good evening, members. I chair the Royal Mint Estate Residence Group, which has about 400 people living in 153 homes on the east side of Cartwright Street. We are a diverse community consisting of private residents and Tower Hamlets social tenants. We have objected to the plans for an embassy by submitting letters of objection and a petition signed by over 200 residents who strongly object to the plans. As with the 2021 application, we have been ignored again. There has been no representation for our community by London Borough of Tower Hamlets, who own and manage our estate and its social housing. We have never had any consultation with the applicant, despite having written to them to request a meeting. An embassy on this site will create negative mental health impacts on the residents of the Royal Mint Estate, because the embassy and the activities associated with it will dominate our estate due to its close proximity. Since the previous plans by the applicant rejected in 2023, the applicant has made no material changes to their plans, and Martin's law has not been taken into consideration in this current application regarding protests or major events to be held at the embassy. They have taken no consideration of providing resilience measures to mitigate terrorist activity, as detailed by the Met Police Letter dated the 14th of November 2024, and the London Borough Tower Hamlets own bomb blast assessment. There has been no consideration for the severe impacts of traffic entering and exiting the site. East Smithfield, Royal Mint Street, Lehman Street and Dock Street are frequently currently gridlocked with stationary traffic. The plans include building 225 flats on site, 200 for embassy staff, and in many cases, they'll be joined by their multi-generational families, and 25 flats for use by visiting dignitaries from Beijing. There has been no consideration given in the plans for the infrastructure required, such as GP services and school places, for what will be a substantial community living on the site. For the above reasons, this application violates the London Plan 2021, policies GG1, GG3, GG6, D11, and HC2. It also violates Section 8 of the National Policy Framework. Lastly, may I please remind you that the current plans are identical to those which this committee refused in December 2022, and that refusal of those previous applications is a material consideration for this hearing. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I will now invite Jason Chow from Hong Kongers in Britain, HKB, to address the committee in objection to the application. You have up to three minutes, please. Thank you, Chair. My name is Jason Chow. I'm from Hong Kongers in Britain. I'm speaking in objection to the planned applications for the new Chinese embassy on the Royal Mint Court site. First and foremost, concern for personal safety and privacy is a material planning concern. The new Chinese embassy is not an ordinary development. Chinese embassy enjoys a privilege in international law known as the inviolability of diplomatic premises. China is well known for domestically deploying advanced surveillance capabilities like facial recognition. Due to the special status of the Chinese embassy, there would be no ways for UK authorities to check that the Chinese use of surveillance capabilities and their collection of data on their premises are within the bounds of UK law. Based on China's practice of intrusive surveillance and China's attempts to silence critics overseas, the new Chinese embassy could pose a threat to the privacy and safety of the residents of the area and the people working in the area and the people visiting the area. Second, protest. China's long record of human rights abuses may not be a material planning objection per se. However, the protests stemming from China's human rights abuses are a material planning objection. London is home to the exiled communities of Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Uyghurs and Chinese dissidents in the UK. Protests against China's human rights abuses take place around this year. I'll just give you a highlight of major days of protests concerning China. In January and February, you would have protests around Chinese receptions for the New Year or Spring Festival. On the 10th of March, you would have Tibetan Uprising Day protest. On the 25th of April, you would have a day remembered by Falun Gong practitioners. On the 19th of May, you would have a day remembered by Vigas for their experience of Chinese oppression. On the 4th of June, you would have a day remembering the Tiananmen Massacre. On the 5th of July, you would have a day remembered by Vigas for Chinese oppression. And also on the 1st of July, you would have a day remembering British transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China. On the 31st of August, you would have a day remembering the Hong Kong police brutality. And in September, you would have a day remembering the umbrella movement in Hong Kong. So, to sum up there, so if the Royal Ming Court site became the Chinese embassy, protests against the Chinese human rights abuse would take place at least on a monthly basis, if not weekly. And that would create a huge impact on the local community and policing resources. Therefore, Hong Kongers in Britain ask that these planning applications be rejected. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can I now invite Councillor Peter Gold to address the committee in objection to the application? You have up to three minutes, Peter. Thank you very much, Chair. As a formality, I declare I've had no contact with the applicant, the agent, or any of their advisors, but I have spoken to interested parties. This is the second application that we've had here, but it's an identical application. I note this week, although we were told that we're not supposed to mention it's the Chinese embassy, it was revealed in the Financial Times that the Chinese government have been attempting to influence people to support this application, which may just be the reason of the surprisingly large number of supportive letters or contributions you've had, because we can't find anybody who particularly supports it on the street locally. But let us actually have a look at what we have. Don't applaud. Don't applaud. That's my time. Let's have a look at what we have, and what we've had locally, and particularly talking of safety. I go to 5.7 in the report before us, and the words are, this proposal could cause harm and safety. I can't understand why we're not talking of this. In 5.28, and I keep flicking over the page, because I was reading them earlier on. As embodies are often exposed to security threats, there are concerns over the safety of residents of the Royal Mint Estate. What are we talking about? This is dangerous. We were told that you can actually put 2,000 people in front of that embassy. I've been there many times. 2,000 people. I go to football matches on a weekly basis. 2,000 people. That is the entire passengers of the average London tube train standing as well emptied twice over. Are you telling me that you could get two tube trains full of people in front of that embassy? Of course you can't. Of course you can't. It's absolutely impossible. Let's say something else. Earlier on this year, earlier on this summer, on the 28th of August, a fire in the Blackhall Tunnel caused gridlock throughout southeast London and East London. There is nowhere to cross the river between Tower Bridge and Dartford apart from Blackwall and Rotherhithe. Are we actually saying what would happen if there are regular demonstrations as we heard at that embassy? You're going to have permanent gridlock there. The highway, the A13, the road to the M25. It's not going to be fun. This last weekend, we saw the extraordinary celebrations of Notre Dame, one of the great World Heritage Sites. The Tower of London is a World Heritage Site. The report tells us that we've already been asked for a delay because there's an investigation. For 10 seconds, Peter. Can you imagine the people of Paris, France or anybody running for public office in that country to have permitted a building of this size next to Notre Dame? Of course not, councillors. Put it out and put it out of its misery and send it somewhere else. Thank you. I now invite David Hodges, Chief Inspector of Metropolitan Police, as well as Jonathan Bolton and Fred Demitz to speak in objection to the application. You have up to three minutes in total. Do swap around with Peter and Sue so we can see you better. Thank you. Thank you. May I begin? Good evening, everyone. My name is Dave Hodges. I am a Chief Inspector representing the Metropolitan Police. The NPS has a number of concerns in relation to the proposed application. Specifically, the new embassy, if granted approval, would cover a substantial footprint affecting the immediate vicinity and potentially attracting significant protest activity. There is nowhere at the location that would accommodate more than 200 protesters. But from experience, far lower numbers could cause pedestrians to spill into the road. Across London in the past 12 months, there have been over 800 protest at embassies across London, of which over 40 exceeded 200 protesters, including several with 10,000 protesters. In the event that more than a relatively small number of protesters attend the location, they will highly likely spill into the road. This iconic junction of Tower Hill and Tower Bridge Road has over 50,000 vehicle movements per day and is of critical importance to the Tower Bridge river crossing. It is a major arterial junction where any demonstration would have a serious and significant effect to not only the local area, but also wider London. This includes the nearby Royal London Hospital, which responds to trauma patients across London. In addition, the rear of the site is almost entirely residential. Any protest would cause serious disruption to the local community. The new prominent location is likely to make it more appealing to protesters and the busy junction will be attractive for protesters to block, to gain entrance for their cause, to gain attention for their cause. Overspill of protesters from the pavements would compromise the roads, which would be difficult to police and maintain the safety of protesters without shutting the roads, thus causing greater community and business disruption. The impact on local policing and resourcing is significant. Policing this proposed embassy would require officers to be taken away from the frontline duties where they should be keeping the residents of Tower Hamlets safe, but will be abstracted to fulfil the requirement of policing spontaneous and known protests at this location. This has not been factored into the local policing model of Tower Hamlets, unlike other boroughs where the majority of diplomatic missions are located. It should also be noted that the NPS does not have a general responsibility around public safety or policing protests where the NPS's core responsibilities are not engaged, specifically the core responsibilities of protection of life and property, maintenance of the King's peace and prevention and detection of crime. The local authority as a landowner do however have responsibility for public safety on their land. This includes considering and mitigating public safety concerns that are created through the town and planning process. It is not the case that local authorities can rely on the police on a daily basis to mitigate safety issues which fall under their responsibility as a landowner. As an example, a much smaller group of protesters, maybe as low as 10 to 15, could easily block the pavement around the proposed site and cause pedestrians to have to walk in the carriageway. Especially with an increased footfall to the proposed embassy which will house many thousands of staff and no doubt attract many visitors. In this example, the threshold for police response is unlikely to be triggered and responsibility for public safety would fall to the landowner. Thank you. Thank you. And I invite the applicant of DP9 Limited to address the committee in support. Thank you. Can I now invite the applicant, Baronevi Collins, of GP9 Ltd to address the committee in support of your application? You have 12 minutes altogether. Thank you. Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Baronevi Collins, of GP9, and I represent the Chinese Embassy project team tonight. For clarity, the applications are the same as previously, with the exception of updated technical information to reflect changes to the planning guidance and the addition of a secondary staircase for fire safety purposes. The previous refusal was not appealed and the planning application was resubmitted instead because of the principal desire for the decision to be made locally. Since then, the Embassy has continued its program with local community engagement, hosting various cultural events as well as public exhibitions. The previous reasons of refusal have been assessed and are considered to be without merit, with no basis in planning policy. Your planning officers concur, stating in their committee report that there are no substantial changes to applicable policies. The officer report also reaffirms that the proposed use as an embassy for any host nation is and continues to be supported under London and Tower Hamlets development plans and remains wholly compliant with planning policy. The previous identical application was reviewed by the Metropolitan Police Service, including counter-terrorism security advice. Officers were content that the security of the application site, including public order, had been fully considered, and I quote, the Metropolitan Police raised no objection to the planning application. The planning application has been thoroughly assessed and all relevant material planning considerations is considered. As such, the Embassy team concurs with the recommendation for approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. You finished within two minutes. That's good. Thank you very much. You finished within two minutes. That's good. Thank you. Now, do members have any questions for officers, objectives or applicants? Let me just write down the name first. Then I will. Councillor Kamlo-Lusteyn. Councillor Kamlo-Lusteyn, you can start. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Officer, for your hard work making this report. So, my first question would be, I've listened to the police just now, but on the executive summary, MED Police Special Ops teams, one of the specialized teams, they have raised their concern to maintain, their concern about their ability to maintain the public realm when any, especially this sort of embassy will attract a lot of protest and demonstration. So, if specialist team, police team says they don't have the ability to maintain, how can you justify that? What measure can, as a council, we take to maintain this public realm? Chair, I've got a supplementary question as well. Thank you for the question. So, yeah, obviously, officers very much acknowledge the comments of the Metropolitan Police and, obviously, you'll see in the report that we've made reference to them at several stages. I was also, Ronan, in his presentation, made reference to the pedestrian comfort assessment that was undertaken and submitted by the applicant. Obviously, that's not fully in the public domain, but it has been viewed by Transport for London. And one of the findings of that report said, and I obviously appreciate the point it's disputed, but it did say that up to 2,000 people could occupy that space. Now, when those kind of reports are put together, they are based on industry standard assumptions and modelling. TfL have viewed it and they confirmed that they accept the findings of that report, and that it's been carried out in what you would say is the standard method. So, essentially, officers have been given the viewpoint by the Highway Authority for that location that quite, well, let's say 2,000 people could assemble in that area. And that, essentially, whilst we acknowledge that there could be more people than that there, possibly, we're of the view that an embassy use in this location, not discussing the very specific occupier of the embassy use, would not necessarily give rise to, or we don't have evidence in front of us that it would give rise to, in excess of 2,000 people in that location, regularly assembling to cause a significant impact onto the public highway and result in all of the impacts that the council made. So, essentially, that's why we've, the officer view, obviously, is distinct from the Metropolitan Police's view, but that is the view that we've come to, and obviously reflects the view that we presented last time as well to members of the committee. I'd like to ask your supplementary picture. Yeah, I'm not really convinced on the answer, sorry. But anyway, I've got a next question. This is, as a councillor, it's very difficult for me to digest these things. On 5.26, it says, maintenance of the estate and open space is rechargeable to the residents. Therefore, any increase in use of the open space as a result of protest and demonstration will likely cause an increase in caretaking and maintaining cost, which would be passed to the residents. How can you justify that? Why should a resident pay for somebody else coming in here to do an embassy, and our residents have to pay for their cost? How can you justify that? Thanks. First thing to point out as well in the committee report, the applicant agreed to quite a generous financial contribution towards maintaining that green space, sort of to give something back to the local community. We also secured, as I mentioned, events management plans and space for police officers to be parked close to the site, additional CCTV, which, based on how we've assessed it, would anticipate harm coming to that green space. So the scenario where it's completely destroyed and residents would have to fork out to repair it isn't something that we consider likely. And in addition to that, as a goodwill gesture, the applicant has agreed, as I say, quite a large financial contribution to improve it in the first place. Can I just add something on that? So can you actually make sure, can you say in front of this public, because of this embassy, there is more than two, three hundreds of leaseholders of LBTH leaseholders lives in this estate, so they will not see no increase in their service charge? Unfortunately, Councillor, we can't give that commitment from a planning perspective. That's a matter for that. I apologise and I appreciate it. That's something that you have to do directly and make representations to them in that respect. Thank you, Councillor. Can you see on your mic? Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I had my questions real up on my laptop, but I decided to restart. But my question to the applicant is there's, I read on some of the conditions and that where 20% will be local labourers, 20%, that's going to local people, and there's going to be job opportunities, career opportunities for local people. If you could put 20% to local labourers, could you not have put 20% of the employment to the local community? Unfortunately, because of its embassy use, it would not be possible for local people to work for a foreign embassy. It wouldn't be possible, I'm afraid. And also, one of my questions was, as this is a new application, and you mentioned some consultations that you took place, but we've heard from objectors that there have been no consultations. Could you potentially clarify that? Yes, I can give you 100% assurance that leaflet troughs were made and public exhibitions were held on site. And local residents and TRA groups were invited? Yes, I can category confirm that. Could I ask the objectors if that's the case? Thank you. Thank you. On behalf of the Royal Mint Court estate, in fact, both estates on Cartwright Street, the flyer that was sent out for supposedly an open day on the 15th of September last year, this year, I should say, they wanted people to register in advance of actually going to the exhibition, and they wanted you to scan a QR code and put in all your personal information, including personal identity, either your passport or your driving licence. So you can imagine that the people in those estates were not at all happy to comply with that. So I think very few residents went to the exhibition on the Sunday, the 15th. But it was the days before the 15th that a lot of Chinese people went to an exhibition, and that's when they got them to sign the letters of support, and they left there with a goodie bag. That's how it worked. And lastly, to the officers, I wanted to ask, the letters of recommendations and the letters of objections, were they all local, like Tama Hamlas based? A large number were local, Tama Hamlas based, quite a large number. There were, I think, three from a country that's pretty far away. There were quite a, there were maybe a few scores, something like 30 from other places in the UK. But I can confirm that that was the case for support and objection. More objection was local, but some support were from quite a lot actually. I think as a result of the campaigning event, the door knocking, did contain local signatures. So, I think, fair to say, the vast majority were Tama Hamlas. Thank you, Chair. I can see a lot of residents are here, and very eager to speak, and they haven't been given the opportunity to speak. Can I propose that if we can allow few residents to speak on this application? Thank you, Chair. My advice would be that everyone was given the opportunity to register, but the procedure rules are set out really clearly. And I think, you know, you have already exercised your discretion to allow the Metropolitan Police to speak. I wouldn't advise reopening that it would be impossible to manage who and how. So, I think residents' views have been very, very clearly sort of expressed in the report for everyone to see. Thank you. Thank you. And we have another application to consider tonight as well. So, we have time to consider as well. So, thank you. Yeah, no problem. But I have got a few questions as well. Thank you. Could I second what Councillor Rahman said? Yeah. No. I have just made my decision. If the committee wants to vote for it, how does that work? What if the committee wants to vote for it? I would want to see and hear what a few residents have got to say. I don't want to hear everyone's views. I am sure there are a few residents who are very eager to speak on this application. I guess we have got legal advice already. So. And also, Chair, I get it we have a second application, but this application we need to consider is a very important application as well. I understand your point, but I have to go with the big of it. Thank you. Councillor, our requirements of speaking at this meeting to set out clearly in the Constitution and the procedure rules that we follow for… Very much. Okay. Can I ask a quick question? To the applicant, I get it. You have been asked similar questions already from my colleague on the other side. Regarding the consultation, I want to know a bit more. Can you tell me what the outcome was regarding the consultation, please? I can confirm that a number of people attended on-site and a lot of people left comments, some in support and some objecting. I can confirm that. Do you know what the ratio was for support and for rejection? As per the committee report, there are 270-odd objecting and 240-odd were supporting, if I remember the numbers correctly. Thank you. I have got another question for the applicant. So, I guess you've… The committee has rejected this application in the previous and you've come back again. It's completely up to you. You've put a new application in. But can you tell us why you didn't appeal against the refusal before and have put a new, completely new application with no amendments? Yes, the Embassy decided that they wanted the decision to be made locally and believed that the previous decision was wrong in planning policy terms and was made without merit and therefore wished the decision to be remade locally. I feel it would have meant going to the Secretary of State, therefore we wanted the decision to be made by the Council rather than the Secretary of State. Thank you. Are you finished, Councillor Loughman? Yes, I might have a few more questions. Okay. Councillor Cobbilloussing. Thank you, Chair. My question to the applicant. We understand the ambassadors require high level of security. Could you tell me how do you incorporate the security features while maintaining the functionality and any demonstration? I'm not sure I have the authority or the professional expertise to answer that question. But there will be security on site as you might imagine within embassy use as with any other sort of public facing use. And I don't see any reason why that can't work in allowing the embassy to operate as normally. Do you have any more questions? One more supplementary question, Chair. In terms of consultation, my colleague just added some questions to you. Are there anybody consulted in the local authority? Say any officers or councillors or mayor apart from residents? I believe that letters were sent out to those members also inviting us to the public exhibition, but I can't confirm whether they attended or not. Thank you. Councillor Iqbal Hussain. Thank you. Councillor Iqbal Hussain. Thank you, Chair. My first question to the applicant. It has been asked some of the, part of the question probably have been answered. But I would like to ask the applicant to highlight on the security advice taken. Have you taken security advice on board as advised by the Metropolitan Police? Yes, I can confirm. Can you be specific on this one? I can confirm that advice has been taken on board, which is why a protest management plan will be submitted in due course, why the public proposals being brought forward, including the bollards, et cetera, and also the details to do with CCTV, et cetera. So, a lot of that... You can ask the clarification. Sure. Could you please repeat by the bollard you mentioned something, so can you speak a little bit up? Sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Sorry. Yes, the bollards, the bollards around the edge of the side, on the back of the pavement, those are being put forward as part of the proposals. Thank you, Chair. My next question is about the objection. We have responded pretty close on the balance of probability, 264 in favour, 273 in against. My question to the officers. Among those objections, is there any... Can you highlight the material consideration, the objector highlighted on their objection? Thank you. I'll get that slide up again now, if you want. Up here, I've summarized the material. So, in support, a lot of support letters were very happy to see the site come back into active use. As I said, it's been vacant for over five years now. People were supportive of the restoration of historic buildings, which are heritage assets. People praised the high-quality appearance of the new buildings. They were happy about the idea of a cultural exchange building, allowing viewing of the archaeological ruins. Some people were of the view that there would be increased security around the site, which would have knock-on effects in reducing antisocial behaviour. And some people picked up on the fact that the scheme is of a very good standard of sustainability to bring environmental benefits. The objections were similar to what we've heard tonight. A very frequent objection was an impact on the highway network, congestion, and potentially disruption to the local footway. Impact on the surroundings from protests and terrorism. Impact of construction works, causing disruption to residential amenity. Some people raised concerns about loss of privacy and maybe too much light or light being blocked. And also it was raised the point about a GP surgery in a recently opened nursery in the vicinity of the site being potentially overrun due to the large uplift in people living at the site. Thank you. Shubha. Thank you, Chair. My question is to the officers. The letters of support that came, could you confirm if they were templated or were they all original? Yeah, no problem at all. So quite often, I think this was the result of the consultation work done by the applicant side. It would be a degree of a pro forma, sort of saying, I support this proposal, and then there'd be a box where people would then write in their own independent sort of comments, really. So it would be, I support the proposal, and then they'd write their reasons in like that. A large percentage were just like the way you'd send an email, just completely organic text. But there were, as I say, I think it would be fair to say a large number of the supports did have that pro forma format. Thanks. Councilor Amin Rahman. This is a question for the officers. Obviously, if this application was to go through, this could be potentially one of the largest embassy in England, maybe Europe. And we have heard one of the objectors giving us dates of protest, maybe every week, maybe every month. Can you elaborate a bit more on what sort of pressure that would put on the Met Police? It certainly would put a lot of pressure on locally. As I say, we're not set up locally to deal with that. The Metropolitan Police have got a lot of experience with dealing with protests in general. But this would have unique challenges. I mean, I can provide some figures that the original Chinese embassy at the moment has the amount of protests. So 2023, 2024, there were 47 protests that have taken place outside of the current embassy. Of those, 14 protests were planned with over 100 protesters, seven of which were planned with 200 protesters or more. And a further than seven were between 50 to 100. So that's at the original site now. Estimate that this new iconic site would attract sizeable more protesters than that. It would need a large infrastructure for our protection teams. They're not based near enough for a close response. At the moment, we are not set up to deal with it effectively. So if the embassy was to go through and they were to help you with the bollards and that, do you think it will help? There's always solutions. It would just need agreements out of this committee, further consultations, further conversations. Sorry, John Bolson, Met Police. We should say that would apply regardless of the user of the embassy, so to an embassy category. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Officer, for your presentation. Normally, this area is very historical and attractive, especially this area attracted significant number of visitors. If an embassy is set up here, it's likely to lead to frequent protest, demonstration, which will discourage people from visiting and resulting in a loss of tourism. How do you justify this? It's a pertinent question, given one of the previous reasons for refusal, specifically spoke about this point. But it's the clear view of officers that there's no evidence before the committee in terms of all the application documentation, in terms of evidence in the public domain that an embassy use in this location would result in any changes to visitor numbers. We don't think there's no evidence out there. We don't think there's any evidence out there that backs that up. So, essentially, with respect to that previous reason for refusal, the officer opinion is that we cannot hold that previous reason for refusal. We don't think there's any evidence to suggest that visitor numbers will change. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. If you allow me, I've got two questions. One to the map, please, and one to the officers. First question to the officers. 5.14 LBTH environmental health about the air quality. 5.15 about the – sorry, just a second. Yeah. 5.16 about the environmental health noise data. So, as both of these data is outdated, how can you justify presenting a paper without giving us the current data? Yeah, it's an excellent spot, and it's also a very pertinent question. So, obviously, the reason we're here tonight is unique. Like, we don't often end up in this situation where we have a called-in application that's going to be heard at a local inquiry. Even more unique is the timing within which that was done. That was done before the council, before us as officers had come to make a recommendation. And it was done before – it was done while the application was actually still in the valid period. And it was an ongoing conversation or discussion between the applicant team and officers, notifying them that your baseline information with respect to these issues, air quality and noise, is out of date because it was based on the previous application submission. Now, the applicant – essentially, the applicant just resubmitted everything. So, we informed them that you need to update this. The applicant did agree to undertake that, and then we got this letter saying, the application has been called in for the determination of the Secretary of State at a local inquiry. The applicant has now updated that information, but that information was received on the 3rd of December. So, just last week. And council teams, along with all relevant members of the local inquiry, essentially, will be coming to review on that new information. But that new information does include updated baseline information. Now, obviously, it's not ideal that we're here and that we are presenting a scheme with out-of-date information, but it's our view that essentially that kind of information with respect to the background information of noise and all of these kind of things, that will all be dealt with through the local inquiry. So, everything – the local inquiry is going to be, as already outlined, it's going to be an eight-day event. All of these considerations will come forward. And at the end of the day, a planning inspector will make a view on all of the elements that they need to, and that will include this kind of issue with respect to the updated information and whether that is actually adequate for the assessment of a planning application. So, as I said, unfortunately, just the timings meant that we couldn't actually have that. Yeah. Thank you. I understand that. Thank you. A lot of respect to the police. Because of your help and support, unfortunately, Tower Hamlets have – I think we have less number of police than we should need. This is a very antisocial behaviour in Awabara ASP and some of the time stabbing as well. So, my question would be – I'm just trying to understand, refresh my understanding. Say, like, a protest happening over there, and all the police is there to deal with the protest. Do we get more police from other side of London to keep us safe or keep order in Awabara? Or we have – police went over there, a lot of antisocial behaviour and bad things happening within Awabara? Did you understand my question? Yeah, absolutely. Please, thank you. There will be two really types of protests. The one with a spontaneous one, which isn't pre-planned, where we haven't been told it's going to occur. That would ordinarily be the local police. So, in this sense, it would be Tower Hamlets police. The guys and girls that respond to your 999 calls, they'll be told to go assess it to establish whether we can deal with it locally or whether we would go and our colleagues would then come who are experts of public order, policing. If it was an anniversary process like we heard there, it would be pre-planned. It would be assessed regarding the amount of people that are predicted to be attended, the level of protestors that – were there any intelligence to suggest it might get violent? In which case, then, you were looking to pull other officers from across the Met who will be abstracted to then deal with this protest. But it would all be done on a protest-by-protest case. So, that means I can get that interpretation. So, if it's not pre-planned, if you don't see any huge harm in there, so it could have an effect on our local area, what are you dealing with? Yeah, absolutely. If it's deemed that it's a small number of protestors, if it was pre-planned, then it would come to the local BCU, the local borough, to manage that. If it was spontaneous, then it would be absolutely the local borough that would respond and do that initial assessment. Thank you. Before I go to the next councillor, just to ask our police service a question as well. As my colleague said, as a local resident and a local councillor, we know how stressed our police service is. Do you have any contingency plan with the embassy, the applicant, of any future police need or how you deal with the protest? Sir. Ordinarily, with one of the embassies, our duties are obviously to uphold our obligations under the Vienna Convention in terms of the sanctity and the dignity of that particular site. We would not necessarily have direct liaison with the embassy in terms of where protests would happen and what security systems they would have, albeit our parliamentary and diplomatic protection teams would be responsible, again, for some of that. In terms of the response to protests, that would be done by accredited commanders, either locally or centrally, who would go down and view what the actual protest is going to look like, what sort of numbers, where it is meant to be held, what is going to be the likely behaviours that are down there, and then we would plan a policing response based on that, rather than in conjunction potentially with the applicant. Sir. OK. No question. No question. Anoopus. beispielsweise. Thanks, Yourra. چونasticانom. Very similar question. Just a quick question to the officers. We do, as the committee, we're just normal laymen. And we do miss a lot of information and things like that. today who do object to it, but we have other arms of the Metropolitan Police, including the Secure by Design and the Counter-Security Terrorism, who haven't raised any objections. Their position is as it was with the previous application, that they believe that the security issues can be managed by condition and obligation. But the question is, are police rejecting this application? The local borough command, the... So I can answer that one if you like. So I'm speaking for the Metropolitan Police. We've had numerous internal meetings. The Metropolitan Police are objecting to this. Chair, can I just pick up on a couple of points? In terms of the Vienna Convention, and Mr Austin might want to come in to support me in this instance, but in terms of the responsibilities on a host nation, in terms of diplomatic missions within a country, I think the working assumption or written in, if not literally in law, is that there's a responsibility on the host nation to safely police those diplomatic missions. So the responsibility will fall on, if you like, the state as a whole, and there isn't a presum... I mean, how that works through is obviously something sort of beyond planning, but it's the police in line with, I suppose, the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth, which need to do that. So I think it shouldn't be an expectation that falls wholly on the borough command. Absolutely. The police have the responsibility, or the state have the responsibility, under the Vienna Convention, as that was lined in the Council of Relations Act, 1961, I believe it is. That would be, irrespective of whichever occupant would be of the site, the police would still have a responsibility for that. Just, if I just may add, two supplementaries. I mean, when the application first, the first application was with us, we did have some discussions with the Metropolitan Police in terms of securing a planning obligation to assist with the resourcing. And initially there was some, well, the Metropolitan Police went away and took it away for some time. They came back and initially intimated that they were supportive of it. But then they did come back very clearly, precisely because of this tension with the Vienna Convention, because there was a vulnerability that then foreign nations might place that same obligation on our missions beyond. So they were very clear that they did not want that. No, I don't want to get into kind of a brief map that there was an issue around that. Thank you. Good night. Councillor Iqbal Hussein. Thank you, Chair. From the presentation, I understand that regardless of the outcome of this tonight meeting, the application shall be referred to the Secretary of State for the Minister for Housing and Community Under the Power of Section 77, under the Power of Section 77, it will be, it's going to be for the Security Council 11th of February. So my question is if it is going to be referred to the Secretary of State for the Minister of Housing Minister for Housing and Community, is originally behind for us to consider this application tonight? Why not after the consultation? Thank you. What was the correction, I think? Chair, can I just confirm with Councillor Hussain, so you're asking about the relationship of this decision this evening to the... Why you were... Secretary of State's call-in in the application. Is that correct? Can you explain that? Yeah. Slight nuance. It won't be referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has already exercised powers to call in the application. So the application is now technically with the Secretary of State to determine. The way the process for determining the application will involve a local inquiry and the Council and other parties will need to be represented at that inquiry. So the purpose of this evening is for us to determine what the Council's position should be going into that inquiry. So would we be telling the inquiry that permission should be granted subject to conditions or obligations or otherwise? So that's the purpose of this evening's decision. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hussain. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Already our BORA is struggling with insufficient resources, including lack of police, to address antisocial behaviour and crime effectively. Allowing an embassy, it could be targeted not only protest and demonstration, even terrorist attack. Then what will be your… Sorry, what was the question, please? If this embassy can be targeted for any terrorist attack, then what will be your role? Because you are saying that you don't have enough… I think… What measure are you going to take? What measure are you going to take? What method? What measure? What measures would we take? That… That… That… That… That… That… That… That holds me. Other conversation. What measure are you going to take? What method? What measure? What measures would we take? I mean, that's a whole other conversation. So, with respect to acts of terrorism, obviously they are criminal acts and they are dealt with via the legal system. We would not consider the acts of terrorism to really represent a material planning consideration which should impact your decision on the planning application tonight. Obviously, we are aware that there are horrendous things that may happen, but we don't think in this specific instance that you should be giving weight to the possibility of that in the determination of this application. If I could add, so the Met Police is designing out crime officers who have also reviewed the application and have submitted a response in terms of the specific steps which could be taken to mitigate the risk of crime towards the application. Councillor Schubel, same. No, I think we've passed it. I want to ask the officers which police force were they speaking to? What are they speaking to if the Met here is objecting to it? Could I, if I may, just please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. So, when we first had the application, we consult different arms essentially of the Metropolitan Police. One is the designing out crime officer. There's a slightly nuanced body, the CTSA, which I'm not sure the extent to which that is the police or isn't the police. So, we've had responses from, well, essentially their response was fed to us through the designing out crime officer. And though the designing out crime officer who is part of the Metropolitan Police was not objecting. And then subsequently their correspondence conversations with Mr. Gwenova here about your position. And then your letter or the letter came or the email came in which set out concerns. And then subsequently it turned into an objection. So, I suppose, from your perspective, an objection has sort of evolved over time. It wasn't an immediate objection. And there was different arms of the police saying slightly different things at different times. Is that fair? Yeah. Sorry, I can answer this. So, the Met Police is designing out crime officers as statutory consultees. So, every planning application will go into the designing out crime officers. They will then seek different opinions internally within the wider Met Police depending on the nature of the application. When this one, this application was resubmitted, the designing out crime officers, again, sought further consultation internally. And that went to slightly different parties this time who did flag concerns. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Gwenova. Eh, quick question for the objectors. If we were to run this application, and what kind of issues do you feel like you're going to be facing in your area. Like, for example, tell us a bit about how it will affect your traffic issues, how it will affect you guys. I get it. You guys are quite close with the TRA. You speak to a lot of people. Elaborate a little bit to us. How will it affect you guys? Thank you for your question. I think there's a lot of areas that we're very concerned about. And although I was reading somebody else's speech earlier, a lot of the residents locally are very concerned about the traffic in the area because, contrary to what the officers have said, the space outside the front of the Royal Mint Court, you'd be lucky to get 200 people outside there without them being on the road. So nothing like 2,000 could stand there before they spilled out onto the road, at which point the Met Police would have to come along and close the road for the safety of the pedestrians and the drivers. So we already get about seven days a year where there are things like the Marathon, Ride London, and other road events now where our part of town gets completely locked off because of those events. So for seven days, we can't move our cars out of that area in the Wapping, St Catherine's area. So if that was, as Jason said earlier in his objection, the number of the various demos and protests that you're likely to get outside the new embassy on that site is going to be enormous, particularly because it's an iconic place to demonstrate where they know they'll get good TV coverage of any demonstrations that are going on. So I think you would find that there would be many days in the year when that road junction would be blocked. Now, bearing in mind it's the arterial junction right at the top of Tower Bridge, it's the road that goes out to Canary Wharf and the airport, and it also connects with the City of London. So you would have gridlock, a bit like what we get when the Blackwall Tunnel is closed at the moment for works. The whole of East London comes to a standstill. We would be getting that weekly, monthly, if this is allowed to be built. So that's a major consideration. And, you know, the police resources are going to really struggle to cope with that because the PADP, the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Team, they have their site over in West London. They wouldn't even be able to get over to East London quickly to do something about it now that we've got the cycle superhighway and there's really only one lane coming out east from westbound along the embankment. So you would find it very difficult to move assets, police assets, from the west end of London, where all the other embassies are, to get them over to East London in time to deal with many things. So that is a massive thing that you should be worried about, in my view. And the residents in Cartwright Street, the ones on the western side, which is the St Mary Grace's Court, where they have a hundred flats there, their bedroom windows are some of their only nine metres from the perimeter wall of the embassy, which at the moment is a wooden fence. And actually, in the new plans, they're only saying they're going to replace it with a wooden fence, although that will be the service road that all the vehicles going into the embassy drive up that road. They're going to put a security lock that the cars will have to go through to be searched for explosive devices. Should they miss one of those devices, as the car comes out of the security lock and travels further up the service road, it will be nine metres from the windows of the flats in St Mary Grace's Court. And the applicant has completely ignored the Crilly Consulting security report that they commissioned on all of this, the residents paid for, and they have taken no notice of it at all. And every time we've said to them about security or demonstrations, they have just said to us, it's nothing to do with us, it'll be down to the Met Police to sort it. So, you should be very concerned that they are not going to do anything to help the residents, because I've been working on this for four years, since November 2020, and I know a great deal about it. And it keeps me awake at night, worrying what the residents are facing, particularly the two estates in Cartwright Street. Thank you. Thank you very much, colleague. Sorry? Thank you very much, colleague, for the opportunity of saying that. May I draw everybody's attention? Let me just say one thing. I'm sitting here as a councillor for the Isle of Dogs, but most of you know my interest in the history of the borough and the work I do. And I thank very much councillors and colleagues who come up and ask me questions, and residents across the borough who have asked me to help them on many historical facts on what goes on. But believe you me, the consequences of this application will be borough-wide. It will be felt everywhere, from end to end of the London Borough of Tower Hamlet. May I draw your attention quickly, councillors? 5.7. The current level of threat from terrorism in the UK is assessed as substantial, and attack is likely. London and crowded places may be considered as a target-rich environment and for greater potential for fatalities and casualties. That's interesting, isn't it? Let's go to 5.28. As embassies are often exposed to security threats, there are concerns over the safety of the residents of the Royal Mint Estate. And aside from additional TV, we will request the applicant gives further consideration to mitigating security threats to residents. There's nothing here. There is absolutely nothing here. And it is significant that at the previous application, the police did not merely held a holding thing. The police have now seen what can happen with demonstrations, particularly demonstrations at embassies in London, and the consequences of what it can be and what can happen to local people. Please, councillors, look at it tonight. You will not be making a final decision. You will be making a recommendation that will go to the government inspector for an eight-day inquiry, at which point the police, the security services, can say everything. People like Simon will have a much longer time to say what they can do. Others who are concerned can say what they can do. And we, councillors from across the board in Tower Hamlets, can raise our issues over an eight-day period, not in an hour and a half to two years tonight. So, police councillors, if you reject this application again, and believe you me, we were told by the applicant that the previous objections were without merit. Well, we've now got the Metropolitan Police that give us considerable merit. We've got these lines that I've just read out on community safety, which give us considerable merit, which we didn't have before. If we say we remain opposed, it sends it to the government with a message that Tower Hamlets is not a pushover. Other boroughs don't give... Other boroughs have these concerns. Let us not in Tower Hamlets. Let us stand back for the proud reputation of this borough, of fighting up for our residents against entrenched organisations. Chair, may I just put... I have just only 15 seconds. So, just one thing about spontaneous demonstrations. The point has been answered. Could you please... I would like... Sorry, Chair. I'm just mindful that everybody's had their opportunity to speak in accordance with the protocol. I think Councillor Gold's perhaps morphed slightly into a bit of an additional representation there. I think it would only be fair, in the interest of transparency, to ask the applicant if they wish to say anything in response to that. Do you want to say anything? I have nothing further to add, but thank you for the offer. Sorry, I have nothing further to add, but thank you for the invitation. Thank you. Sorry. I would now like Paul and Ian to share any final advice before we move to vote. Thank you, Chair. I've covered the procedure for this application. I think everybody's aware that the decision this evening will then inform the Council's statement of case in the forthcoming public inquiry. Just in summing up, there are no land use policy objections to an embassy in this location. We've identified no built or archaeological heritage impacts associated with the applications. There are security concerns, but you'll see in the recommendation that there are a number of conditions and planning obligations that have been informed by the response and the analysis of those particular concerns. So if permission were to be granted subsequently, then it would be subject to those conditions and a legal agreement to secure the obligations. We've heard a lot today about the impact on the local highway network and public realm and the surrounding areas, including the residential areas, arising from potential protests, which we accept can occur outside of any diplomatic mission of this type. However, the evidence, in our opinion, is weighted more towards the assessment of the highway authorities, so neither Transport for London or our own highway authority have objected, but again, subject to those conditions and mitigation measures. So I don't really have a great deal more to add on that. We've heard about the Vienna Convention, so it is down to the state to ensure the protection of embassies and how that's carried out in practice is down to the local police forces and experts on the ground as to how they wish to implement that. It's not a planning consideration from that point of view. Chair, I would just say, just procedurally, when you do come to a vote, there's actually two applications I mentioned at the beginning, so there's the planning application for the development and the change of use. There's a separate listed building consent application. The applications are made under different legislation for different reasons. The listed building consent application is purely for works for the listed buildings. It's not contingent on anything to do with the use of those buildings. So I would recommend that when we do come to it, we take two separate votes, one for the planning and one for the listed building consent application. Thank you, Chair. Do you have to add anything here? Thank you, Chair. Yes. Really reiterating what Paul has advised you and a reminder that this is a called-in application and we are looking at formulating the Council's response to that application. And quite properly, you are addressing the planning merits of this application. And any view you form tonight will direct how we as officers take the matter forward with the Secretary of State. But again, anything you decide tonight is in accordance with the local plan and all relevant material considerations. Yes, there will be conflicting material considerations, but that's a matter for you to bear up and for you to weigh in your decision. One thing I'm pleased to hear is that this is not a matter which we can just sit back and say it's not our problem because the Secretary of State is going to decide it's proper that you take a full active part because the Secretary of State will want to hear from the local planning authority. What is the local planning authority's view on this application? Do they support it? Do they not support it? If they support it, what are their reasons for supporting it? Are the proposed conditions or restrictions or obligations in Section 106 good and valid? If they are rejecting it, are they, or if they would be minded to reject it, are the reasons for refusal valid? Now, members, you have the, ordinarily in a matter like this, we take the vote on grant. If that is grant, if that is approved, we will then proceed to deal with the Secretary of State's call in the preparation of the statement in accordance with a minded to grant decision. If your decision is one where you indicate you do not, you would not be minded to grant, ordinarily we would then move to look at a deferral. Given the timescale between now and Friday, which I think was our statement of case is due, I think if you are not minded to grant, we will go straight to the refusal and take reasons for refusal. And a word of advice on the refusal, again, in accordance with the local plan, in accordance with material consideration, and look at the strongest reasons if you are going down that route, backed up by evidence that can be defended. That's important because at the end of it we are standing up in front of the Secretary of State's inspector, putting for all reasons and we need to be, this is true of grant or refusal, we need to be satisfied with the Secretary of State and her representative that we have done a good job on this. We know what we are talking about. A couple of other things very quickly. You are in a difficult position tonight and it is one where you are a local planning authority. Politics is divorced from your decision today. You are looking at the planning use of the land and you are looking at the planning merits of the application. Now you are in probably one of the most difficult positions any planning committee is to it as well as a similar application being presented by the applicant. But the question you have to ask yourself is what are the planning merits? Is this something that planning policy backs up? Is this something against it? Does not stop you having to make that difficult decision? Mention has briefly been made of the Vienna Convention. That is an international convention that overrides everything. The Met Police have quite openly said yes the responsibility sits with them, sits with the Home Office to provide that security. However there is also a responsibility for the receiving states and not us but the central government to facilitate the acquisition in accordance with its laws with the planning laws of the country of premises necessary for the mission or insist in securing the premises for a mission the mission being the embassy in question. And again you have been reminded several times tonight the identity of the applicant is not relevant it is a planning planning is applicant blind put simply I could own the land I could make the application for an embassy and I could lease it to whichever nationality I had entered into negotiations negotiations with so the it is the use of the land. Thank you. As Paul says we are voting a colleague you are voting on two applications one is the planning and another one is the grade to listed buildings and building consent so I will go for the first application is for the planning so can I see all those in favour of the first application that means planning not the grade all those in favour for the planning not the grade for the planning all those against thank you chair so the committee is voted so there is no abstention so yes Paul sorry chair so the committee has voted unanimously to reject the officer recommendation to grant planning yeah the next stage of the before you come on to the second can I obviously what we need to do now is establish the planning reasons for not accepting that so this is where we would urge you to think carefully as a committee around the evidence you've heard you've already done can you please yes so the procedure now chair would be to agree the reasons for not accepting the decisions sorry the recommendations to grant planning permission and to vote on those oh yeah as an alternative as an alternative decision and bearing in mind the situation that we're in so those reasons would be the ones that the council would need to be able to go and defend under cross examination as a public inquiry so do you go for to ask any member for the comment yes so normally chair we would I mean it can either be you or it can be any member of the committee obviously all members have voted not to accept the recommendations to grant so it's now to set out their planning reasons for doing that and then I'll guide you through the next steps chair after that thank you chair as yeah our principal lawyer explained it's a difficult decision for us to make we're not politically biased or motivated but we have to take consideration of the interest of the local residents and I as a reason for objecting or refusing to explain permission I would mention that it falls within the Tower of London conservation area within the immediate setting of Tower of London World Heritage so it will impact the World Heritage but threat or pose some sort of damage to the World Heritage and also it will impact the conservation London conservation area thank you chair the proposal would result in adverse impact on local tourism due to concerns over the effect of potential protest act of terrorism and related security mitigation measures on the sensitive backdrop of nationally significant tourist attraction e.g. Tower Bridge Tower of London contrary to the Tower Hamlets local plan notably policies SDH5 can you write down that and the vision for city fringe and London plan 2021 notable policies can you write down SD4 SD6 E10 and HC5 thank you thank you chair I wanted to say my refusal reasons are mainly because of listening to the objectors I want to I don't want to say what Peter Goll Councillor Peter Goll has said but his reasonings were something that helped me to come to my objections also I think the proposed embassy is the largest in UK maybe in Europe would by default results in increasing congestion of the local highway network in relation flow due to potential protests and events taking into consideration the existing busy and congested to the local hamlets plan notably policies STR1 DTR2 DTR4 and London plan 2021 notably policies T1 T2 and T4 and I would also like to say another main reason for objection is we've heard from the MEP police clearly that they have objected this application as well thank you before I have to echo my colleague as well on that especially my reasoning to refuse is I share the concern of your local police officials because we know as a local resident how our borough is affected and we have stretched especially the metropolitan police resources it's stressed now to cover the ASB and other crimes as well so a development of this nature will bring its own problem and I believe it will be very difficult for our local police officers to deal with it so this is one of the reasons another reason I like to highlight because the applicant hasn't mentioned in my view the one thing concerned my colleague Peter Goldraise is about the world heritage site I don't think we haven't done any how the development of this site can affect this world heritage site that we are so proud of and this is one of my concern as well to vote against you so I am going to councillor Subbu now thank you chair I don't think I can read out those codes like my colleagues did across the road but I can only echo what they are saying thank you chair the reason for my refusal is that it it will create significant challenges related to security and safety and infrastructure and social fabric of the area and social cohesion of this area thank you

now now I move on to vote we will now vote on the recommendation to refuse sorry is there any opportunity for officers to respond on some of the points that were raised no sorry sorry you've done your bid so now let us go sorry guys can I have you a bit of kindness please you have your time you have represented the council view we have to be clear I didn't want to dispute I just wanted to help with reasoning that's what I wanted to do now I just want to move on so we will now vote on the recommendation to refuse all this favour to refuse the recommendation you've had all the recommendation so all this favour I think all this favour yeah all this against none and are there any opposition none so can you note that please thank you chair so thank you for the committee's decision a number of reasons for refusal have been mentioned and I think when we go into the inquiry we want to be in the best possible position to defend those reasons and I just wanted to comment on a couple of those the impact on the world heritage site was mentioned on a number of occasions I would be helpful members could just help me with what precisely the impact will be so is it because we haven't had any objection for example from historic England could help help us please when we did this I allow picture yeah just please please please when we've done these previews councillors have been able to assist on this let me quote you the London plan itself is clear that any development proposals and I quote directly from the London plan in world heritage science and their cities including I've been advised by the official because you are not a member of the community store sorry sorry so some of the adverse effects that can come from the protests that can cause damage to heritage sites around the vicinity and to the property even is that all my main concern can I just add something as well my main concern was when police officers says because their resource will be really stressed and the vicinity of the development is very near for my liking to the world heritage site and if anything happens bound to go into this the neighboring site and that may affect the world heritage site and then the tourist destruction is you know it may affect the visitors as well to this side that was my main because if if I had the assurance from the police officer that they can manage it properly or the applicant as well if they have said anything that they can manage this properly then I would have thought differently I can is enough I was going to say if seen I'm not sure whether you can help us because you are the officers legal officers there this is the we have the jury board this is the members decision to refuse and we gave you a guideline I'm sure you are the expert you should help us as thank you chair I think in that case if I can sum up if you like the general points also our different poll in a way because you want to understand our view to support us in the capital so yes of course we just gave you our view and if you need any help you can ask our help but please prepare the cage so you can defend the committees be properly when it comes to the inquiry can I add what Paul mentioned about we mentioned about the world heritage so what I meant by because of the potential what is called protest and demonstration the town of London world heritage can be impacted by significant loss of footfall across the world that's what I meant the thing to say something thank you chair just to sum up then because I'm just mindful we've only got a few days now to submit our case to the secretary of state so if I was to summarize what everybody said then the committee are not convinced that there would be the right mechanisms plans or processes in place to manage the potential for large volumes of people who may come to this prominent site in a highly accessible location and cause protests and that has in your mind a number of knock-on impacts that range from impact on the world heritage site in terms of its heritage value impact in terms of its tourism value but also impact on the surrounding area in terms of where residents are living so what you're doing is you're identifying a number of issues that flow from a particular can you please precisely say that it's going to adverse effect on the local residents in multiple ways can you make this case as a can you highlight that as well please one of the reasons it's going to affect local residents in a different way anti-social behaviour security safety and one of the things they might have to pay extra service charge can I just when I've heard of the especially the objector and from the applicant I came to the conclusion the consultation they've done wasn't proper I think that was one of the detections I found from listening to the objector the concentration in local residents they should have done more I think that's one of the points that's the application as you know we have obviously rejected this application on many grounds I just wanted to say if you need more help the residents are here they are objecting this application we are objecting the application everyone is objecting this application and we have I think we've given enough reasonings as well for this but if you say you need more help then you need to come and step up on this one now as well members if I may we've obviously got a decision and reasons from you ultimately it is your decision but we do need to know your reasons why you are asking us given the officer recommendation was to grant why that is now fully appreciate but what we don't want to get in now is can I say a slang in match politely as to who does what who says what and now I think probably Paul the best way is we've got the list in front of us if we were to work on that in conjunction with the chair we would then produce those reasons for you thank thank you thank you thank you thank you very much thank you there's no more votes required on that one and I appreciate sort of the advice of my colleague and we can work with the reasons that have been given chair there is one more application if I can just ask Paul to bring it up on the screen this is purely for the listed building consent application there we go for the works I just want to emphasise this is not contingent on the change of use so it's a standalone application purely for heritage works for those buildings please be mindful that our conservation offices historic England historical palaces there's no objections from any of the heritage bodies just to those standalone works and I think it is fair to say and I hope I am sort of capturing sentiment correctly that we haven't had any objection from local residents or those who have spoken tonight about those specific works so those works are standalone if they're granted consent they don't affect what you've just done on the planning permission so I would ask you if you consider the application for the listed building consent for the heritage works no it's a separate application chair so okay so you've heard Paul Paul's explanation so can we move on to the second application was the standard application for the planning purely for the works to the within the heritage site so can I ask see all those in favor of the second application of heritage site all those against the next question no no I'm going to abstain on that one abstention so I'm going to abstain because I'm not fully what's about this one okay so you have I've noted one committee member in favor of granting listed building consent and chair you abstained I'm sorry I can't remember against right okay so we have five five against sorry can I ask members to give their reasons these can only be on heritage grounds and they can only be on grounds that would affect the list of buildings themselves within the site okay I mean those reasons can't be the same reasons because they can only be reasons to do with the list buildings check the heritage buildings basically refusing the main application has took an impact on this application so this is why I would say I have refused it because I don't see why they need to do any changes in there because of the main application has been refused thank thank thank thank thank you chair I think in a way I would say councillor rahman is probably the most defendable reason because I think councillor rahman you're saying the list of building consent is contingent on the main works application thank you that's the reason why I don't see there needs to be any changes thank you both decision yes so the committee has now voted on the majority vote to refuse listed building consent on the basis that the proposed alteration in buildings are contingent on the proposed change of use and developments with the associated planning application thank you chair can you have a 10 minute comfort break please everybody please sit down we're going to start our meeting very soon just to let you very careful can I request everybody to sit down can you come and please sit down we're going to start now thank you everyone I'm going to start now we now move on to the last item 5.2 which is 226 commercial street 98 101 to 105 Whitechapel High Street and Cannon Burnett Primary School Paul Buckingham will introduce the application for consideration and Robin Bennett who I believe is online planning case which will present the application as well can I ask Paul to start thank you very much chair so this is a planning application affecting a site at 2-6 commercial street 98 101 and 105 Whitechapel High Street in Cannon Barnett Primary School the application proposes the demolition of 101 Whitechapel High Street 6 commercial street and the partial demolition and partial retention of 102-105 Whitechapel High Street with internal alterations and 2-4 commercial street with the façade retained and redevelopment to provide buildings ranging from ground plus 17 store comprising office floor space a community hall relocation and expansion of the existing school playground and school annex associated car parking cycle parking hard and soft landscaping and other associated works the recommendation to the committee this evening is to refuse planning permission for this development chair if I may we've published an update report so some information has come in since the agenda was published so we've had 8 more representations so we've had 8 more representations 6 in support and 2 in objection and they're addressed in the update report we've also just a correction minor correction to table 6 on daylight and those corrections are shown in paragraph 2.2 of the update report and also in terms of public benefit the applicant has offered a number of bespoke provisions that would be within their enterprise and training support package so although the recommendation is to refuse it's important to take account of the public benefits associated with the scheme so these include affordable workspace initiatives a local talent incubator and the applicant is saying they would secure those through the 106 agreement chair before we start two councillors that have arrived and the rules are procedure if a councillor arrives late for a meeting they would not be able to participate in any item or application already under discussion so I'm afraid we're not able to councillor karmel hussain and councillor ran and won't be late for the meeting recommenced you are not allowed to speak outside from this please can you if I may sorry chair under the whole item to be able to take part in the meeting has started unfortunately the two will not be able to take part in this item under our rules and unfortunately we're in the supreme court on that case and it's currently the law is in our favour on that point the advices of the councillor raman and councillor camera that say were not present at the start of the item therefore should not take part and they should withdraw from the committee from this item the application has a side though the application has a side turn to chair if I may have you made your decision as I have been advised my two of my colleagues weren't present so I was advised by the legal officer and the officer for planning that we can start the meeting again so I decided to start the meeting again so that the two colleagues can participate in the debate so we now move on to the last item 5.2 which is 2 6 commercial street 19 101 105 White Chapel High Street and Cannon Burner Primaries School Paul Buckingham will introduce the application for consideration and Robin Bennett who is online will help him to present the application thank you Paul thank you Chair so I won't read out the address again in the interest of time but what I will do is just read out the proposed development in the application which is the demolition of 101 Whitechapel High Street 6 commercial streets in the western annex of the Cannon Barner Primary School the partial demolition and partial retention of numbers 102 to 105 Whitechapel High Street with internal alterations and 2 to 4 commercial street with the facade retained and the redevelopment to provide buildings ranging from ground plus 17 storeys comprising office floor space community hall relocation and expansion of the existing school playground and school annex associated car and cycle parking hard and soft landscaping and other associated works the recommendation to the committee this evening is to refuse planning permission subject to any direction by the Mayor of London there are chairs just going through just a few matters in the update report just for everybody so since we published the agenda we've received eight further letters of representation six are in support and two are in objection so these are in addition to the ones that are already listed in the main report there's a minor correction on the daylight impacts to surrounding properties is fairly negligible in terms of overall numbers as you'll see in paragraphs 2.2 but we just wanted to make sure you had the correct numbers in front of you and finally since the publication of the agenda the applicant has given some more detail over some of the bespoke provisions around their enterprise and training support package that they would be willing to enter into as part of a section 106 agreement so these include affordable workspace initiatives and a local talent incubator thank you chair thanks does robin want to come robin bennett he is online chair yeah i know he's online but does he want to say anything yes i shall start the presentation thank you good evening chair and members so moving on to the first slide this slide shows the planning application site boundaries it's bound on one side by commercial street and whitechapel high street on the other includes cannon barnet school and the ncp car park as well as some frontage buildings the application site is located largely within the whitechapel high street conservation area that's the area that is bound by blue on the plan shown on the screen and there's a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site including toynby hall whitechapel gallery and the whitechapel public library this is an existing site photo looking across towards the application site in the conservation area and another one looking north and you can see cannon barnet school through the gap site and this is a view looking across the road on commercial street of two to six commercial street and this is from within this more within the site boundary looking over the ncp car part towards the south of cannon barnet primary school so the proposal there's two plots within the application site on plot one is proposed to erect an office building up to 18 storeys and a single story community hall and on plot two it's proposed to have a part single part five story extension to cannon barnet school as well as a new school playground underlying the proposal is a land swap essentially the existing school playground which is between commercial street and cannon barnet primary school and the site of the 1960s annex are required to facilitate the office development and the playground would be relocated to the north as you can see on the diagram here sorry to the south of the school this is just a diagram to give an overview of the proposed development looking in a north westerly direction so you can see cannon barnet school as existing with its turrets and then the proposed office building next to it the relocated playground and the community hall as well as the school extension general arrangement for plot one which is the office and community hall site is shown on the screen now so you can see on the ground floor where the site presents itself to the high street and commercial street most of the ground floor is given over to the office lobby entrance there's also access and servicing areas on the ground floor and the community hall you can just see to the top of this picture which is accessed through an alleyway between existing buildings general arrangement for plot two so you've got the relocated playground and the extension to the school which brings the school building a bit close towards gunthorpe street and this is an existing view across white chapel high street with the lower level conservation area buildings in the foreground and this is a view of the proposed development so the office block rising above that and an existing view from the junction of Lehman street with the conservation area buildings and the proposed view of the office building that would rise from there and the same at night time existing view and proposed and looking south down commercial street existing and proposed and then slightly further afield looking over altab alley park existing view and proposed members will have noted in the committee report that there has been a refused scheme on this site previously that's shown in the image here from the end of Lehman street so that was for an office building as well and there were four reasons for refusal and those were in summary the impact on white chapel high street conservation area and the setting of listed buildings the fact that a tall building was proposed outside of a tall building zone daylight sunlight overshadowing impacts and loss of a language school on the site moving on to key considerations they are the public consultation land use design and heritage amenity and financial and non-financial considerations in terms of consultation two rounds were undertaken one when the application was submitted in March 2024 and one in October 24 when amendments were received letters were sent to neighbours as well as site notice directed and adverts placed in the local newspaper there's been 312 letters of representation received in support there's been 17 plus a petition with 71 individual signatures and in objection there's been 180 letters including from mulberry schools trust white chapel gallery the spitalfields trust toynby hall toynby studios crawford residents group and the east end preservation society main issues raised in support are the the application size is sustainable the height is in context the proposal is well designed in respect to the conservation area the public safety will be improved there'll be economic benefits and the school will also benefit it and the main issues raised in objection are the site's an inappropriate location for tall building including that it's taller than the refuse proposal design and heritage including adverse impacts on the conservation area through demolition height bulk design amenity impacts including daylight sunlight overshadowing to residential cannon barnet and toynby studios as well as privacy and overlooking and construction impacts loss of local business and education facilities and inadequate public benefits there's also been objections from historic england and the victorian society moving on to land use matters uses that are acceptable in principle or office space and included within the office space would be affordable workspace which is 10% of the floor space 37% discount and provided in perpetuity the other land use that's acceptable in principle is the replacement of the accommodation for cannon barnet primary school where the annex would be demolished and we provided in terms of loss of retail there's a existing retail on the site is located within the white chapel district center and partially within a secondary frontage and local plan it would be as you saw before replaced with an office lobby and ancillary areas this would be detrimental to the vitality and vibrancy of the district center and reduce local shops and services contrary to their policy shown on the screen in terms of loss of existing education and training these uses are protected under community facilities policies no replacement is proposed within the application nor has it been demonstrated that there's no longer a need the use of the proposed community hall has not been defined and so it can't be concluded that it better serves the need than the existing and this is contrary to the policy shown on the screen in terms of tall buildings policy the application site is not located within a tall building zone but it is immediately adjacent to the old gate tall building cluster and the diagram on the screen here shows the various heights of tall buildings within the adjacent tall building zone and the photo on the left hand side of the screen here is taken from within the tall building zone looking out towards the application site the lower scale conservation area buildings and the new tall buildings sort of either side of this the images on the right hand side of the screen are taken from the wind assessment and they just show a helpful model of the tall building zone in the context of the adjacent conservation area so the top one the existing the existing buildings on the site are shown in blue so you can see the marked differentiation between the conservation area and the tall building zone and then the bottom one shows the red in red the office building that's proposed within the conservation area next to the tall building zone so the proposed tall building is outside of a designated tall building zone and it doesn't take achieve exceptional architectural quality or enhance the character and distinctiveness of the area without detracting from important landmarks heritage assets and key views nor does it bring a positive contribution to the skyline during both day and night time which is contrary to the policies shown on the screen in terms of more detailed design and heritage matters as i mentioned earlier the sites in the conservation area and near listed buildings the cannon barnet school as existing as it is within the conservation area and the five-story extension is proposed on in front of this particular view from gunthorpe street this is considered to be detrimental to this key building within the conservation area can and barnet yard in the community hall are shown on the screen in this image here and they are acceptable in principle from a design perspective and heritage this is the proposed west elevation of the office building so the existing parapet height of the corner building within the conservation area is 16.42 meters and that's reflective of the general scale of the conservation area buildings the total height of what's proposed here is 68.5 meters so considerably more than the predominant height of the conservation area buildings and higher than the refused application on this site which was 61 and a half meters tall this is the south elevation so you can see the scale of the office building relative to the conservation area buildings as they extend eastwards of the high street and this is the east elevation which would face onto the relocated playground of cannon barnet school and the south elevation so you sorry north elevation so you can see that relative to the scale of cannon barnet there as well and the images that i showed earlier just to remind you of what the proposal looks like this is one from the high street and the one from the junction of lehman street so the layout scale bulk height and appearance and architectural features used don't result in a high quality or place sensitive design that respects or integrates positively with the finer grained low to medium rise context of the site and the proposal would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the white chapel high street conservation area and would result in harm to the setting of listed buildings this is contrary to the policies that are detailed on the screen in terms of amenity these images to give an idea of the the sense of enclosure that would occur to the relocated playground which i've marked on the the position of that on the image to the left and you can also see the existing school building shown in white and the effect of the the new extension to the school as well as the 18 storey office block having the sort of enclosing effect to that building and the image on the the right shows the array of windows and balconies which would be situated in very close proximity to the new playground overlooking that in terms of overshadowing just to highlight the the main playground uh compared to its current situation is reduced from achieving receiving 78 percent two hours sun on ground to 61 percent in its new position and the rooftop play area which currently receives 57 percent two hours sun on ground would be reduced to 13 percent uh there's there's obviously set out in the committee report a significant uh level of information around information on level impacts on residential amenity i just wanted to highlight here some of the ones to do with daylight to sensitive residential receptors and the perhaps the um the most significant of those are to properties at four gunthorpe street one one two white chapel high street and kensington apartments where a significant number of windows in those buildings would lose 40 percent of their daylight and obviously there are other properties that would also receive reductions in their daylight as well as cannon barn at primary school so in terms of conclusion on the amenity section the proposal wouldn't was sorry would result in material deterioration in levels of daylight and sunlight neighboring residential developments adversely affecting the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings it would result in unacceptable material deterioration in levels of daylight and sunlight to cannon barn at school and unacceptable levels of overshadowing to the proposed school playground and the existing rooftop play area as well as overlooking an invasion of privacy into the school building and outside play areas and a high degree of enclosure and overbearing impact which is contrary to the policy shown on the screen in terms of other matters there's no objections raised from consultees in respect to biodiversity energy air quality waste drainage and circular economy matters and highways matters are largely acceptable though the feasibility of highway tree planting needs further investigation in terms of public benefits they are quite a few that flow from the proposal and they include regeneration of an underutilized brownfield site in a highly accessible location removal of a public car park job creation which would be up to 2297 full-time equivalent in the completed development which would contribute significantly to the overall target of 3908 jobs in the city fringe area as well as training and apprenticeship opportunities there'd be new affordable workspace new community hall new accommodation for cannon barnet school relocation of the school playground and new open space in the form of the cannon barnet yard there would also be financial benefits in the terms of 300,000 pounds for delivering enhancements to the white chubel high street conservation area contribution towards carbon offset emission and borough and london sill contributions in terms of the planning balance the proposed development introduces a tall bulky and poorly designed office building into a low-scale conservation area it would result in harm to heritage assets as well as harmful adverse effects to existing residents and cannon barnet primary school the benefits that would flow from the development when taken together do not carry sufficient weight to outweigh the harm to designated heritage assets and other harms that have been identified the proposed development is therefore contrary to the development plan as a whole in terms of the office of recommendation this is that committee resolve to refuse planning permission for the reasons that are set out in full in the committee report and summarised below and subject to any direction by the mayor of london so in summary the first reason for refusal that's recommended is that the development is not high quality or place sensitive design by virtue of its layout scale bulk and height appearance and architectural features failing to respect or integrate positively with the finer grained low to medium rise context of the site second recommended reason is that it proposes a tall building outside of a designated tall building zone which would detract from landmarks heritage assets and key views and wouldn't achieve exceptional architectural quality or enhance the character and distinctiveness of the area or positively contribute to the skyline the third summarised reason for refusal is that there'll be a failure to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Whitechapel high street conservation area and harm to the setting of listed buildings that harm not being outweighed by the public benefits fourth in summary is the deterioration in daylight and sunlight to neighbouring residential developments fifth is concerning the impact to cannon barnet school in terms of deterioration in levels of daylight and sunlight unacceptable overshadowing to the first school playground overlooking an invasion of privacy into the school building and play areas and the introduction of a high degree of enclosure and overbearing impacts the west of the school site the sixth reason is concerning loss of ground floor retail space and the seventh is concerning loss of existing education and training facilities and that concludes the presentation thank you very much if i meant to declare interest maybe it's not dpi but i just remember one of the objective is watchable art gallery and i'm the council nominee for the watchable art gallery i'm a council nominee for the watchable art gallery so council have representation in the watchable so i'm not the member of our watchable art gallery okay if you're coming to this application with an open mind and you don't stand to benefit from it you're right to declare your interest in the gallery's response to the no i haven't had any discussion thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you i'm also a ward councillor in my ward so i don't have any dpi but i received number of phone calls from my constituent and also received number of emails so i don't have any particular interest on that no i received number of phone calls from my constituent so i didn't i'm open-minded so i didn't say anything to them and chair sorry chair whilst we're at it very quickly we ought to extend the meeting for an hour to conclude this item any dpi chair no dpi but i have received several email email in objection any calls or emails before we move on our allocated maximum time of three hours is almost finished so we hope you have to extend the meeting for another hour so you have to go for a boat so can you raise your hand for this one yeah one hour extension come on councillor go and raise your boat hand well if we don't then we're going to go anyway one hour extension so you've noted okay thank you the meeting has been extended for an hour so now i invite steward mandy on behalf of malwari canon barnet to address the committee in objection to the application year up to three minutes sir well thank you Cullen Barnett joined our family of schools a year ago, just over a year ago now. As members will know, Cullen Barnett is a school steeped in local history and with a principle of equity and a good education is a right for all. We stand by that as a trust and as a group of public servants who work on behalf of our children and our families. We are creative and we're innovative and we're forward thinking, but we do object to the scheme as it currently stands because we believe it's detrimental to our mission and vision to deliver an outstanding quality of education for our children, which is what we're all about, and particularly for children who are disadvantaged or in overcrowded housing or without their own play spaces in the home or those who have special educational needs. And the scheme as it stands, we are objecting really on five principles. One, the playground being overlooked. We have another primary school that is overlooked by a 12-storey block of residential flats. It's causing lots of anxiety with parents and concerns whether you believe or accept the risks of health and safety and overlooking and privacy. Parents want their children to be safe in school. There are risks of objects dropping or being blown. There are also issues of privacy. The report outlines an oppressive outdoor environment. Two, light levels. It should be noted that particularly with nursery and with early years play spaces, it's all through provision. The whole curriculum at three to five-year-olds is designed to go in and out of the classroom space and experience learning outdoors throughout the day and not just for one hour at lunchtime. Same with the playground space. We're concerned about wind, and particularly for vulnerable children or those who have sensory needs who may be subjected to high levels of wind, and we do not see a kind of robust response to that. We're concerned about the fire access and turn and the space, and particularly if the soft landscaping scheme is implemented the way it is expected to. And lastly, we're concerned about the construction program and the need to make sure that children have guaranteed play space of really good quality through the period of any construction. Thank you, sir. You have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll now invite Marion Walker to address the committee in objection to the application. You have three minutes. Thank you. I've lived in Tower Hamlet since 2013. Can you move up to this chair, please, so we can see you, and can you switch on the mic, please? Switch off the mic, please. Do you want me to move forward or just move forward? Oh. Or you can move forward. Okay. Restart my time. Thank you. So, yeah, like I said, I've lived in Tower Hamlet since 2013. I work locally and volunteer as well at a community space just off Whitechapel High Street, a couple doors down from where the proposed site is. I'm objecting today because take a walk down Whitechapel High Street. I'm there every week, and so I know how many empty shop fronts there are, just like we see all across our borough. The last thing we need is another office tower for developers, landlords, and investors to make money at the expense of our community. The tall building zone in Whitechapel has, over the last five years, had a net negative impact. Many of these buildings remain overwhelmingly empty or underoccupied because of astronomically high lease costs. These buildings create wind tunnels, blocked out natural light from our buildings and homes and shops. The planning application is submitted by company Alliance Property Asia Inc. A quick check of Companies House shows Alliance Property Asia only formed in November 2023 and discloses no company directors or officers. Where does this money come from, and in whose interest is it in? Alliance Property Asia is also headquartered in Panama, a practice historically used by businesses for corruption and tax avoidance. This lack of transparency instills no confidence in me that these developers genuinely care about anything other than the profits this site will generate for them, not an interest in providing services or community assets that matter to locals. While we may feel really cozy in this fancy town hall today, let's remember thousands of families across Tower Hamlets are waiting years for a home. A community hall with council flats above is the bare minimum. And with no flats earmarked for private sale, no shared ownership schemes, otherwise any development here should be established as a community land trust, not gatekept by corporate ownerships or private housing associations that neglect their residents. Finally, I know it's not fun to be reminded, but we're living in climate breakdown, and that's for the rest of our lives, and for the lives of all of the children and grandchildren of the people sitting in this room tonight. The gale force winds that we've had this week alone show us that this is our new normal. Mitigating climate emergency has to be central in all boroughed building decisions. More so, more than ever, we need green spaces, community gardens, community-owned energy projects, flood safeguarding infrastructure, just to name a few ideas. A school playground and community center are crumbs being thrown to us. The planning application also includes a car park, this unnecessary locks Tower Hamlets into decades more of carbon and air pollution that keeps our loved ones sick. We need to be looking for all possible ways to reduce reliance on cars and in ways that are equitable for those with accessibility needs and caring responsibilities. I reject the developers' claim this proposal is necessary and desirable, as stated in their 120-page PDF that I tried to get through. I'm annoyed I have to take time out of my week to state the obvious. This development is either neither necessary nor desirable to the constituents of Tower Hamlets, and I hope the committee will reject this application. Thank you very much. I will now invite Adnan Sheikh, the applicant, Oliver Shepard from TP9, and Shohidul Alamratton, the residents to address the committee in support of the application. You have six minutes altogether. Good evening, members of the planning committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to emphasize the economic and public benefits of this proposed scheme. I've worked for over nine and a half years on this planning application, and I passionately believe it will produce and transform this section of Whitechapel and produce lasting benefits for the area. In terms of jobs, the development would deliver approximately 3,000 jobs once operational. All this will boost the local economy. In terms of council payments and the land swap transaction, this project would deliver approximately 23.5 million to the local council and a payment of 8.8 million pound, plus a potential profit share in relation to the land swap arrangement. I don't think that that consideration was placed into the planning report, but it's something that I do want to emphasize. The 8.8 million figure was negotiated four to five years ago. We have not decided to renegotiate that amount. In terms of the school, we acknowledge the concerns of the school. I've worked with the school for the last seven and a half years before Mulberry Trust took over the school. The issues that Stuart has raised, those issues can all be fixed. We've written to the school, we've written to the local authority on how our scheme addresses each of those concerns. And should the committee decide to approve the application today, we'll be good neighbours with the school and work with them in a collaborative manner. In terms of air pollution, this is again linked to the school. Our application alleviates a lot of the air pollution that the children are suffering in the playground adjacent to commercial streets. We all know that the playground is one of the most highly polluted playgrounds in the UK, in London, and moving it to the south of the site will help on noise pollution and air pollution. In terms of conservation aspects of this transaction, I know there have been lots of concerns raised about conservation. And conservation policies are not meant to halt progress, but to guide responsible development. And this project achieves that balance. We've used the world's leading architect and the world's leading development team to produce something that will enhance the character of the area. Just in terms of height, very quickly, height, our site is surrounded by tall buildings from our neighbours. Our scheme will be smaller than Olgate Place, Olgate Tower and the Relay Building. And in conclusion, I would ask you to support this application. It will send a very strong message that Tower Hamlets is open for innovation, to bring the best talent into the area, and it will benefit local groups, local businesses, charities, and the community. Thank you. If I could just add to that. As has been described, this is in desperate and dire need of regeneration. And as things stand, it is a very run-down and unsafe part of Whitechapel. Much has been said about the conservation area in Heritage Charm, and we say that is only part of the equation. In its present form, the site detracts from the conservation area. It is degraded, mostly derelict, and very unsightly. And this is in stark contrast to the new investment on the other three corners of the crossroads. It is important to emphasise that the site is in the city fringe opportunity area. In plain speaking, this means growth, and our proposals have sought to strike the right balance between conservation and the growth area status. Reference to Foster and Partners should not go unnoticed. They have very carefully fused contemporary design for the rising city fringe and the retention of the best existing structures and the creation of a human scale at the street level. The creation of public realm in the heart of the site and on the streets is high quality, and this should carry significant weight. Provision of almost 3,000 jobs is a big vote of confidence in Whitechapel with benefits for local businesses by having so many more people in the area. The combined value of the public benefits, including the civil contributions, is over 32 million, and this is a very significant boost for the Whitechapel and the Barrow as a whole. Taken together, these benefits are very significant indeed, and I recommend this imaginative project to the committee and ask that the Office of Recommendation is overturned and planning permission granted here tonight. Thank you, Chair. I am supporting this application purely as a sports person, and I've been to, I've been running the cricket session in Cannon Barnard personally for 10, 12 years back. Back-to-back, I used to go and run PE lessons, I used to go and run after school club, and so on. I used to run activities in Athletic Centre, right, so that I know that area very well. I know that how congested that area is, how congested the school building is, you know, to go inside and then take another stair, to go the upstairs playground. The existing extension of the building would definitely benefit, for sure. The playground from the roadside to the backside definitely will help, though it is, it may get a little bit smaller. But meeting those, those parents, you know, that after school club, when they wait to come and pick them up, you know, that, seeing that, that road they pass by, if it's become cleaner and it's become nicer, I think that a lot of anti-social things can be taken care of. And also, I should say Go five seconds. I should say that, you know, that if there is a community centre, if that can be catered for a safer space for the young people and the adult, I think that is what the community requires, a safe space, because Thank you, sir, your time has run out. Thank you very much. And now, I'd like to invite the members to have, do you have any questions for objectives or applications of the officers? So first, Councillor Iqbal Hussein. Thank you, Chair. To the application to the questions, sorry, question to the applicant. You mentioned the size of the relocated playground will be smaller. Can you confirm the committee, how small would it be compared to the existing playground? What's the size of the existing playground? And what would the, what size would be the relocated playground? Thank you. Yeah, can you answer the question? The playground is slightly larger than the existing one that sits on Commercial Street. I just heard one of your colleagues is going to be slightly smaller. So, can you confirm how the difference between the two? Thank you. We'll check the exact measurements, but my understanding is it's very slightly larger. We'll, we'll have to check the exact figures. Is there any more questions? Yes, sure, go. Um, it's to, um, the objector. Um, could I confirm that you're from the school, right? I, uh... Sorry, I work for the trust. So, I work for Morby Schools Trust who run Canon Barnet. So, I work directly with the headteacher who couldn't be here this evening. And, um, to the gentleman, you, you mentioned you worked with the school for past seven years. Could you maybe further elaborate on that, please? Yeah, so I'm working for a charity called Capital District. So, we deliver P.E. lessons to the school part of curriculum, uh, time. And, uh, currently I'm not delivering, but I used to deliver a lot of school. Sorry, for the person next to you. Oh, excuse me. Sorry. You mentioned you worked with the school for past seven years. Could you maybe further elaborate on that, please? Uh, before, um, Mulberry took over the school, we were liaising with the school in relation to our previous application. Um, and we subsequently had discussions with Mulberry through the local authority. Um, we had a meeting over the summer, uh, and a subsequent meeting as well. Uh, so we've had two meetings with them. We have expended probably in the region of, I would say, 300,000 to 350,000 pounds of professional fees in supporting the school in terms of architectural advice, professional advice. We've paid for that. Um, so that's been, that's been ongoing for the last six, seven years. So we have a good understanding, we believe, of what the aims of Mulberry are. Um, and I understand one of the reasons why Mulberry took over the school with a falling student, the falling pupil numbers. Um, and I believe this application and this scheme with a sensible amount of collaboration with the school will help the school as well. We'll have over 3,000 people working in the offices. Um, and I think it will be, I think, I think it's a benefit for the school. Around the size of the, um, open space for the playground. So it's actually summarised in paragraph 741 of your report, where it refers to the amount of outdoor space of the school will be 1,403 metres, comparing to the existing figure of 1,150 square metres. Most of that is the playground. There are some other features that we're proposing to introduce, including a sensory garden and outdoor learning area, in reflection of the status of the school as a SEN or a special, um, educational needs centre. Chair, um, Mr Bennet might, might want to come in on this, but I think, I'm happy to be corrected. I think there's, uh, a reduction in the, in the playground at, at grade, but there's an additional, uh, space on the roof. I think by our calculations... I haven't got the precise breakdown, but comparing the overall... The current, the current, the current upgrade, by our measurements is 1,050 square metres, and what is proposed is 830, but there's an additional roof-stop, uh, play space being provided. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you for clarifying this, sir. Uh, anybody else? Yes. Could we listen? Thank you, chair. Uh, my question to, uh, applicant, uh, Mr. Ratan Bai, uh, my question to you, how you relate to the applicant? You mentioned you were working for Atlee Centre, and Atlee Centre, uh, they're out of funding for last three years, and I couldn't see you doing your activity on the, on the Atlee Centre's. Uh, and also, um, what is your company name? Oh, Capitalist Cricket. Um, so if I may, uh, answer your question, Atlee Centre, not, not in recently, when Richard Hansley was the chair, it was, I'm talking about a seven, eight years back. In Atlee Centre, and also, when I was working in, uh, Canon Burnett School, I'm talking about maybe eight to ten years back. All right? But our staffs are still delivering cricket sessions, they are coming to our program and attending our program. Okay, supplementary question, chair. Um, so, do you or your club receive any funding from the, uh, current, uh, developers? No. Uh, no. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Let me ask my second question. I understand, uh, my question to the applicant. The, your previous application was refused on the base of height. Uh, the height, uh, the height was at that time in 2021, I don't know when, the previous application, 21.48 meter. And, uh, the, now, proposed height of the, the development will be 68.5, which is 7.00, 7.02 meter higher than the previous application. Please, um, share some light on this to aid my understanding. Thank you. Thank you. So, the proposal, uh, was to lessen the impact of the development. So, it goes to follow that we consider that, simply because the building, the height is, of itself is not necessarily impactful. What we have done is, through the design work in the second scheme, we have, um, moved the highest point of the site further north along Commercial Street, so that it is less visible in the sensitive conservation area views that were highlighted in the area earlier along Whitechapel High Street, in particular, the setting of the Whitechapel Gallery, which is the most important heritage asset in the vicinity. And so, it is far less visible in combination in views east and west, um, than the previous scheme. So, essentially, the height is slightly taller, but further to the north, therefore less sensitive to heritage impact. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor. Thank you. Councillor. Could I ask, Chair, the officers to respond this one on this, the information given? Thank you. Do you want to respond? Chair, I might just defer to, uh, Kim, Kim, who's our urban design officer on this, and Vicky might, as a conservation officer, might contribute as well. No problem, Kim. You can respond, Kim. Um, so, in response to the, um, additional height, I think we have always raised concerns. It was not just about the setting of the, um, of the Grade II star listed, uh, Whitechapel Art Gallery. There are a number of other heritage assets, such as the Cannon Barnet School. Um, so, we talked about, um, the relationship between the Cannon Barnet School in terms of the overall amount of built form on the site itself. It's impact on the Cannon Barnet School. It's impact on, um, the adjacent, sort of, um, residential, um, buildings, as well as the overall impact on the conservation area. The fact is the conservation area, uh, you're looking at, uh, between, sort of, four, four, possibly five stories tall. And that's significantly shorter than what the applicant is proposing. It's over 4.2 times taller. Um, so, from our point of view, we found it difficult to, sort of, um, square the fact that they are actually addressing any of the harms. And again, you know, it, it, it is things like, you know, the impact on the, on the, um, school playground, um, impact on Toynbee Hall, which, you know, that, that we, we don't really have, um, a good assessment of that. Um, the impact on the spaces around the building. So, you know, the alleyway that's created behind it. Um, but generally, we just felt that the scale and massing is wrong and it doesn't respond to the conservation area and going taller, regardless of where you push and pull. That height does not really respond to the reasons for refusal. Thank you again. Councillor Lange. Chair, if I might just add to that. I mean, I think there's also an issue around how the design has been executed. I mean, I draw you to, uh, paragraph 7.7 and 7.7, 7.71. Whereas the, it, well, you can see it on the images here. So you've got the use of masonry and then you've got, uh, horizontal and vertical emphasis. Uh, and, and just the massing is less rationalized, if you will, than the previous application. So it's, uh, though, though it's, as the planning agent said, said it is set back to a certain degree from the high street. It's still, it's very much reading very prominently in this view. Uh, and, um, this is, this is not just the view of officers. It's also, if you refer to the comments we've received from historic England and Victorian society, of the, they also, they also identify the harm as being of the same order as it was with the previous application. Thank you, Chair. Um, a quick question to the applicant. Um, when you were presenting your application, you said something about some, some million you're giving towards. What, can you explain that a bit more, please? The total, um, combined value of the public benefits that we've described, including the financial benefits, plus SIL, um, and the cost of the land swap agreement, which was referred to, is 32.5 million. Why is it, um, the officers, you said the officers weren't aware of this? Um, I think it's, sorry, you want to go back? Um, it was, I don't think the consideration of 8.8 million was referred to in the planning officers committee report. That's what I meant to say. Um, but I think reference has been made in the report to a land swap arrangement, but the amount of money the applicant transfers to the council upon completion of the land swap arrangement, I don't think that number has been specified in the report. And that number is 8.8 million, subject to any profit share and subject to a legal agreement that, that has to be negotiated between the applicant and the council. Paul, can you respond? Yeah, I need my explanation on that. Yeah. Chair, the, that there is land within the site where the council is freeholder. So in order for the development to happen completely separately to, to grant a planning permission, there would, excuse me, there would need to be, um, that, that, that land would need to be purchased by the applicant. So, um, so, um, it is correct to say that, that, um, historically there is an agreement in principle to do that. However, the value of that land transaction is not a planning consideration. So, so you must not take that into account. That has to happen separately and independently, um, through different mechanisms within the council. So that's why we haven't referred to the 8.3 million pounds within the report, because, because it would be lawfully incorrect to do that. So that's a separate matter that the applicant would need to deal with, with, with the council as a landowner and not, not as a planning authority. So the council is the freeholder landowner of this property and? The, the, the council is the freeholder of land within the red line boundary. It's, it's, it's mainly a cannon barn at school and the, um, and the playground. So what, what's the current seal on it right now then? Is it, if, if, until they buy the land, they can't really, we can't really use that figure. Is that what you're saying? No, there, there, there are, well, there are financial benefits that you can consider. So, for example, the amount of seal that would, that would, that would be liable from the, from the development. Um, and also some of the other financial contributions that are listed in the report. But that very specific figure, which, which is a separate matter between the developer and the landowner, albeit the landowner is the council, is not, not, not for our consideration. That, that's a completely separate matter. If I may, is, Mr. Becken, I'm just trying to understand. They mentioned some money, so they are trying to buy some land from us. Is that correct? Correct. So if they buy anything and if they give money back to council, how can they contribute to council? Because that's our land, if we sell something, this is not their contribution, because they are buying something. So how can they justify saying, uh, they're contributing some money toward, to us? Well, I, I, I think your analysis is correct, because, because whatever the land is valued at, is whatever the land is valued at. Yeah, yeah. But, but I, I, my, my advice is, is just, don't, don't worry about it. That, that's a completely separate matter for the administration to deal with if they choose to deal with it under different provisions. What we need to think about is the planning considerations. So there are other benefits and there are, and you are allowed to take into account certain financial matters, such as sale and such as planning obligations. They're all listed in the report. I think Robin had, had those on the screen at one point as well. So, so you can certainly take those into account, but what you can't take into account is, is the land transaction. That has to happen completely separately. Yeah. No, no, it can't. No, it can't. Can you just confirm the seal amount, please? It's 300, 400, all together, 700. So it's nearly a million. The, the, the, sorry. The seal is 4.1 million. And first is 300 and then 400, 700 financial contribution and seal is 4 million. It's okay here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question to applicant, because a lot of objection regarding loss of business and education training and facilities as well. How do you justify this? Just in terms of the language school. Um, our understanding is there is no in-person language school being operated from the property, from any of our subtenants. If there are any language schools, we understand, if there are any language schools, we understand they may be, they may be occurring online. Um, one of our major, one of our major, one of our subtenants there has, is vacating. Um, and if there was an in-person language school, I think that use stopped around about 2021, 2022. Um, the other thing I'd like to say about language schools is we, we, we, you know, we get it that the community residents here, uh, in terms of English language support for getting jobs, uh, for business use, um, is a requirement here. So our community hall, which we're proposing, that could be used for community language courses. We're also making a contribution of a hundred thousand pounds to the council for it to, for it to use in its discretion towards local language courses to help residents. I'm just surprised we've not had a recommendation for site visit, but, um, most importantly, the question I had was, um, question I had was on the community centre, um, and it's just been answered. Uh, uh, thank you, Siobhan. Uh, I just want to ask, uh, I just want, sorry. See that joke, the chair won't understand. I just want to ask a question of the, of the offices. When you, on your presentation, it says the local business will be negatively impacted. Especially the world chapel area. Can you elaborate on that? How, apart from the community language or, I mean, the language school, how the other business will be affected? Yeah, I shall, um, shall I answer that? Um, yeah, so on the, um, only pre-noted from the, the site photos, there's a, a number of existing, uh, businesses on the, on the ground floor of the, um, of the existing premises on the, on the application site, um, as well as a number of, um, small businesses on the upper floors as well. So, I mean, from a, I think from a planning policy perspective and the way that we've, um, assessed this application, our, our principal concern really is about the loss of the retail space on the ground floor of the premise of the application site. So, replacing that with the office lobby that's proposed, um, where the relocation of the businesses on the upper floors are concerned, um, except with the exception of the, the language school, um, issue that's outstanding. So, it would be possible to secure a relocation strategy if this application was to be refused, but where the retail is concerned on the ground floor, the ground floor simply isn't designed to have any, um, retail incorporated into it. And I thought it was really interesting to, when I received all the objection letters to it, how many people were sort of saying how the ground floor retail in the existing buildings is really cherished by them. Things like the DIY shop and, um, sort of various other local facilities that they access. So, um, yeah, so from a planning policy point of view, like it's obviously, it's going to create a, a big gap in the, in the Whitechapel district center, having no retail frontage left within, within the site. So that's the, the source of our concerns. Dr. Akabiru Singh. Thank you, Chair. I think, uh, I think, uh, this application, uh, you, uh, attempted to third, third time, uh, you refused the previous three times, uh, this application. And you are trying to increase the height of the building now 12%, right? Am I right? You're asking to have the height? The height is increased by seven meters or so. Mm-hmm. Compared to the last review scheme. Correct. Okay. So one more thing, uh, I think the objectives that touched on, the nose pollution and also the traffic, a loss of light and wind. So how we can address those, those measures? So the application has been subject to a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. And, and, and that has been assessed independently by advisors to the council. And in the slides that you saw earlier as part of the office. Um, relating to environmental issues arising from redevelopment of the site were found to be, uh, acceptable. Um, our view on, on daylight, which you mentioned, is that particularly so far as the school playground is concerned, you saw there was a blue and yellow map up at one point during the officer presentation. Over 60% of the playground, um, the new playground will enjoy sunlight, um, for over two hours each day in the important slot between 9am and 2pm in the afternoon, um, when it's important for kids who are out and about in, uh, the school playground. And that is slightly less than previously, but it's still considerably over the, what we call the BRE limits for overshadowing of, of, of important public space. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My question to our officers, we have a lot of tall buildings opposite this site. Is this scheme is shorter than these tall buildings? Yeah, no, we, we recognize there are tall buildings on, on three edges, but obviously those, those tall buildings are within the, within the tall, within the preferred office location and in the tall building zone. So that's where we direct tall buildings to, and what we've got is a juxtaposition, if you like, between, uh, central business district or the tall, tall building area and the conservation area. So we very much, you know, we have a responsibility to protect heritage and the established, uh, story height within the conservation area, it is, is altogether lower. Uh, so, so, so this is not uncommon, if you like, that you get this juxtaposition between tall buildings and lower buildings, but obviously there's a, there's a vital distinction between buildings which sit in the tall building zone and those were sitting in the conservation area. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The distinction between the two is quite important. This is a conservation area. The ambient height is three to five stories. Um, the grain is fine. Um, and what we're looking at is very tall building outside of a tall building zone within a conservation area. It's opposed to policy contrary to policy. And it's, it's, it needs to be said that obviously it's, it's, it's in a very prominent location in the conservation area, conservation areas on the corner of two main roads. You've got time before, which is listed to the rear. You've got great to great two star, uh, white chapel gallery. So clearly it's prominence within, within the conservation area. It is, and it's importance within the conservation area is very significant. May I add to that point? Sorry. Do you want to go off? I was going to make two, I was going to make two points in relation to that. One, the reference to the height in the conservation area. Bear in mind that in the 2021 determination officers recommended it be granted. Yeah. So a building was seven meters tall, uh, seven meters shorter than the existing one was recommended for approval. And it was a decision of that committee at that time to overturn that recommendation to grant. Second point, the quality of the existing environment in this part of this conservation area is, as I said earlier, very heavily degraded. Third point, um, this council's, in my view, balanced over the years, the sort of the natural tension in the historic environment in the city fringe. There are tall buildings approved in recent years in conservation areas, both say, for example, the Blossom Street development and Norton Folgate. And the Huntington Estate development next to the Tilt T building. I think both of those sites are either wholly or partly in conservation areas. So this balancing act has been done and done successfully before. And the quality, which is possibly what my colleague was going to refer to, the quality associated with this scheme, is in our view significantly better than any of the other ones that are in this locality that you see today. I want to ask you about consultation and in, we can talk about the playground ourselves, but in terms of consultation, did you consult the young people, the families that would have children using that playground in terms of design and stuff? Can you respond to that? Can you respond to that? Yes, I believe so. Yes, I believe so. And secondly, an architect was appointed to work with the school, I believe it was Haverstock, were appointed by the school. We also took inputs from the local education authority as well. They critiqued what we were doing in terms of the scheme. And we had in-person meetings with the school as well. We wish we could have more, but we were constrained on time. And we will continue to have a dialogue with the school. Thank you, Chair. It's probably a leading question related to the question you asked before. Are any of the current traders or shop owners keeping their premises? If not, what the arrangements are in place to accommodate those traders or shop owners? Thank you. We have excellent relationships with each of our tenants. We've been there for a good number of years on the site. They've been fully aware over the last six, seven, eight, nine years that we have redevelopment plans for the site. And we have good long term relationships with them. We are helping them on relocating. We've introduced them to local letting agents who know the area of East London very well. But we will give whatever assistance our tenants need to move. We've had no, as landlords, we've had no adverse comments back. Sports Direct on the corner, which is a national brand. And the NCP Car Park, well, they're big operators. They're used to redevelopment. They're used to development sites, particularly NCP. So they're, again, comfortable with our strategy. And they'll be looking for alternative premises. Councillor Goulam-Kibriye Choudhury. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in relation to the tall buildings, my question to our officers. Does it comply with our local London plan? Chair, in our assessment, no, it doesn't. Thank you. I'm nearing the allocated. I mentioned the time as well. So, yeah, I will allow you, but I want to, when you answer, can you please be brief? Because we are running out the time. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, yes. I know with the timing we need to be quick and everything else. Just a quick one. I know the site very well. And I feel like I don't know it no more. With all the questions and everything else with it. So I would like to defer it for a site visit, if it's possible. I'd like to go and see the site because I get it. It's one of those local places and I've been around it. But I feel like I've not seen the back of it and everything properly. So I would like to defer it for a site visit, if it's possible. If it's possible, if it's possible in terms of next steps, I mean, we ideally we would like to keep decision-making flowing. We feel that we've given lots of information. There are lots of images and they do show the site from so many different angles. Very happy to go over those again. I think site visit was offered prior to the committee, although I appreciate that members are very busy and it's not always possible to turn up. But it was offered prior to the committee. However, I think I'm correct in saying, Ian, if when a member does move that, if it's seconded and voted on and approved, then you can defer it. But you may want to hear from other members who may think the opposite. So in order to give a balanced. Anybody have the opposite? One of the reasons why I don't mind is because not only do we get to see, I'm not worried about the front on the watchables street side of things, it's behind it. Because I know there used to be quite a few businesses through the alleyway and whatnot. So we can actually see how it may be once, because I know the playground is on Commercial Street currently, right? We looked at the maps. So I'll get a better understanding how it may be if, if it's moved to the, whichever area around it is, yeah. I attended to the site visit offer as the only member. So for me, it was just a few months ago. So for me, I would like to thank the officers and everyone, and also would like to ask the committee to make sure to come as well. Sure. Make sure you, make sure Councillor Hussein and everyone else comes to the site visit. Because, yeah. Yeah. I attended to the site visit offer as the only member. So for me, it would be sensible not to vote on this, if there is a voting. Thank you. Yeah, I can understand. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. That's correct, Chair. So if the committee did resolve for a site visit, then the next meeting is 15th January. Obviously, we would do everything we can to try and accommodate the site visit between now and then. So we can bring it back properly to that meeting. Just mindful, obviously, we've got the Christmas and New Year break, but we'll have to, I guess, we'll have to see what can be accommodated. Okay. I'm not in favour of site visit. You have to defy it now for the site visit. That's correct, Chair. So as I said, it will stand deferred and we'll arrange that site visit at the earliest opportunity for members to attend. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to just go for conclusion. So now that this agenda is deferred for the next meeting, thank you for your time. That will conclude the business for this meeting today. The next meeting will take place on Wednesday, 15th January, 2025. Thank you again for attending. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. for a next meeting. Thank you for your time. That will conclude the business for this meeting today. The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 15th of January 2025. Thank you again for attending. Thank you very much.