Transcript

Good evening. Assalamu alaikum. Welcome to the Shajig Development Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Jahad Chaudhry and I will be chairing this meeting today. 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 their absence if I feel it is necessary. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I will likely to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting procedure. Participants must address the meetings from myself as the chair. If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulty, you must contact the democracy service officers as soon as possible by email. However, officers may not be able to respond to such requests. Participants must address the meeting room. You should keep your microphone and key participants. You should keep your microphone and camera switched off at all other times. Please do not use the meeting chat facility. Any information added to the chat facility will be discarded. If you experience any technical difficulty, you must contact either myself or the democratic service officers as soon as possible. Participants must address the meeting room. I will ask the committee members to introduce themselves. Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda items and nature of the interest. Before you do, I will declare my interest as well. I have received a lot of email about all the agenda, but I have not answered any email or contacted anybody. So can I ask a brief from on my right, Councillor Amin. Yes. Good evening, everyone. My name is Councillor Amin. No DPI, but I have received calls on all agendas, messages and emails. Thank you. Councillor MECILIruam framed. Councillor Amin, no DPI, but I have received some emails too. apart from receive some email communication for various item agenda. Thank you. Good evening, Chair. And everyone, this is Councillor Iqbal Hussain from Lensbury World. I have nothing to declare apart from receiving some emails on different items. Thank you. Councillor Iqbal Hussain from Lensbury World. Nothing to declare other than emails received on the items. Thank you, everyone. No apologies. Now the apologies. I think only Councillor Asma Begum. No, Chair. Just Councillor Asma Begum. Agenda Item 2 is minutes from the previous meeting. Can we approve the minutes from both 25th November and 9th December 2024 meetings, please? Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Agenda Item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidelines. I will now ask Paul Begum, Head of the Department of Management, Planning and Building, to present the guidance, please. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Good evening to committee members, members of the public and officers who are attending this evening. So this item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be taken in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and relevant material considerations. The process for considering the report with recommendations and public speaking will run in the following way. So I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary of the recommendation. Officers will then present the report and then we will hear from those who have registered to speak in objection who can address the committee for up to three minutes each. And then anyone who has registered to speak in support, including the applicant, can also address the committee for up to three minutes each with the equivalent total time. Then we will hear from any councillors who have registered. And finally the committee may ask points of clarification of the speakers. The committee will then go on to consider the recommendation, including any further questions and debate and further advice from officers. And the committee will reach their decision based on a majority vote, which I will confirm back to everybody in the meeting. Just a few points. So if the committee proposed to change certain aspects of an officer recommendation, for example, adding or deleting or amending conditions or planning obligations or reasons for refusal, then the task of formalizing those changes is delegated to the corporate director of housing and regeneration. If the committee proposed to take a decision that would appear to go against the provisions of the development plan or could have other legal implications, then the item may be deferred for a further report. To deal with those issues. There is an update report that's been circulated this evening and published online. And I'll address those points, Chair, when we come to the individual items. Thank you very much. Thank you, Paul. So now we're going to discuss the deferred items. And according to the council constitution, the council constitution does not allow public speaking for any deferred application. So I'll now move to the member questions. Does the member have any questions in the deferred item? Okay, let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. Just to know what's going on. Whoever's online, can you please put your microphone on? Thank you. So, sorry about that. As I said before, council constitution does not allow any public speaking on deferred application. So, I'll now move into the member questions. Okay, so Paul, can you introduce the application? Okay. Thank you, Chair. So, as this is a deferred item, the report from last time, including the update report, is already on the agenda. But, however, there is a deferred item report and a further update report on this agenda. So, just to introduce this, Chair. So, as you'll remember, this is an application that's 2-6 Commercial Street, 98, 101, 105 Whitechapel High Street and Cannon Barnet Primary School. And the application was for demolition of 101 Whitechapel High Street, 6 Commercial Street in the Western Annex of the School. Partial demolition and partial retention of 102-105 Whitechapel High Street and 2-4 Commercial Street with the facade retained and redevelopment to provide buildings ranging from ground, plus 17 storeys with office floor space, a community hall, and relocation and expansion of the existing school playground and school annex, along with car parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works. The committee will recall that the officer recommendation was to refuse planning permission for a number of reasons that were set out in the main report. Chair, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that since you considered the application last time on the 9th of December, we've received a number of additional representations, some in support and some objecting. But then, since the publication of this agenda, we've received a further 13 letters of representation. Those are all in objection and cover a range of matters that are set out in the update report. If we may, we have a very, very short presentation that just covers those for you and then you can go on to consider. Are there any support? Any supporting? Yes. So, if I can defer to my colleague, Mr. Bennett. I think he has the numbers for the additional ones. Well, the overall numbers, actually. If I give you the overall numbers. So, we now have a total of 321 representations. 300 of those are in objection and 21 in support. And that's from all of the ones that were received both before the 9th of December and between the 9th of December and now. Sorry, Chair. There's a table on page 4 of the update report under paragraph 1.6 that will just summarize those numbers for you. Thank you. Chair, we have, the officer has a very short presentation for you just as a reminder for the committee and it deals with some of those additional representations as well. Thank you. Can you just give your brief presentation, please? Thank you, Mr. Buckingham. Good evening, Chair and members. Just by way of reminder, the site is shown in red on the screen here. And it sits within the Whitechapel High Street Conservation Area, which is the blue boundary. Some listed buildings nearby. As Mr. Buckingham said, there's been 321 representations in total. 300 in objection and 21 in support. The latest objections which came through include matters which have been addressed in the original committee report. But there was also just to point out some additional information on existing occupiers within the development plot. Just to also note that Historic England objected to the proposal and recommend refusal as did the Victorian society. And just a very brief summary of what the proposal was. There's two plots. Plot one is for an office building. Plot two is for a community. Sorry, plot one also includes a community hall. Plot two is for an extension to come up on at school and relocation of the playground. And this image just gives an overview of the scale of what's proposed. The office building being the tallest building with the largest mass and the extension to the school next to the original school building, which will be retained. And this is a photo of the original school building and plan showing the southern elevation of the extension. And this is just the elevation to commercial street, just to give you an idea of the scale of what's proposed. And I've noticed on there the height of the refuse scheme, which was 61.48 metres, and the height of the proposal, which is 68.5 metres, so taller. And this is an existing view, looking along the high street conservation area, and then the proposed building. And then a view looking from the end of Lehman's and proposed. Officers' recommendation is that committee refused to, sorry, resolved to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in full in the committee report. And summarised below, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London. And in summary, there's seven reasons for refusal. These are that the building is not high quality or place sensitive design. Tall building is proposed outside of a tall building zone. The heritage harm that would be incurred. Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts. The impacts to Cannon Barnet Primary School, which would be overlooking an enclosure. And loss of ground floor retail space. And the loss of education and training facilities from the site. Thank you very much. I can see there's no representation about this. So, the Council Constitution does not allow any public speaking for the deferred application. I will now move to the member questions. Do member any further questions for the officers? Anybody wants to ask any questions? Do you have the applicant present today? No. The recommendation here to decline or reject the planning on loss of floor retail spaces. Hasn't the applicant made an alternate provision for the existing conservation area? Thank you. Yes, thank you for the question. So, I'm just going to go back to the grand floor plan. So, hopefully you can, basically the left hand side of this image shows the office block that's proposed. So, there's no retail space proposed to go in that grand floor at all. So, I'm sure you, well we saw from the site visit that there's a lot of existing retail occupiers on the grand floor. Which, as pointed out in the representations on the application are valued assets in that local community. So, you can see the sort of void white space on the bottom of this plan, the bottom left. That's the office lobby. So, instead of having the retail there which is a sort of benefit and a useful asset for the local community. It would be replaced with an office lobby. That's problematic from a planning policy point of view because the site is within the district centre. So, in the district centre we expect to have active grand floor retail frontage. I can see in vitality of the area. In terms of heritage harm was the second question, wasn't it? So, I mean I suppose just dwelling on this image to start with. So, we've got, you can see the Cannon Barnet Primary School. The original building which is just to the side of the office building. It's the sort of grey building with the turrets. So, that's within the conservation area. That the school was added to the conservation area in the most recent review of the conservation area boundaries. Because of its sort of architectural and historic interest. You can see the scale of the proposed office building relative to the scale of the school. So, it's a lot larger. It would overwhelm the school. And also the extension to the school to the eastern side closest to Gunthorpe Street. It would result in loss of enclosure building which is a key asset within the conservation area. You've also, I suppose off the screen here, you've also got Toynbee Hall to the rear to the north as well. Which would be sort of loomed over in certain views by the proposed office. This photo here shows the original Cannon Barnet Primary School. So, that key view from Gunthorpe Street would be lost by the addition of the replacement school annex close to Gunthorpe Street. This image, you can see the lower section, the scale of the older buildings along Commercial Street. Which also follows along Whitechapel High Street. So, if I just move my... So, the height of the existing buildings is 16.42 metres. And that parapet height is very consistent all the way up towards the sort of fruit and wool exchange northwards. And along the high street within the conservation area. So, for the sort of historic scale. And the proposed building is 68.5 metres. So, significantly beyond the scale of the conservation area buildings. And the relationship between the retained facades and the architectural sort of form and appearance of the upper floors is very harmful as well. The interface between the old and the new setting in addition to the overall scale. Which you can see in the images. So, here you've obviously got a tall building outside of the conservation area. The relay building. Which bookmarks the end of the conservation area. But you can see the fine grain. The sort of narrow plot widths. The low scale of the conservation area. And then the new building sitting behind it. It results in the loss of the skyline. It undermines the appreciation of the historic form of the area. And the architectural appearance is very confused. The sort of the different little. The different emphasis. The sort of crown on the building being very heavy and out of scale with the conservation area. And the same in this view. So, the existing view. You can see the conservation area scale and character very clearly here. And how the proposal would interrupt that and would harm that. Thank you very much. Councillor Amin Rahman. Yes, thank you chair. Just a quick question. See the section 106. What is the contribution to the section 106? If you could remind us again properly please. So, because it's recommended for refusal. There haven't been the. Like in an application. A report committee. Where something's recommended for approval. We would have a fully worked up. List of heads of terms. That would go into a legal agreement. But we did outline the possible public benefits. That would flow from this. Last time. In the committee presentation. So, what is the contribution to the section 106. What is the contribution to the section 106? If you could remind us again properly please. So, because it's recommended for refusal. There haven't been the. Like in an application. A report committee. Where something's recommended for approval. We would have a fully worked up. List of heads of terms. That would go into a legal agreement. But we did outline the possible public benefits. That would flow from this. Last time. In the committee presentation. So, there were. A number of financial aspects. So, there was. 300,000 pounds for. Enhancements to the conservation area. Carbon offset contribution. But. I mean that. That is something that is. Required by policy. Because they're. Not delivering zero carbon on site. Four million. Well just over four million. For. Tower Hamlets. Community infrastructure levy. And then the mayoral. Community infrastructure level. Of. Seven point. Eight million. And then there was a. Um. A number of. Sort of non financial benefits. Some of those would. If. Um. If this was. Recommended for approval. Some of those would end up in. A legal agreement. So, there's the. Affordable work space. Which would have. Um. Been. 10% of the floor space. It's a 37% discount. Of the lifetime of the developments. And the new community hall. So, they're. They're the main things. So, if. If. If we were to. Grant this application. Can we put on. That the. Uh. 106 is. Yeah. So, that. That. That. The case. I think. Councilor. The. The position is. As you. As you're aware. From the papers. This is a. Recommended for refusal. Um. The. The. The. Site. Visio. Was actually. Beneficial. Um. And. One thing I want to ask was. Um. Having seen the plan. Um. What's the height difference. Between. The. The. Site. Visio. Was actually. Beneficial. Um. And. One thing I want to ask was. Um. Having seen the plan. Um. The. Proposed. Development. And. The. Development. The. Development block of flats. Which is. On the south. Side. Of. What would. Be the height difference. Would you know? I don't have it in. Meters. But if. I. Um. Normally we just. We just been seeing. The other. The. West side. Not. The south side. Yeah. So. Um. If we look at. Um. This is an image that I. Or. A plan that I presented in the. December committee. So. Um. The. The sort of fade. The faded out buildings. Are the. The ones. Beyond the application site. So. And the ones that are. The tall building. And then. Just slightly off. To the. The right of middle. Is the. Proposed. Office block. So. And then. Just right at that again. The old gate. The old gate. Place development. Um. So. It's. Probably. It's quite difficult to see. But the. The. The closest. Residential building. In the old gate. Place. Is just a. A gray. Outline. Above the office. So. Um. Residential. Story height. That's. Three stories. Um. The. Diagram. The. So the. You've got. Cannon Barnett School. Which is the low. Building. In solid. Sort of. There's. Solid. Where on commercial street. Commercial street. Is to the. You've got the. The office building. Which is the darker. Tall building. On the screen. And commercial street. Is just to the. Uh. Right of that. Um. This one. Anybody else? Um. Just a quick one. Um. You know. Uh. The developers. Do they. Expect. The school. To help out. With any financial. Um. With any financial. Help. Or anything like that. You know. Anything like that. Or. Would they be doing. Um. With any financial help. Or anything like that. You know. If. Anything like that. Or. Um. Well. If. If this. If this. If this was. An application. That was recommended. For approval. Then one thing. That would be. Necessary. Would be. To make sure. That the. New school. Annex. And the playground. Were provided. Before the. Work could start. On the office block. Because obviously. There would need to be. Continuity of. Education space. For. For the school. And. How that would be. Paid for. That is a. Separate matter. Outside of. The planning process. Thank you. Chair. Um. Just to understand. You know. We need to protect. Our heritage. At the same time. We need to protect. Our schools. And also. We need to understand. The. This land. Is quite empty. For. For a long time. And. I have received. So many. Complaints. From the parents. Some of the. Drug dealers. Drug pushers. Drug sellers. They are using. This land. Quite often. And at morning. The parents. Who. Drop up. Their children. And pick up. Their children. They are shamed. Because. On the street. Uh. My question. To you. Is. The planning. Application. Is it. Against. The local. Planning. Criteria. Directly. Against. Local. Planning. Criteria. In. Yes. Is. Is. The. Short. Answer. Because. It's. It's. A. In. The local. Plan. Um. In. Terms. Of. Like. I mean. We saw. From the side. Visit. There's a. A car park. At the moment. So. And. In the committee. Report. We. We. Do say. That. In. We. Are. In principle. Not. Against. Something. Happening. Is. Over. Scaled. We. Are. Of. The view. That. It. Does. Not. Need. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. To. that I believe are quite an advanced level around because the council, I think as we said last time, the council owns some land within the site. So to make the development happen, there would have to be what is sort of referred to as a land swap. And that does include a playground in terms of the car park. And in terms of how, though, the new annex would be paid for and how the playground would be paid for, it is not something that would have been the remit of this committee. I think, as Mr Bennet said, what would happen is if the application had been recommended for approval, it would be more about our role, it would be more about the sequencing to ensure that you get the continuity of the education provision. So it's more about the phasing of the development. But in terms of any financial considerations around how the school would be, you know, how that would happen, that's about without our committee. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just want to pick up on the same thing, Chair, what you just spoke about and what Mr Beckenham spoke about. If it was to be granted, can we also say that the council doesn't help with any financial obligation? Because I don't think... You mean the moving of the... to the playground? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so... There's no... There's never been an expectation that there would be a planning obligation towards the funding of that. So that doesn't appear in any way in the report and isn't the subject of any of our discussions. Whether... So that's the planning authority. Whether the council decides otherwise around how it might facilitate either financially or in other ways outside of the planning process, that's for a different place, really. So that would be an executive decision, not committee decision. Chair, if I'm just making... I mean, I think maybe it slightly arches back to a previous question you asked, Councillor Rahman, in terms of delegating to the Corporate Director of Housing Regeneration in terms of the public benefit, in terms of the obligations. I mean, the kind of the skeleton or the shape of those obligations, if you refer to page 122, they are all set out there, yeah, and they need to be directly related to development. And there is a clear... Although Mr Bennett was correct, obviously we haven't gone to the level of detail in working the map. Yeah, the headlines are all there and they won't depart from that. And as you'll see in there, there wouldn't be a financial obligation for the developer to contribute towards the payment for creating that new annex. What this proposal does involve is the demolition of the existing annex and the construction of a new annex. How that's, if you like, financially delivered is not the subject of this planning permission. But if planning permission was granted, there would be a condition imposed that was says before the existing demolition of the annex takes place, the new annex was completed, if you like, so that the school wasn't disadvantaged during that process. Thank you, Chair. My question to you, Officers. In the current playground, we have visited last time two schools and we have seen the current playground for children. So what is the difference between the proposed playground and current playground? Is it going to be big or smaller than the current one? At ground level, it would be smaller. Can you a little bit just elaborate? What is the ground level and upper level? Just as Mr. Ben, I guess, I mean, obviously, the main difference is the change of location of it from it front in on to, well, there's a wall actually provides a kind of acoustic barrier between commercial street and that's where that's where the existing playground and it'll actually relocate to where the car parker is because obviously and that land swap that place with the existing playground will form a major, well, a contribution to where the proposed office development would be. He's saying ground level. Is there any other playground upper level or anything? How many playgrounds? Yeah, so they're proposing also that there's some play space at roof level on the new annex. Yeah. So, fifth floor. So, I've got a simple question. On the existing drawings, what do the circles mean? So, this is a diagram from the application and the red circles are basically where the applicant is saying that there's sort of... Did you check with the applicant or ask them how would they mitigate the... Is to come back mitigate those circumstances children's presence construction going on in the presence of school? We were submitted with the application. That was reviewed externally by consultants on behalf of the council and also our environmental health team have looked at the application but the outcome of both of those reviews is that any impacts could be controlled by condition. I mean, clearly, the application site would have to be developed sort of during the working week which is when the school would be in operation so that there would be impacts but they would be controlled within sort of standard parameters which any development would be but it would be Thank you, Chair. Surrounding this scheme we have some tall buildings. Is this scheme in relation to height is shorter or higher? So, you are correct. There are tall buildings surrounding. Those buildings are within a tall building. Yeah. So, yeah. Those buildings are within the Olgate tall building cluster so that's a planned area of tall buildings. It was designed with a sort of transformative approach in mind to get rid of say the old gyratory that used to be there. It was designated for sort of very specific reasons that were going to deliver benefits. This site isn't within the tall building zone. It's within a conservation area. The building that's proposed here is about three residential storeys lower than the residential buildings to the south and a couple of storeys lower than the relay building opposite. So, I mean, I think that sort of the scale of the relay building is a useful one because as we saw from the site visit it's sort of imagining the scale of building broadly around that height right up against the boundary of the school but the contexts are different. Like I say, one is within a tall building zone and this site is in a conservation area so it is a low scale area and the conservation area is intended to protect that character. If I may just come in there. I mean, you will see across London and in our borough indeed that you're off it's not that the development plan or officers have an objection in principle if you like to a juxtaposition between lower story lower buildings and taller buildings and that's what we've got here but obviously the reason why the development plan and the planning system obviously it designates certain areas as conservation areas you recognise their historic value and the scale of the development that you've got in them that lower story that Mr Bennett was on about that smaller plot and obviously on occasions as in this instance it sits in very close proximity to areas where we do direct large scale development tall buildings and so forth but the key difference is that this sits within that conservation area in fact makes an important contribution to the conservation area and the tall buildings that have been referenced today by members sit firmly outside that within tall buildings so just to confirm if you could go so which could you point out the building you're talking about is he on the left of the image or is he on the right of the image sorry could you explain what do you mean the name of the building the building you mentioned the relay building the relay building is that on the left of the building on the right yeah it's the one on the left just on screen so we've got nothing which is on this one it's the one that has the okay so I was wondering if we had anything which is on the Lehman Street side which is opposite Sports Direct on the left side of the image I think there is there is one or two buildings on Lehman Street side on the corner yeah that's the one and right opposite which is there is a building yeah so this one so it falls out of the yeah this slide is one that I showed last time just to show that there are tall buildings in the locality in the Oldgate tall building cluster the site as you can see is outside of that I've outlined it in red and this was a photo and this was a photo that I showed last time from within the tall building so you can see where the Sports Direct building is on the corner and the sort of low scale you can see the church of Christ Church there just beyond the conservation area and then those images on the right were showing the scale the top one in blue is the existing application buildings within the conservation area and the buildings within the tall building zone beyond that and then the one at the bottom is showing in red the scale of the proposed office building and in orange the scale of the proposed extension to the school so bringing the tall building zone firmly within the conservation area which we consider is harmful Councillor Cobir on paragraph 2.22 shows there is a proposed community building so I need to know what is the purpose of the community building and who are going to manage and maintain it's going to be a youth centre or community engagement at any sort of what is the purpose of this building we need to know it hasn't been defined its purpose hasn't been defined through the application phase so there is there will be a community building over there yeah there's a community building it's about 100 square meters within the application but it's intended use or occupiers or who may wish to rent or use that hasn't been defined through the application if there's no more questions from the members shall we move on can I ask Paul and Janustin the senior layer to share any final advice before we move to vote Paul you first thank you chair I just wanted to cover a few things very briefly but the first one was just to say and I probably should have mentioned this last time so when we heard from objectors speaking last time one of the objectors made a reference to the if you like the status of the applicants and they were an offshore company and some other comments and that's recorded in the minutes and that's fine because anyone speaking to your committee can say whatever they wish to say but I just wanted to confirm and I think you know this that the circumstances the applicant is not a material planning consideration and when in general terms when planning permissions are granted if they go with the land they're not personal to the applicant just turning to this scheme just to summarise and I hope it's sort of come through the discussion this is a brownfield site it is in city fringe opportunity area and I think it's common ground between officers and the applicant that the site would benefit from redevelopment and that would be in line with strategic policies however when we're looking at this very particular scheme this particular application unfortunately it raises through detailed assessment a whole series of harmful impacts to the conservation area conflicts with policy impacts on local amenity including the quite difficult relationship that has been talked about this evening with the proposed school playground and also policy of design I think as Mr Gwynn has alluded to the fact that it's in the conservation area doesn't mean that nothing can happen it's just whether this is the right scheme for this site given all those harms we've acknowledged the benefits chair we've acknowledged that the scheme does have certain benefits that the flow from it but ultimately it's a balance of whether this is sufficient you will know that Tower Hamlets has a track record of dealing with tall buildings as well I think we're quite proud of that and we always look for incredible design quality and to mitigate impacts wherever possible unfortunately that hasn't happened in our assessment anyway in this application so we are left with no option to recommend refusal to you and you'll see the reasons set out the chair yes yes chair it's a purely procedural matter as this was a deferred item I should have said at the start only that those members who were present and at the last meeting physically present and took part may take part that's purely confirming that for the purposes of the committee also for the purposes of people present all seven of this committee were and all seven are entitled to take part as you have done and to vote so I'm going to just repeat that only members physically present at the meeting on 9 December are about to vote so we're going to move to vote now can I see all those in favour of the application favour means granting the permission sorry chair recommendations to refuse so favour of officer recommendation all these in favour of officer recommendation means three pieces can I just clarify this is to confirm that you are in favour of the officer recommendation to refuse the application okay all those against okay are there any abstention for can you please confirm the committee decision thank you chair so on a vote of six sorry done in favour and six against one abstention the committee has voted not to accept the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission it now falls to the committee to propose second and vote on alternative decision which I suppose is the alternatives that you have in front of you having voted against refusal to either further defer it for and I will speak about this matter in a minute or if you are minded to look at recommending the grantor or voted for the grantor permission then those reasons will clearly need to be put forward members before we get that far could I just say that Mr Bennett has made it clear that this is contrary to the development plan because it is outside the tall building zone and the rules governing how you determine applications require that in these circumstances if you are minded to make a decision against officer recommendation and I think that's the indication we're getting because of the vote that you've taken the officer recommendation then any decision you make by such a decision so as Mr Buckingham has said we're going to need to know the reasons why you are not in accordance with the officer recommendation and then further consideration the matter must be adjourned to a further meeting so that a supplemental report can be set out setting out the potential you have indicated you are minded not to follow the officer recommendation in this matter the logical assumption although you have not yet said if you wish to defer the matter is that you are minded to just take the members through the process so now it's incumbent on you to explain the reasons obviously for going against that so that's clear to everybody in the room sorry and then I would agree with what my colleague has said just in terms of process so on the basis that the committee are minded to grant planning permission what we don't have is a full set planning obligations section 106 heads of terms and conditions because obviously that wasn't worked through in the report there are some headlines in there that we talked about this evening so I would strongly recommend that if members are minded to grant planning permission then you allow officers to go away and come back with a short report that details all of those to make sure that you're comfortable with what the applicant is imposed you wanted to speak I think abandon piece of land more effectively and understand officers work hard to do their best to check and balance and I appreciate that but in long terms it is a very tiny borough we don't have a lot of space available so this development will in long term will use this piece of abundant land in a meaningful way which will bring subject to negotiation financial benefit to the community thank you yeah going back to the site visit I was grateful that the school I think he was the head teacher took us round and I asked the officer do we have any one of our colleagues do we have any issues because as far as I remember it used to be full of antisocial behaviour drug use and drug dealing and upon our visit we see it's thriving next to the school we saw the car park was people who were just parking it from outside who were going to work and drug dealers just driving in and out and to be frank it felt quite unsafe there and I think it could do with removing this car park and reducing antisocial behaviour within the area that's it thank you chair yes similar I would like to echo what my colleagues have said but I think this area needs an uplift regeneration there's a lot of antisocial behaviour problems there I think with the regeneration that will stop the antisocial behaviour I know although the officer has spoke about the conservation area I think this area has a lot of tall buildings around it not like you know you could cross the road over and you see other tall buildings so although it doesn't fall in the zone but I think it's not far from it thank you thank you I think yes I equate my colleague as well during this site visit I've seen myself actually drug taking was going on when we were visiting this side as we are coming out of the building through the car park me Councillor Subo and Councillor COVID were coming together and we saw on our right two people were injecting drug in the daylight so it was thinking as well but I'm concerned about the moving of the playground so I'd like to ask my colleagues as Paul said if we are minded to grant permission I think it'd be better for officers to make prepare a short report for us and then we can discuss it again what do you think shall we go for that on board on board I'm saying Paul suggested if we are minded to grant the planning permission so that the officers can go and prepare a short report for us on what beaches we can grant the permission with respect I don't think we have a choice in that it says must the rules say must it says must not you can do it if you want but it must I afraid so cannot make any decision today this meeting is it you you've indicated although I think you've yet to take a chance to you see according to constitution that you have to go and provide you know me what you have not yet done chair is actually take a vote to say that well minded to grant permission although you've given the reasons why adjourn for a report to come to the next meeting okay so it it won't be this meeting you make a decision it will be the next one and again it will be the same so we should go for a board if we are minded to grant planning permission also shall leave up for it all those in favour of minded to grant planning permission did you understand Wagner okay can I say are you are you okay thank you chair so that's unanimous vote members indicating they're minded to grant planning permission and then as Mr. Austin was saying in accordance with rule 10 point two of the development procedure rules which passed the constitution the item should stand deferred so that we can go away and prepare you a report that would set out the conditions and planning obligations that we would recommend I would sincerely hope so there has been discussion with the applicants around planning obligations so I'm sure we can conclude that for you by the next meeting so thank you very much all this item has been adjourned can I just ask something so now we have intended to grant the planning permission can you delegate that to the corporate director to do the section 106 agreement rather than waiting for the next meeting can you decide it today and delegate that to corporate director of housing 106 obligation no I thought officers deal with the 106 corporate director for the housing is the officer he is the officer I suppose in simple terms yes we do officers deal with the 106 but the issue here is we haven't prepared a report for you that sets out what the 106 should be my point is now all the members anonymously showed their interest to bring us a report what is the planning condition is I think that will be the officer's recommendation of the condition so if we have planned to grant the permission why don't we delegate that to the corporate director of housing to set out this planning obligation it's the same thing we haven't voted to grant the planning permission we have voted to intended to grant the planning permission so that officers can prepare a proper report on that basis you grant the planning permission this is the requirement they have to prepare a report before you grant the planning permission then 206 money money money come in okay chair I understand what is your point I am proposing something what I proposed is that a is there an illegality to stop that or is there a chance of doing that that comes after what we would do after today is the report the updated report would have to be prepared because at the moment the report you have in front of you is predicated towards or it says a refusal so we do not have detailed discussions with the applicant team in respect of any section 106 obligations and conditions so when the report comes to you next time it will not just cover any proposed conditions it will also inform you fully about the section 106 obligations that will be entered into if you confirm agree the position on the one hand now we have got this far one would hope that we come back with an agreed set of conditions and agreed heads of terms for the section 106 agreement but it may well be that there is some insurmountable object in the section 106 negotiations for example which means that we have to come back to the committee and say look we've got this much agreed this is totally insurmountable and we would recommend refusal because we cannot get over this stumbling block so the intention next time is as you're perhaps familiar with when the report recommends a grant it will detail what you are approving conditions section 106 obligations and also contain more detail about Mayor of London Sill and Tower Hamlet Sill so you will have effectively a report saying you're minded to grant this is what we're securing are you happy with this as well but we won't be able to complete to finish section 106 agreement before the next meeting that will be ongoing and again you're right after the meeting that will be delegated down to the corporate director to finish thank you very much shall we move to the next agenda agenda item 5 was the planning application for decision we have two applications to consider this evening we now move on to the agenda item 5.1 planning application for consideration and cabin cleaning planning case services will present the application Paul can thank you thank you chair so as the chair said item 5.1 is an application affecting BOCOM and gasworks BOCOM and lane this is an application made under section 73 so what that means is a planning commission has already been granted and the applicant is coming back to vary some of the planning conditions but the effect of doing that is actually to allow some changes to the future phases of the development so you'll see in the report the description is quite long I don't propose to read all that out to you but just in summary it's an application to vary conditions 2, 12, 26, 33 and 34 and 35 of the planning permission that was granted on the 4th of April 2022 and the effect of those changes would be to change the layout and the height and the scale of some of the buildings that were previously approved to change the parameters of some of the outline buildings and also to change the parameters of the landscaping and some of the below ground works in the basement for car parking the recommendation to your committee is to grant planning commission subject to conditions and a deed of variations for 106 to update the planning obligations associated with the development chair if I may there is an update report this evening that just deals with a few clarifications and corrections I'll just whiz through that quite quickly for you and you can ask questions later so there was a minor correction that the phase 2 affordable housing I think was quoted in one of the paragraphs as 80% it should be 81% there was some discrepancies in the floor space figures for the other non-residential and non-residential uses that are within the scheme some clarifications on daylight and sunlight impacts although none of those change the substantive nature of the impacts it's just some of the detailed points within those I think that's broadly it for the update report oh I'm sorry overshadowing impacts but none of those clarifications change the overall recommendation to grant planning permission oh right and my colleague has just mentioned that the heading of the main report erroneously refers to the corporate director of place but you know that post doesn't exist anymore it's the corporate director of housing and regeneration it's probably just an older template apologies chair Kevin can you present the application please good evening chair and members of the committee this presentation should take approximately 15 minutes I'll first start with an overview of development site including some photographs of the existing site and the surrounding context application site is Bocom and Gasworks approximately 3.9 hectares former gasworks site located within Bromley South Ward just south of Tarham and Sempergy Park which is here the application site already has planning permission for a residential led comprehensive redevelopment of the site which was approved in April 2022 and here's a view of the cleared site and the immediate surrounding context this view is prior to the commencement of the phase 1 construction works which are located in this part of the site where my pointer is here and here's another view looking north with the application site in the foreground and the cemetery park in the background here and this last view is looking west and it shows the cleared site in the mid ground here with the Lincoln estate here in the foreground and the Leopold estate and the cemetery in the background here just to note the application site is an allocated site within the local plan it's a strategic houses site and it's been highlighted for the delivery of high density housing alongside complimentary commercial and community uses and strategic open space in terms of site history as I mentioned previously the site already has permission for residential development the original application was approved in April 2022 and this was a part detailed and part outline application so these three buildings here where my pointer is on the screen was the detailed element of the scheme and the rest of the site was approved in outline so the detailed element of the original scheme proposed to deliver 235 residential units and the remaining outline element of the scheme was delivering 144,000 square meters of floor space which was predominantly residential alongside a mix of commercial and community space with the option of a sixth form within one of the later phases here so following this original permission a reserve matters application came forward in December 2022 for an outline phase of the scheme which would become the first phase of the development and this is outlined here so this is the phase one development which is currently under construction so this phase is delivering 312 residential units across three buildings as well as a large portion as you'll see this large portion of the central park and as I said this is currently under construction and aims to be completed and occupation next year there have also been a number of smaller applications redesigning some of the landscaping and improving the central park space which have also been approved in terms of this section section 73 application the proposal is to redesign the detailed phase of development including an increase in the number of homes and an increase in the number of affordable homes as well as redesigning the landscaping and expanding the publicly accessible open space within the outline element of the scheme the proposals include increases in building heights parameters for a number of the outlined buildings alongside some landscaping changes and the inclusion of one of the outline buildings so this building here building G has been designed and will be included within the detailed phase and delivered next so no changes at all are proposed to this phase one element these three buildings which as I said are under construction to be completed early next year in terms of public consultation it's been undertaken as per the slide there's been 1,155 neighbour letters the applicant has also undertaken their own consultation process which I've set out in detail within the officers report but in summary they use various methods including flyers door knocking public events and a dedicated web page there's 15 objections and the issues raised are summarised on the slide just to set out a bit of context one of the key drivers for this application were the changes in fire regulations and the requirement for second staircases so this meant that there was a need to redesign the detailed element which as originally approved would only have one staircase so as part of this design review the applicant also looked at the buildings approved in outline and is also seeking some increases in the amount of development on these elements of the scheme so this graphic on the screen shows the illustrative scheme for the whole site so on the left is the approved scheme so as I said no changes are proposed to phase one the detailed phase has been redesigned so this is the detailed phase here which is these three buildings on the right hand side we have the proposed illustrative scene and you'll see there's been a redesign of building F and the inclusion of building G as well as a redesign of building D and E and so this incorporates now second staircases and there's been an increase in the number of homes and affordable homes being delivered in the next phase in terms of the buildings in the outline you'll be able to see when you compare the approved development to the proposed development on the screen here that there are also some increases in height on some of the outline buildings as well and I'll go into more detail on that further on in my presentation so just to run through the changes in the detailed phase this slide shows the approved and proposed northern elevation for building D and E so this is the approved elevation on the top here and this is the proposed as you can see the proposed scheme is broadly similar in height to the approved scheme and you'll also notice building F which has been redesigned in the background here the slide shows the approved building F so this is the approved scheme this is what building F would have looked like and in the middle here is the redesigned building F so this was a more linear building and it's now being delivered as a standalone car building and here on the right is the design for building G which was previously approved in outline but will now be delivered as part of this detailed phase of development and here's just a CGI taken from within the central park space looking towards building F which is the building here and building G on the right and building D and E would be located behind here and this is just another view of the illustrative scheme the proposed scheme which shows the redesign of the phase 2 buildings and in the context of the wider site so the approved scheme included a podium between buildings D, E and F which was not publicly accessible and this has been redesigned to allow additional publicly accessible green space and increase the amount of publicly accessible green space from 1.7 hectares to 2.3 hectares in terms of the proposed changes within the outline element of the scheme this slide here shows a list setting out the proposed height increases across the outline phase so maximum parameter heights would increase on the majority of the buildings in the outline phase which would increase potential building heights from between 2 and 5 storeys so the height increases vary across the buildings from between 6 and 14 metres so building H which is the one I'm pointing out on the screen which is along Knapp Road this would see the largest increase in parameter height of approximately 14 metres so that would equate to about a 5 storey increase in the height of this building other buildings such as these three along the eastern boundary JK and L would see increases of between 6 and 10 storeys equating to approximately 2 and 3 storey increases in the height of these buildings as mentioned previously no changes proposed to this phase 1 and this slide just sets out the floor space comparisons between the approved scheme and the proposed scheme in terms of non-residential land uses these would remain broadly in line with the approved scheme and be ancillary to the residential so the approved scheme also included the option of a sixth form centre in one of the outline phases it's since been confirmed by our education team that there's no requirement for this sixth form so what has been proposed is there's an option for community use within this outline phase and the option for this will be secured within the section 106 in terms of residential units the proposed scheme would deliver up to 1762 units compared to the 1450 homes within the approved scheme so just to set out the proposed housing that will be delivered within the detailed phase which is the next phase of development coming forward so the number of units within this phase has increased from 235 units to 365 units this includes 81% of the units within this phase being delivered as affordable homes and 134 affordable rented homes 50% of which are affordable rented units being family sized of three and four bed so in terms of the detailed phase delivery the affordable rented units would be within buildings D&E which are overlooking the park and the intermediate units would be within building G and private units within building F so all units would meet the space standards and would have good outlook and would include private community space buildings and all the buildings within the detailed phase have been designed in consultation with our council design officer and would be constructed using high quality materials buildings and the final details would be secured by condition design quality would also be tenure blind so all buildings would be designed to the same quality and as I said this would be secured by condition and all residents would have access to all the landscape grounds within the park space in terms of the landscaping so the proposed scheme follows the principles of the approved scheme being landscape led and pedestrian focused with the central common space while also seeking to increase the amount of accessible green space so as I mentioned previously within the detailed phase there was previously a podium within these between these three buildings which blocked off the space and which wasn't publicly accessible so the redesign of this building F here has allowed all this space to be redesigned and incorporated within the wider green space and is completely publicly accessible in terms of neighbouring amenity the proposed development will have an impact on daylight and sunlight levels to neighbouring properties the greatest impacts are properties closest to the site so along Knapp Road here along Whitehorn Street and properties on the south side of Bowcommon Lane so these impacts are summarised in the officers report section 7.154 the report also includes a comparison with the impacts on the approved scheme scheme for some of the properties most affected so I think as officers we've tried to balance these impacts against the benefits of the scheme recognising that this is a strategic housing site and needs to deliver high density housing to meet the housing targets so I think the daylight impacts as a whole are comparable to the approved scheme and whilst there are some additional impacts on individual properties the benefits of the additional housing and the early delivery of affordable housing is considered a significant positive benefit of this scheme in terms of car parking the proposed scheme would continue to deliver accessible parking and limits car access to the extremities of the site with the centre space retained as pedestrian only cycle parking would also meet policy and phase two includes a managed waste strategy for the whole site in terms of access and permeability the proposed scheme builds on the principles of the approved scheme opening up the site and providing multiple routes through for pedestrians as I said before the inclusion of the podium within the detailed phase as publicly accessible further improves this pedestrian access just got a few CGI's to sort of give you an idea of what we're looking at so this is a view showing the phase two with building D this is the side elevation of building D here and this is building F and in between this is the proposed new landscaping that we discussed which replaces the podium in here and this is a view looking towards phase 1 and phase 2 so as I said phase 1 is currently under construction aimed to be finished early next year and this is building F and building E and you'll see the central park space here in the foreground and this last slide shows the CGI view the one on the left is looking along the railway along with the front of the site towards the cemetery park and this is building E just on the right hand side of the screen and this last view looks towards building F looking northwest from within the park just to summarise the benefits of this application include the increase in overall housing delivery the increase in overall number of affordable homes and the early delivery of a large amount of affordable housing within this detailed second phase of development which would deliver 81% affordable housing in this phase there's an increase in the amount of green space and improved landscaping there's also additional financial obligations and an increased community infrastructure levy due so this slide just summarises some of the key obligations for the site I've highlighted those obligations where there has been an increased financial payment so we've got increases in employment contributions carbon offsetting a new payment towards managing construction impacts and alongside the borough and merrill sill and to conclude the recommendation is to grant planning commission subject to section 106 agreement or the conditions and informatives set out in the committee report thank you thank you Kevin I'll now invite I forgot to mention I went on a site visit to the gas works last year April and that doesn't mean it's going to application was it it was it was totally separate so it was last year April so I don't know if it was this application or the one before but it was on the same site that's that's fine it's it's over a year on now and obviously this application is in front of the nation so you're coming to it with an open mind aren't you yeah yeah that's it we can thank you I now invite Tom Houghton to a Dessie committee in objection to the application you have up to three minutes thank you chair for allowing me to address the committee I speak as one of the objectives but with objection on behalf of over 50 homes in the St Leopold development adjacent to the gasworks site and we're raising a collective objection that was counted as one in the report our concerns focus on four key issues the excessive building heights the inadequate community consultation insufficient community facilities facilities and the inappropriate increase in the density first the committee community consultation process was cited to us as part of the safety updates and regulations in tall buildings and we are given and we are given the option of deciding whether we wanted the development to go up or out and was explained to us that this was due to the safety regulations but didn't indicate the increase of nearly 300 additional homes to the site and secondly the increased building heights we feel is unacceptable this proposal also reverses previous reduction mandated by this committee to reduce building height on the site and some of the buildings as you saw in this presentation have risen from 16 to 21 floors exceeding the surrounding context of 2 to 10 storey buildings in the area other than the occasional tower block further away from the site as I put out in the report originally proposed facilities such as the sixth form have now been replaced with additional housing and no provisions so far include doctor surgeries or dentists which are low in the area finally the increase in density has disproportionately increased the height of the buildings and we feel that although it is cited as a positive including 81% of the affordable and shared ownership properties into the first phase removes that from the rest of the site and does not integrate those effectively we do not oppose the development in itself as we understand that this needs to be developed and this site was previously a horrible site to look at from the window but we feel that it needs to be done in consultation with the community and the surrounding area lives as well again thank you Good evening, and thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Tristan Payne, and I'm a Senior Development Manager with St William. I've overseen the design development of this project and the engagement with officers, stakeholders and the local community for the last seven years. I would like to start by welcoming the officers' recommendation to approve the planning application. Outline planning permission was originally granted in 2022 for this strategic brownfield site. We have significantly progressed in the construction of Phase 1, with the first homes due to be completed from the end of this year and the first 54 affordable rented homes due to be delivered early next year. This application to revise the Master Plan maintains the original principles established in the Extant Consent and delivers additional public benefits whilst addressing the changes in fire safety regulations and policy. The revised Master Plan will enable the delivery of up to 1,762 homes across the site whilst maintaining the policy-compliant 35% affordable housing and delivering on the site allocation requirements. Furthermore, these proposals will accelerate the delivery of 271 affordable homes into the next phase of development, including 134 affordable rented homes. 50% of these affordable rented homes will be family-sized in order to respond to the most acute need within the borough. Subject to securing planning permission, construction of Phase 2 will commence at the beginning of 2026 and these homes will be delivered from mid-2028. The public open space within the development has been significantly increased and enhanced in terms of quality. The proposals seek to increase the size of the public park by 70% to 4.2 acres and include a new amphitheatre delivering high-quality, biodiverse-rich green space. This revised Master Plan is the result of a collaborative approach with planning officers as well as an extensive program of community engagement. We have held four in-person consultation events, delivered flyers to more than 5,000 local residents, undertaken local door knocking and kept our website up-to-date throughout. We have sought to ensure the proposed revisions avoid impacts to the Tower Hamlet Cemetery Park and the environmental impact assessment confirms that the effects of the revised proposals are broadly in line with the consented Master Plan. However, these proposals additionally provide a new community centre, 154 new jobs, additional seal and section 106 payments, a larger park and the delivery of more affordable homes. Thank you. Do the Member have any further questions for Officers, Objectors or Applicants? Can I have the trouble? Could I ask the Objector if you could kindly confirm which side of the development you live on? So, it's the south side where they recently built St. Leonard's estate. So, if you go to on this bit here, just that. So, is that near St. Paul's Way School? Yes, it is. And you're saying that there's been no consultation? We've received flyers, but no consultation, no door knocking, no communication with myself who live in one of those blocks and the other signatures as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Iqbalo Singh. What did you? That's fine, that's fine. Okay, can I come back again? I think I'm taking Councillor Shibu Singh's question. It's just about the consultation. Now, my question goes to the applicant. Could you please give us an idea how did you consult people in the local community with the consultation? Thank you. Thank you. We had four public consultation events, in-person consultation events. Two of those were located on-site at the sales and marketing suite in 120 Bocommon Lane and two of those were located in the Tower Hamlet Cemetery Park. Additionally, there was 5,000 local residents received flyers and they were over two separate times and the whole extent of the public consultation was quite forthright and very, very comprehensive and because we really wanted to ensure that feedback from the community shaped the proposals that were coming forward. Any numbers of people attended during the consultation? Yes, certainly. So, the first consultation, 66 people attended. The second on-site consultation, 31 people attended. Additionally, we door-knocked over 200 homes in the local area and I believe we had, it was around 60 additional conversations with residents in the Tower Hamlet Cemetery Park. Shubo, can you ask a follow-up question, please? My colleague asked, so it's been answered. Okay. Is anybody else? Thank you. To the applicant, so when you had the consultation, you had 60 people at first session and 30, was it more, did you see more negative? I think it was broadly quite positive, actually. The vast majority of local residents in the area were quite happy to see that something was coming forward on this particular site and, in particular, a development of very high-quality, delivering very high-quality public open space. So, there's a high-quality park coming forward for all residents and all local communities to enjoy. So, by and large, the public consultation was very positive. Quick question for the officer. I see we're getting 35%. Do you know how many of those are family-sized homes? I've just been... If it's on the paper, I've not seen it. So, it's 35% across the site as a whole. Within Phase 2, it's 81% coming forward. And of those... So, they're the ones that are designed in detail. There'll be 51% are family-sized. Across the site as a whole, it will deliver at least a policy compliant. But there is... We have been pushing for focus on family-sized units. So, there is the ability to deliver more family-sized within the outline phases, which haven't been designed yet in detail. But, yeah, within Phase 2, it's 51%. And within Phase 1, which is currently on construction, if I'm correct, I think it's also delivering over 50% family-sized. I think, Jan, it's 67 actual family-sized homes that will be delivered under Phase 2, which is 50% against the policy target of 45%. And, obviously, we always pride the larger fourth-bedroom units and the target is 15%, and this provides 23%. So, on that, you know, that kind of premium four-bedroom, we've been well beyond the policy. My question to officers. I think you mentioned somewhere, so, overall, they will deliver 35% affordable homes. But on the, I think, page 169, you mentioned 80% affordable. So, what is... So, just to be clear, the site as a whole will deliver 35%. This next phase, which is Phase 2, the detailed phase, which is designed up, it's delivering 81% affordable housing within that phase. So, what that will mean, with some of the later phases, they will still deliver... There's still some affordable housing to be delivered, but they will deliver less affordable housing. But the scheme as a whole will be policy-compliant and delivering 35%. I think the key benefit of this is this next phase of development, which is coming forward as soon as it gets permission, as far as I'm aware, is the early delivery of a large portion of that affordable housing. Through this consent, that's the proposal. Are there nine buildings over there? There are certainly... Or seven. Within the outline phase or within... Do you mean in total? I can... Let me just... I'll bring up a drawing and we can... I can talk you through. So, the detailed phase, which is the phase coming forward next and has the 81% affordable housing, is this building, which is... It's D and E, which is the linear building, and building F and G. So, it's these three or four buildings, depending on how you look at it, building D and E are connected. So, that's... So, these are the buildings coming forward in the next phase. And the outline buildings are these... One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And with this little one on the front, so eight or nine buildings. These are the buildings that are in outline and they will come forward... They'll be designed and come forward in different phases. And this phase one is the three buildings that are currently in construction and to be delivered at the end of this year. I just want to point out one to the offices. You were saying 35% affordable homes altogether. So, there is no socially rented home, is it? Affordable is a little bit higher than socially rented home. So, it would deliver affordable homes in a policy-compliant way. So, that's Tower Hamlet's living rent and London affordable rent on a 50-50 split. So, it is... I can sort of take you to what those rental levels would be. So, this is the rental levels for London affordable rent and Tower Hamlet's living rent. So, these are the... So, these are the affordable housing rental levels that schemes need to deliver. Sorry, just... So, you mean a London affordable rent is cheaper than Tower Hamlet's living rent. So, Tower Hamlet's living rent includes a service charge and London affordable rent service charge is additional. This is standard across all developments. This is the two products that we deliver. Thank you. My next point to the applicant. As far as I know, there is a very interesting conservation in this area. It's about the blue... blue butterfly DNA. So, you actually take an account of this in your previous application. Is there any effect on this conservation if you increase the meaning's height? I mean, your proposed new development. Is it going to be... Is there going to be any negative effect on the conservation? So, we've undertaken a number of overshadowing studies for the Tower Hamlet Cemetery Park. The buildings immediately adjacent the cemetery park that provides the most amount of overshadowing actually haven't changed in height at all. So, it's the vast majority of the other buildings that have shifted in heights and that's been a very, very intentional move to make sure that we're not changing any impacts to the cemetery park. in terms of the overshadowing on the whole there's effectively a no net change. I think there is a slight reduction actually of 0.2%. So, in effective terms there is no change in the amount of overshadowing to the cemetery park. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. It's a massive development program. If you consider the proposed community facilities what facilities you are providing for in relation to education and health? It is a multiple phased development that will come forward over an extended period of time. Rather than I suppose the development does also provide community infrastructure levy payments. So, whilst there's not strategic site allocations on this particular site to provide things like doctors and dentists in lieu of that we pay a community infrastructure levy and then that's up to Tower Hamlets in order to direct those funds. do members have any further questions right now? Would members like to share their thought or debate on the report? I think Chair this is a wonderful project and I'd love to go there on site visit if I can defer the item. Fantastic project. Basic plan has already been approved by last it's just the two or three buildings increasing so I don't do you think it's necessary for a site budget on that project? if I could just as members were invited to a site visit after Christmas and there were a couple of dates and times suggested and applicants available to meet on site and no response to that apart from one council who we accompanied to our site. I agree with you you know it's a very fantastic development but my main concern is the living rent it seems all the development now is going out of the local people reach 364 pound a week is quite a amount of majority of the Taram residents. Are we sharing our thoughts or are we still okay yeah I think this like the applicant said it's a masterpiece I think it's a beautiful masterpiece as well and it's got a state of the art park coming through which is a win-win situation for everyone it is going to be a large development there are a lot of properties I think it's 1800 in total coming through and I think the applicants have done a heavy consultation I think the objector has probably missed it they have held they've held two consultation they've given out 5,000 leaflets and have an online process still running so for me I think it's a beautiful application so I'm quite happy with this application thank you thank you chair I did visit the site and Sally and Kevin thank you for your time taking me to the side I've just heard big words from my colleagues holistic masterpiece so I think I concur I mean yeah when I was briefed by the officers and I saw the development actually it was yeah it's a nice development I have to say that all my concern is about living rent which is all the development is facing now isn't it but my main concern was the blue blue butterfly so if the applicant is taken care of I have no objection on this project you know I think it's a fantastic project and will benefit the community as a whole I mean as a whole I would like Paul and to share any advice before we move on to work thank you thank you very much chair I'll be brief the I mean you've seen that the scheme obviously changes what was permitted a few years ago but it's still keeping broadly in line with the master plan that was approved at the time some of the buildings will be taller and there's no doubt that there will be an increased density on the site but in response to that the applicant has worked to improve the quality of the open space and access to the open space that helps to mitigate that density we've heard from the objector around some of their concerns but I think when we take those into the balance and particularly in terms of the housing delivery but also the earlier delivery moving some of the affordable housing into phase two which is the next phase so it comes online sooner bearing in mind that might mean less in the future phases but we're getting that front loaded I think taking that all in the round we feel as offices we can support subject to those changes to some of the planning obligations that were on the screen earlier on so happy to recommend that for approval thank you chair do you have anything to add Jan thank you now we're going to go to can I see all those in favor of the application well I would have said all those against but there is none against because everybody voted on favor there is no abstention as all Paul can you please confirm the committee decision thank you chair so the committee has voted unanimously to grant commission for the section 73 amendments to the scheme of the lane set out in the details of item 5.1 of your agenda and the matters in the update report thank you chair thank you now we're going to move to the next agenda agenda item 5.2 is a planning application on one Selestone way London E14 shall we thank you everyone everyone is here isn't okay so we're going to agenda item 5.2 now agenda item 5.2 is a planning application at 1 Selestone way London E14 9 GL I now invite Paul to introduce the application thank you very much chair so there's there's a planning application affecting one Selestone way London and the application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings in the direction of a building of up to 35 storeys comprising residential uses flexible community hub landscaping public realm plant cycle storage servicing and other associated works and the recommendation to your committee is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and planning obligations just very briefly chair there is an update report that deals with some additional representations that we've received since the agenda was published so we've had two additional letters of objection both letters are from residents who've previously written objections but they've raised some additional material including loss of the football pitches that are used by students at Canary Wharf College for external play and the impact on the safety of the students at the adjacent schools during construction if planning permission were to be granted and also just to update you know that you're allowed to take into account the Tower Hamlets sill so just a clarification of the value of that and also the Mayor of London sill and also some arrangements because the main residential use in this scheme is what's called build to rent so there's a covenant that's required under the London plan guidance but none of that changes the recommendation as I say which is to grant the planning permission thank you chair thank you Paul can I now invite Connor you'll you'll follow it finally in case of to present the application no worries chair no worries thank you thank you chair members members of the public as Paul said the application is at one Selston way the proposal is a 35 story building comprising primarily residential with some flexible community hub space at ground and mezzanine floors and some public realm this gives an indication of where the site is Canary Wharf is obviously to the north here this is Millwall Inner Dock we've got Glenglaw Bridge to the north and Mudshute Park Millwall Park to the west a closer view of the site note the arrow facing north so we're kind of looking south at the site so we've got Selston Way that skirts the site here we have the DLR track to the east and then Eastbury Road to the east of the railway so on the site at the moment it primarily contains car parking spaces inside which are not particularly well used there is office space skirting the car park on the Selston Way elevation which currently has temporary planning permission for use as a school until August 2025 so until very recently that office space was used by Canary Wharf College they vacated that space and moved to a different location further up Selston Way for this September term just gone the site also contains sports pictures as you can see on the roof and there's also a couple of internal sports pictures on the upper two floors these are not used they were power league but they were vacated a couple of years ago they are currently used by Canary Wharf College students on a kind of interim arrangement so adjoining the site is the main Canary Wharf College campus if you will which is this area indicated by my pointer so they occupy the adjoining building and also number seven which is further down this way and you can see four cells away to the west of the site which was an office building and is currently being converted into housing the site is an allocated site identified for significant housing and also employment growth it's also in the opportunity area which is also an area identified for having the ability to provide additional significant new homes and new jobs over the next 10 years it's an accessible site cross harbour DLR station it's around where my pointer is so the next image that you're going to see is taken from this corner here where my pointer is and that's what the site looks like from that corner the building is set back it's bound by a hedge and kind of separated from the pavement by the hedge and quite a tall wall this this is just view looking along Selston way the site itself ends where my pointer is here and everything to the rear of that is the Canary Wharf College building this is just an aerial image of the proposal this is the proposal here just gives you an idea about how it lies in relation to nearby tall buildings here is the permitted but not constructed development at Asda in the background you can see the taller Canary Wharf buildings and then the lower lying buildings along Selston way as well to the south so the proposal as I said is a 35 storey tower that's 127 metres AOD and it provides a five storey kind of podium base and then a triangular tower on top so 307 residential homes overall 35% of those would be affordable as Paul said the whole development is a build to rent development so all units private and affordable would be rented and not sold and managed by the operator landscaping public realm and basement parking is proposed as well as a community centre this is a ground floor plan this is the proposed additional public realm on Selston Way cross harbour station is kind of here the pink is the proposed community centre the entrance to the residential parts are where my cursor is here this is back of house cycle and refuge storage this is at podium level so it's four storeys high internal and external play and amenity space for all residents this is a standard floor of a tower so you can see the triangular design this is the proposed north elevation you can see the podium at the bottom and the tower above this is proposed north elevation again with the emerging context of Asda to the east of East Ferry Road and also here you can see 4 Selston Way and this is the proposed west elevation in context this tall building here is the arena tower just the imagery of the proposal as it would look from East Ferry Road cross harbour station is here this is Selston Way so you're looking at the podium with the tower above so in terms of public consultation 283 letters were sent to neighbours 97 letters of objection were received a full list of the objections is in the report the main themes can be described as impact on neighbouring immunity impact on the Canary Wharf College loss of the sports pitches impact on local infrastructure services and general scale amassing of the proposal so in land use terms and the slide outlines the benefits but in terms of what would happen on the site so the site has temporary permission for a school use this will cease in August 2025 as I mentioned Canary Wharf College were using this space but have now vacated and the space is vacant and there has been no objection from the school or from the DFE and we understand that the school has found alternative overflow accommodation further up Selston way the existing sports pitches are inaccessible except by stair and not used commercially sports England didn't object an alternative community provision is being provided on site the areas being identified as having significant capacity for growth for housing and the provision of 307 homes and 35% affordable housing is a significant benefit in an appropriate location so this is the affordable housing proposal 307 new homes 35% affordable policy compliant 70-30 split with 70% being affordable rent so 80 new affordable homes overall of which 51 would be affordable rented homes 10% would be wheelchair homes this table gives you an overview of the size mix mix unit size by tenure I've highlighted the proposed family sized units in the affordable rented tenure so 69% of the 51 affordable rented homes would be family sized homes 3, 4 or 5 beds which is significantly more than the 45% that policy requires and this is significantly supported this gives an indication of where each tenure is within the building the private tenure was at the top end of the tower intermediate is orange lower down and then where the floor plates are larger the larger social rented homes are in the podium and the bottom end of the tower where they also have easy access to the outside space and the proposal will provide good access to light outlook and privacy for the occupiers triangular design provides good aspect and there would be no single aspect north facing homes this is a lower level floor showing the podium level with the affordable rented larger homes the green in the center is cycle parking this is again the podium level play space and outdoor space which is policy compliant in terms of quantum space is moving on to design the proposal is in a tall building zone so in principle the site is suitable for a tall building I don't know if you can quite see but the site is here at 35 storeys it would sit slightly higher than the highest permitted building in Asda it's not yet constructed which is 32 storeys the image shows the proposal would step down from the taller buildings in the Canary Wharf cluster and also from the taller buildings within the north end of the Millwall cluster to maintain the prominence of Canary Wharf the GLA identified no harm to the character or composition of any strategic views this is a townscape view looking south towards the development on East Ferry Road Cross Harbour Station is here the proposal is considered to sit well in the existing mixed townscape and in terms of its architecture so the following slides are just going to give you a view of the proposal from further away so the site is here and this is on the edge of a conservation area so this is the existing view from that point looking north and that is the view with the development in place you can see it here and that is the cumulative view taking into account the permitted ASDA development this is a view looking north towards the development here this is the scheme that has been permitted but not constructed on the ASDA site this just shows a closer view of the triangular form of the tower which is an interesting and I think an appropriate design response which creates a slender tower and this shows so this is that corner again from Salston way and this shows how the proposal will open up that corner creates some public space and also some incidental play in terms of daylight sunlight general amenity impacts the closest residential developments are at 4 and 2 Salston way and also at marina point these three are the most affected given that they are closest to the proposal and they can be seen in this image here this is the site this is 4 and 2 Salston way and this is marina point so there are some major daylight impacts to some windows to those properties particularly on the lower ground floors the impacts overall are considered to be acceptable the losses are not to all windows to all flats and they remain around the low to mid team VSC levels which is not uncommon in a built up urban area planning obligations proposed include 161,000 towards the DLR station construction phase employment skills and training other TFL contributions non-financial contributions 35% affordable housing and also those billed to rent covenant and clawback mechanisms and SIL which is not referenced in the report but which has now be calculated to be 5 million 5.5 million Tower Hamlet SIL and 1.2 million London Mayoral SIL officer recommendation is to approve thank you thank you certainly I now invite Andrew to LTC committee in objection to the application you have three minutes good evening councillors I'm asking you tonight to defer a decision on this application because the submitted planning documents and the council's written report do not make clear how the almost 500 secondary school pupils next door to this site will be kept safe during demolition and construction of a building that they study in one in three cells and way it's one building but it's one that will be demolished and three is where pupils will be studying five and seven close three five and seven cells and way will be a school for many years a secondary school for now but I understand that three and five will be used as a primary school in the future according to the planning documents Canary Offer College Secondary is a state secondary school just like the Mulberry secondary schools we have around Tower Hamlets with around 500 pupils occupies the whole south side of the site but this secondary school is meant to move to Westray Printworks which you considered last August but that could be many years after demolition starts next door on one Selestown way so the pupils may face years of disruption while they wait for the print work school to be finished I emailed you on Saturday night with pictures showing how close the demolition and construction site in the school will be because I don't think that was clear in your written report it was a little bit clearer tonight in the presentation we were just given but the reports don't say anything about for example how will students be kept safe during demolition construction when will work be allowed to happen during school hours during exams what about the air quality implications on young children of demolition dust what about crane movements will they be controlled because be legally responsible if pupils are harmed or killed if you give information to them tonight with these facts unclear and a reminder two residents have died in recent years in construction related accidents either from bricks or cranes falling on them but none of this is written down in the report or in any of the submitted documents most of the 12 detailed reports I read especially from Waterman and Patel Taylor actually don't mention a school it's just not in their maps and if they do provide information about the school the information is wrong if you look at my Saturday email again at the bottom in my email to officers last year is a long list of submitted documents that don't mention a school or showing correct information but I don't have time to read them all now there are other problems of this report but again I don't have a lot of time to give you one example like the football pitches were being used by the wider community until about a year ago because the school was allowing access and somebody stopped that and I don't know who that person was but that hadn't happened the wider community would still be using those football pitches today so I would ask you tonight to how they can demolish and build a 35 storey tower next to an active school thank you thank you can I now invite down messenger Kishofer Allen and Punkers Partial from DP9 Limited to speak in favour of the application you have up to three minutes for approval I am Chris Allen Development Director at Ridgeback Group Ridgeback Group was founded in 2018 and over this period have developed or acquired 17 UK built to rent assets totalling over 4400 apartments making us the seventh largest integrated built to rent operator in the UK in 2022 we launched an in-house property management business called Isla which underlines our commitment to long-term ownership of high-quality buildings and ensures that we create communities that are well-maintained we still own everything that we have built to date which is why management and build quality is so important to us for a number of years we've been working to bring forward this complex but important regeneration site the site is currently a 1980s car park and vacant office building that attracts lots of dangerous and antisocial behaviour including drug use our proposals seek to transform this into an exemplar tall building that delivers 307 much-needed new homes on an allocated housing site in the local plan we know how important social homes are in Tower Hamlets given the growing waiting list and that is why we've worked hard to create a mixed community that provides fully policy compliant affordable housing in addition to 70% of the affordable homes will be social rented housing we are also supporting multi generational housing as 68% of the social homes are large enough for families this includes six large five bedroom homes which is very rarely provided we want to create an inclusive and welcoming community that mixes all residents and tenures and that is why all affordable homes will benefit from access to the community hub at ground level and have access to the podium level landscape garden affordable residents will be able to use these facilities at no extra service charge cost and that will be detailed through the section 106 the quality of accommodation is very high for everyone all homes meet or surpass space standards and have good daylight levels and have access to well maintained communal spaces across the building in total there are nearly 2,000 square metres of amenity space which is over five times the policy requirement and it is also a green development we are planting 64 trees there are new landscape gardens and ecological habitats we have carefully listened to incorporated this into the ground floor of the building which will ensure the building integrates with the wider local community something which we are passionate about on all of our schemes this scheme will also bring employment to the local area through construction employment and employment of our site teams and in response to some of the concerns raised by Andrew Woods we have created a very close relationship with the college the DFE and Joanne in recent years thank you for your time thank you very much thank you do members have any questions for offices objectives or applicants thank you chair I have picked one question probably from the objective present today to the applicant what risk assessment and mitigation plan you have in place to ensure for the 500 students or children attending to the school adjacent to your site on a daily basis and how anything happened to anyone physically harmed or any unfortunate death happened what was the liability insurance in place thank you sorry is that construction impact or as it is today because I mean construction impact during construction there will be monitoring for noise dust and vibration this is remote monitoring that will have a traffic light system and identify when levels are okay to work nearing a period where you need to slow down or stop works altogether for traffic management we'll also employ the following procedures no trucks will be stacked on the roads they'll be held in a satellite location nearby and only be called in when a delivery is required the site will be completely closed off through hoarding and I think some of your concerns about crane usage there's a lifting jug mechanism in a crane so you cannot oversell neighbouring buildings and that's we regularly work near railway lines and that is something you have to do so it's possible to not oversell just to add I think there's two planning conditions proposed in the committee report which requires to submit a much more detailed construction management plan which will be discussed with your highways officers and it gets that next level of detail about opening times delivery times and ensures that that detail is locked in and approved by your officers and finally there is a construction site on Selston Way at the moment I think it's for Selston Way and as far as I'm aware there haven't been any impacts from the construction to the college to date for that they've been under construction for two years and there's been no complaints and they will finish in September this year sorry sorry follow up question was there a teacher that Canary Wolf secondary school has been consulted reflected in your planning application so the question was have Canary Wolf college been consulted yeah a teacher yes yeah they have been consulted I mean we're in regular contact with them I mean whilst we are managing the building today we are speaking to them regularly around the safety of the site I mean there's an ongoing safety issue on the site presently we've been running security dog visits five times a week to ensure that the safety of the children was met and that we were putting these visits on at our cost the cost of that was more than the returns we were getting from running the car park and that was just to ensure the safety of the site the college have been kept informed of our timings and we've been speaking to them about we've actually offered them to use our space on an extra rolling lease so the football pitchers on the roof which they sometimes use as recreational their lease expired this summer and because we've been so long in planning here said that we were going to extend using that on a rolling monthly basis and we're always there to help we've always been a good neighbour to them and we're pleased to hear that they have now found alternative premises at number 13 Selveston Minor Can I just add one point as well we think there might be really good opportunities educational opportunities and career opportunities through the construction process so we can detail workshops on how the construction industry works and how the construction works just to help raise awareness in the college as well so just an example of how we aim to continue that working relationship with the college question the same just wanted to follow up with the same question thank you thank you for allowing me that so the question remains same I'm just trying to understand maybe is my shortcoming as the objector has mentioned there's a school it's the same building one side is a school and one side this construction is going to happen you've mentioned some of the ASB how you're going to manage the traffic but I didn't get properly understand your answer how you're going to manage how the plan you have there to actually safety of these same time this one building this side the children are reading and you're going to demolish this building how you're going to manage the safety of these children starting next door thank you so we actually only adjoined that building for about a four meter stretch and there is a gap between both buildings on Selvesden Way it looks like the buildings are joined there is a movement joint there are two independent structures and between the two facades there is a movement joint and we've got photographic evidence and I showed Sally yesterday where that happens so you can dismantle our building without tearing down theirs and how we will manage it throughout the construction process we'd probably demolish if we consented tonight we'd probably demolish June-July time which is outside of school hours anyway and we can agree in the CNP about times in which you do loud work like noisy demolition but the worst part of the build in terms of noise creation will be the demolition and if we're starting in June-July they'll hopefully miss most of it once we're above ground and once we're building the tower and the tower is fully enclosed like the noise would be much much less thank you councillor gulamki thank you thank you thank you do you have follow-up questions yes please can I get a view from the officers and their children what the applicant says how they're going to mitigate the circumstances of the safety of the children how confident are you and I agree with them so I want your expert opinion on that please yeah thanks councillor so from the council's point of view 7.341 of the report it says that the application was submitted with a draft construction environmental management plan which was rigorously assessed by our transport team who understand the site and understand the site surroundings and the uses and what construction is currently taking place so they reviewed that the draft plan and were content that the construction impacts can be suitably managed so that was a draft plan that was submitted with the application and then to ensure that that is carried through and that the details are secured there are three conditions requiring the submission of details before any work starts on site and those are a dust management plan a construction environmental management plan and also a condition that relates to construction cranes and scaffolding details so each of those documents will be assessed by ourselves probably TFL and our environmental health team and part of that assessment is obviously the impact of the construction on nearby uses and users of Salston Way which will include those children so the construction will not be allowed to start until we have approved those documents and we will monitor that those documents are implemented throughout the construction as well. If I may just come in here as well as what Sally mentioned in terms of the conditions on construction management plan I mean obviously there is the building control that will the building regulations which would be managed which is the prime vehicle if you like for managing safety so it's not it's not to be dismissive or obviously those conditions and the code of construction is very important but I suppose the primary vehicle that is used is the building regulations Mr. Austin I just want to affirm that but that's that's position. Thank you anyone else Thank you just a quick one to the applicant from your consultation of 283 you've had 97 objectors have you looked into what the objectors are saying and what are you doing to maybe the objections yes certainly so I think there's been consultation throughout the planning application process we did public consultation event and we also met with your community development panel that has directly informed the building so one one point which was raised to us was there's a lack of bookable kind of community leisure spaces in the area I think things like badminton were suggested which we've developed a flexible space for and they thought that that would make sure they didn't want buildings which don't relate to the local community and don't create a focal point so we made sure we put in a really prominent community space on the ground floor which hopefully will activate South and Way and allows the rest of the community to benefit from this development as well I think just specifically in relation to the number of objections on the application without going through a lot were from people related to the school who maybe slightly misunderstood what the application was doing and because the school was temporarily using those facilities they kind of thought we were demolishing the school and the premises and they're going to have to relocate so hopefully that's been corrected now in terms of understanding of it but and as you've heard today we've very much open to making sure any impact on the school was further mitigated and making sure they maximise the opportunities from having a lot of investment and you know interest in the local area if the application was to be granted tonight how long is the development going to take and making sure that the buildings are occupied so we wouldn't sit in a consent or look to sell it we would look to deliver it and keep hold of it and maintain it for a long time okay so would members like to share their thoughts or debate on the application thank you chair i support this development but on the other hand we have to mitigate children's safety and security because this development will take three years to complete this three years is a long time but we we need to assurance from our officers like the question asks our colleague and our applicant that we need to mitigate that disruption education-wise and that security safety and security wise thank you especially during the exam time of the kids you know it has to be noise level has to be minimum and you know disruption has to be minimum thank you um yeah again i'll echo what my colleague has said and um i've obviously the applicant have mentioned that they will be demolishing the building around um school holidays in june july i think that's something that's quite important um i know the site very well that's why i've not deferred for a site visit at all um i know it very well and i know there's a lot of anti-social behavior in that site yeah i know that site very well to be honest with you i used to um bunk school near there i used to bunk school near there as well so i know about the anti-social behavior um in this uh in that site so i'm quite in favor with this application and obviously with the 35 percent and larger family homes i i i support this um application thank you okay anybody else any talk let's go home okay there's no more thought i would like to ask paul orient to share any opinion advice before we move on to both thank you chair so um just in terms of summing up the you know the you'll see from the report that we've assessed the scheme as being broadly in line with the development plan policies um there are some impacts on amenity but we feel that when you as we said in the presentation when you consider the nature of the area this being in an opportunity area was earmarked for high high levels of growth and within um a site allocation and a tall building zone then when taking taking the plan in the round then with that then we feel that you know those harms are not sufficient to outweigh the benefits i think the the focus of the discussion tonight has been largely on on the juxtaposition with the um education accommodation that's that's next door and i think you know it's obviously we've heard from objector and members have explored that in detail and also heard from the applicants i think the way that we would approach that is is there is a condition that's recommended um i would suggest to your committee that we actually i mean this needs to be quite a bespoke approach um and i would um suggest that we were the conditions so that it can actually be developed in consultation with the operator of the school so they have a say in how the construction plan is evolved so it's not just a technical assessment by um technical officers but also the school gets to have an input into into that as well so i think that and that will help i think ensure that some of those nuances around things like term time etc that the applicant has talked about um can be dealt with so um and if you're happy with that as an approach committee um without predetermining your your decision then that's something that we would deal with in the in the detailed drafting of the of the conditions sorry i don't know ian did you want to add anything you did mention cranes and overselling no i i i merely have some advice on cranes but i think paul's covered everything in that respect um overselling sales and a crate issues so crane themselves can be covered quite right you've discussed it's part of the part of the construction management plan and the title and the uh the library the the construction management plan we picked up within the planning process uh and create the the cranes will also form part of that but there are other safe safeguards that you can uh be assured are taken into account when when looking when officer always seeing go uh yeah in in short yes there is so so the next so obviously you need to consider the recommendation and decide if you agree with it but but assuming you did then the next stage is that we will deal with the detailed drafting of all the all the planning conditions we only give you the headline summary in the report and in that detail drafting what what i'm recommending is that we also have that the construction management plan is developed in consultation with the operator of the school so they have a so they have a say in in how that comes forward that would be the recommendation by the committee isn't it yes so consult with the committee especially during the exam time and time time yes thank you paul and thank you again so shall we go move on to both now can i see all those in favor of the application that means granting the planning permission all those favor okay so it's unanimous next is was nobody's against just on the deadline abstention so paul can you please confirm the committee decision thank you jay so the committee is voting unanimously to grant plan permission for the redevelopment of one salesman way is set out in item 5.2 of the agenda pack this evening subject to planning conditions and the completion of section 106 agreements to secure the obligations and the outcome of stage 2 referral to the mayor of London thank you chair thank you everyone for your time and thanks that's conclude our business so before you go can I request all our colleagues to please pick up your rubbish papers and drop them on the recycle bin and everything is please thank you thank you