Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the Strategic Development Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Jayad Choudhury and I will be chairing this meeting. This meeting has been 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, and if I feel it is necessary. I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do this, I would like to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the bar chair meeting procedures. Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair. If you are participating online and you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact the administrative service officers as soon as possible by email. However, officers may not be able to respond to all such requests. You should keep your microphone and camera switched off all other times. Please do not use the meeting chat facility. Any information added to the chat facility will be discarded. I will now ask the committee members present to introduce themselves. Please, can you also share the declaration of interest that you may have in the agenda item and the nature of the interest? Yes. Hi, I am Councillor Rebecca Sultana from Bethnal Green East. Thank you. Do you have any interest? DPI? I have no DPI, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone. This is Councillor Iqbal Hussain for Lensbury Ward. I am the Vice-Chair of this committee. Any DPI? Chair, no. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone. My name is Riyad Choudhury, from Popular Ward. Nothing to declare. Councillor Ayman Raman, from Green West. Nothing to declare. Councillor Shubha Hussain, from Bromley South, and I've got nothing to declare. Councillor Kamra Hussain, Worshipful Ward. Nothing to declare. Councillor Kamra Hussain, from Bromley South, and I've got nothing to declare. Good evening, everyone. Councillor Lilo Ahmed, Mylan Ward. Nothing to declare. Thank you very much, everyone. Now, Justin, do we have any apologies? No, Chair. All members are present. Thank you. Agenda Item 2 is the Minutes from the previous meeting. Can we approve the Minutes from the 12th March meeting? Everyone. The Chair, if I may, just one item. I was present at the meeting, but I don't think I appear on the Minutes. Agenda Item 3 are the recommendations and procedures for hearing objections and meeting guidance. I will now ask Paul Beckham, Head of Development Management. Paul is here. Oh, Paul is not. Gareth. Gareth. Gareth. Gareth. Can I ask Gareth to say? Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Chair, Committee members, members of the public, and officers. In this process, Item 3 on the agenda sets out the standard orders, standard advice for determining planning applications, including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan policies and relevant material planning considerations. The process for considering the reports with a recommendation on the procedure public, I will outline briefly. I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and summary of the recommendation. Officers will present the report. There are no public speakers tonight, so there will be no representations. Chair, at your discretion, the applicant is here from Clarion, so if any members have any questions and say at your discretion, you can invite them at the relevant time. The committee may ask points of clarification of officers. The committee will consider the recommendation, including questions, debate and further advice from officers. The committee will reach a decision based on majority vote, and I will confirm the decision to the chamber. Should the committee propose changes to certain aspects of the officer's recommendation, such as to add, delete or amend planning conditions or obligations, or reasons for refusal of the task of formalizing those changes, is delegated to the director of planning and building control. In the event that the committee do not accept the officer's recommendation, they must state their planning reasons and then propose and agree an alternative course of action. The committee may be adjourned briefly for further planning or legal advice. The task of formalizing the task of formalizing the committee's alternative decision is delegated to the director of planning and building control. If the committee propose to make a decision which seems to go against the provisions of the development plan or could have legal implications, the item may be deferred for further report from officers dealing with the committee's proposed course of action. Just by way of an update report, there is a short update report that has been circulated to members and is online and hard copies are also in the chamber. There is a series of clarifications. I will just direct members and members of the public to the three primary ones, which the existing building is 22 storeys, not 21 storeys, as said in the committee executive summary in paragraph 1.3 of the report. With respect to comments raised by TfL in paragraph 5.28, the applicant team have provided a response to that and those issues have now been addressed. And paragraph 5.3 should reference T005 tree as opposed to tree T002. And just finally, just in terms of housekeeping, if the fire alarm rings, please follow the instructions of the facility staff who will direct you to the axis, to the fire axis. There is two at the back and there is one to the left over here. Finally, can I remind everyone to show courtesy to all present and do not interrupt the meeting. Please ensure mobile phones are turned off or turned to silent during the meeting. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. We now move to agenda item four, deferred items. There is no deferred items today for this committee to consider. So we will move to agenda item five, the planning application. We have two planning applications today to consider. And we are going to move to agenda item five point two, which we are swapping. Agenda item five point two is a planning application at Clare House 10 House on Avenue London and playground on House on Avenue London E3. I will invite Gareth to introduce the application. Thank you, Chair. As you said, the application is at Clare House at 10 Hawthorne Avenue in Bow East Ward. The application is for demolition of the existing building and all structures on site and the construction of a two part four part five storey building and a 23 storey tower providing 145 new residential homes. And a community floor space, the provision of disabled car parking spaces, associated cycle parking, refuge storage, mechanical plant and associated hard and soft landscaping. And the application also involves the upgrade works to the existing playground on Hawthorne Avenue. The officer recommendation is grant planning permission with conditions subject to conditions and section 106. Thank you. Thank you. I will now invite Oliver Cassidy-Bartland planning case officer to present the application. Thank you, Chair. Hello and thank you to all those in attendance, whether that's in Pearson or online. This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and all structures on site and for the construction of two part four part five storey buildings and a 23 storey tower providing 145. Sorry. Did you switch the agenda? Because 5.1 is a different application. Yeah. Oh, sorry. That's fine then. Thank you. What is the reason, Chair, if I don't, if I may ask? Chair, we, the, if you like, the most substantial application is this application. The other application is an unusual application. It's not sort of scale of application that would normally come to the strategic development committee. It is just in relationship to an extension to a data center. So we, we thought both members and potentially the public would also be kind of more interested in agenda item 5.3. So that's why we made that recommendation to the chair. Thank you, Chair. So, yeah, it would be for, where was it? The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and all structures on the site. And for the construction of two part four part five storey buildings and a 23 storey tower providing 145 new residential dwellings and community floor space at ground floor level. The application site includes Clare House, the Francis Lee Community Center and Jasmine Park. Clare House is an existing 22 storey residential tower block containing 129 flats, which has been vacant since 2021 with all residents having already been rehoused due to inherent structural deficiencies and fire safety concerns with the building. The Francis Lee Community Center is a one storey building attached to Clare House, which is currently not in use, but which would otherwise provide 197 square meters of community focused floor space. Jasmine Park is an existing park, which is inclusive of play equipment and playground like landscaping arrangements. The park is currently showing signs of degradation due to age, weathering and high levels of active use. The application site does not comprise any locally or statutory listed buildings. The site does however lay partially within the Victoria Park Conservation Area and is approximately 85 meters south of Victoria Park. The site has a public transport accessibility level rating of 2 on a scale of 0 to 6B, with 6B being the best. Both Hawthorne Avenue and Sycamore Avenue are private highways. They do not form part of the borough's adopted highways. The application site sits south of the Victoria Park site of importance for nature conservation and falls within the green grid buffer zone. Additionally, it should be noted that the site does not fall within a tall building zone as designated within the Tower Hamlets local plan. So, the application seeks permission to demolish all structures on site and construct two five-storey mansion blocks plus a central tower. The proposals would provide 145 social rented homes, which represents 100% affordable house contribution. The proposals would also provide a new community centre and the scheme also proposes to make improvements to Jasmine Park. I will now present a series of CGIs of the proposed development. So, on the screen here is a CGI aerial image of the proposals looking east towards the Olympic Park. This images of the proposals looking in a southward direction along Hawthorne Avenue. On the screen now is a CGI image of the proposals looking towards the main entrance when accessed from Hawthorne Avenue. This image shows the proposals looking across what's been termed Sycamore Park and the entrance of the proposed community centre. And finally, here is a view of the proposed tower viewed from the canal waterways just to the south of Victoria Park, which is to the north of the application site. So, the application was validated on the 22nd of October 2024. A site notice was displayed on the 7th of November and 274 letters were sent to notify neighbouring residents. Seven letters of representation have been received, one in support and six in objection. On screen now is a summary of the reasons for objection. These included reasons such as the proposed development is not in, well, the proposed development is out of scale for the local context. That the proposed development would put pressure on local services including bus services and local GPs. And that the associated construction works will also cause disruption to local residents and users of the local highways. So, on the screen now are the main planning considerations. I will discuss each of these points as part of this application presentation. So, looking at land use and starting with the community centre, with consideration to the principle of the community use, it should be noted that there is already an established community use on site. The application consists in part of the demolition of the Francis Lee Community Centre and its replacement of the new and improved community facility. The scheme, if permitted, would provide 198.5 square metres of community floor space. The applicant has committed to ensuring that residents of the proposals would be able to rent out the community centre at an affordable rate. This obligation would be secured by way of a section 106 agreement. In land use terms, the proposed community use raises no concerns and the proposals comply with policies D.C.F.2 and D.C.F.3 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan. Now, looking at the principle of housing. The proposed provision of housing raises no land use concerns given that Clare House comprises of 129 vacant homes which have been empty since 2021. The vacant tower comprised of 42 one-bed units and 87 two-bed units. This meant the site did not provide any larger sized family homes and nor did it provide any wheelchair housing. The current application would provide 145 social rented flats which would equate to 100% provision towards affordable housing within the borough. The proposals would provide 39 one-bed units, 32 two-bed units, 52 three-bed units and 22 four-bed units. Sixteen of these would be wheelchair accessible which equates to an 11% provision in accordance with the London plan. The applicant has also proposed to deliver all of the homes under the social rented tenure. This would mean that the scheme delivers cheaper homes for its residents than it would do if delivered under London affordable rent or Tower Hamlets living rent as typically required. Additionally, the scheme would provide a higher proportion of family-sized homes which would go towards meeting the needs of local residents and achieving the borough's strategic housing targets. Before discussing the design of the scheme, it is important to note that whilst the proposals are not located in a tall building zone and do not comply with the requirements of policy D.D.H.6 of the local plan, the scheme would serve to replace an existing tall building of low design quality which at present serves no purpose. Officers have had regard to this fact and the planning merits of the scheme in terms of delivery of 145 social rented units, a community centre and improvements to Jasmine Park and consider the principle of a tall building to be acceptable despite the conflict with current policy. The proposals consist of two five-storey mansion blocks which would sit either side and connect to a 23-storey tower. The proposed layout of the site would serve to create a consistent building line along Hawthorne Avenue which would positively contribute to the local streetscape. To the rear of the site, the building would introduce children's play space which would provide a connection from Sycamore Avenue to the proposed community centre. I will now present some additional CGIs of the proposals which will showcase the overall high standard of design proposed. So on the screen now is the South Mansion block when viewed from Hawthorne Avenue. Here's an image of that same mansion block from a slightly different angle looking northwards towards the canals. This CGI shows the entrance points of the building from Hawthorne Avenue. This image represents how the scheme would look at the upper most levels of the tower. And on the screen is a rear elevation viewed from Sycamore Avenue. Here you can see how Sycamore Park would sit in front of the development. And on the screen is another CGI of the development when viewed from Sycamore Avenue. In the sort of background you can see the entrance to the community centre. And this is another CGI image showing the aerial of the proposals looking eastwards. So, as demonstrated by the previous slides, the application is inclusive of a townscape assessment, design and access statement, and computer-generated images, which have demonstrated that the development would be acceptable in terms of impact upon the local townscape. With consideration to the tower, it is important to recognise the scheme would replace an existing tall building. The current proposals would likely appear more slender than the existing tower, in part due to the orientation of the development within the application site, and because of the choice of materiality, as well as other design choices which have introduced visual interest to the scheme. If members are minded to grant planning the mission tonight, officers do recommend that they apply conditions to secure details of final materials, finishes, colour and colours, to ensure that any delivered scheme continues to comply with policies S.D.H.1 and S.D.H.3 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan. So, now with consideration to the standard of accommodation, the proposals are generally considered a good standard of residential accommodation. The units all satisfy space standards, including private immunity space standards, and also offer good levels of privacy and outlook. The application is inclusive of a daylight sunlight report produced by EB7, which has been independently reviewed by Anstey Horn on the behalf of the Council. Overall, the proposals would achieve a good compliance rate with BRE guidance in terms of internal sunlighting and daylighting factors. The scheme is therefore considered to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future residents. So, communal immunity spaces would be delivered at the ground floor level, where the proposals work hard to accommodate a number of different uses to serve future occupants of the site. Because of this, the scheme would provide a slight under provision of communal immunity space at 112 square metres. However, given that each hand would have a policy compliant amount of private immunity space and the scheme's relative position to Victoria Park, officers are satisfied that the scheme would provide an appropriate standard of accommodation subject to condition. Now, with consideration to child play space and improvements to Jasmine Park, policy D.H3 of the Towerhounders Local Plan requires that major developments such as this provide a minimum of 10 square metres of high quality play space for each child that the development would yield. The table on the screen now shows a breakdown of the expected child yield for the development. It shows that the development would need to provide play space for at least 227 children. The proposals would provide 425 square metres of high quality play space for 0-4 year olds to the east of the site, immediately adjacent to the community centre in what is being referred to as Sycamore Park. Additionally, the proposals include improvements to Jasmine Park, this would include landscaping and improvements as well as improvements to the existing play equipment. Officers have worked with the applicant in order to secure an updated play strategy by way of Section 106 as well as the improvements to Jasmine Park in order to ensure that the delivered improvements meet the different needs of local children. Furthermore, £150,000 will be secured as a financial contribution towards child play space within the borough to offset the outstanding shortfall of children's play space on site. So, I'm now going to look at immunity, starting off with privacy, residential immunity, that is. So, in consideration of the proposed development's likely impact on neighbouring residents' sense of privacy and overlooking, it is important to consider the existing relationship shared between Clare House and neighbouring buildings, as well as the urban context in which the site is set. Offices have had regard to those residential properties present in the local area which may be affected by the development. For ease, these are listed on the screen now. Having assessed the properties, officers do not consider that the proposals would introduce unacceptable levels for overlooking to occur. The scheme is therefore considered acceptable in terms of impact to local residential sensors of privacy and overlooking. So, now, if we have consideration for daylight and sunlight factors for neighbouring properties, like I said earlier, the application is supported by a daylight and sunlight report which has been produced by EB7 on behalf of the applicant team. This report has been independently reviewed on behalf of the council by Anstey Horne. The EB7, sorry, the EB7 assessment considered all of the properties listed on the screen now. The assessment demonstrates that the proposals would not impact upon the majority of neighbouring properties. I will, however, discuss the properties which would be affected by the scheme. Those properties are showcased on the map there just to show where they would be in relation to the proposed development. So, the proposals would result in some minor impact towards numbers 9 to 11 Sycamore Avenue and Carp House. However, the degree of harm would be negligible. With consideration to 1 to 17 Hawthorne Avenue, there would be some minor moderate harm, meaning that the development may result in a slight, in a noticeable change to daylighting, but not one which would cause an unacceptable harm to the standard of accommodation there. With consideration to numbers 27 to 29 Sycamore Avenue, officers note that the proposals would result in some moderate harm, which would primarily be experienced by number 29 Sycamore Avenue. This weighting of moderate harm would, in effect, mean that there would be a noticeable change to daylighting. However, the level of harm would not be such that it would give rise to unacceptable living conditions. In terms of overshadowing neighbouring immunity areas such as gardens, the submitted daylight-sunlight report has had consideration for 42 neighbouring immunity areas associated with the properties listed on the screen now. 31 of the 42 immunity areas, so that's 74%, would meet the BRE targets. Of those which would not meet the guidance targets, appropriate justification has been provided to explain why. Furthermore, the applicant team had carried out further analysis, which makes clear that where the scheme does not meet the BRE targets, the deviation is minimal. With consideration for the urban context of the local setting, the overshadowing assessment demonstrates that the proposals would perform well for a development of this size. So now, with consideration to transport and highways, the proposals would provide six wheelchair accessible parking spaces on site, with room within the estate to accommodate a further 10 subject to demand. This is a policy-compliant provision which aligns with the London Plan. The development would otherwise be car-free. However, Claren have confirmed that there is capacity on this site to accommodate future residents, and that measures are being put in place to control both the supply and demand for parking in the local area at this present time. Officers propose to apply conditions to secure detail of a car park management plan, subject to planning permission being granted. In terms of cycle parking, the proposals would deliver a policy-compliant quantum of cycle parking. Additionally, and as part of the scheme, local active travel improvements will be secured for the wider Claren estate by way of Section 106 agreement. It is also important to highlight that a construction management plan would be secured in order to ensure that any construction phase associated with the development is properly managed to mitigate unnecessary disturbances to local residents, highways and users of said highways. So now if we just turn our attention to the environment, in terms of the scheme's environmental impacts, it's important to note that the application site is located within the green grid buffer zone and sits in close proximity to the Victoria Park sink. The scheme has been assessed independently, sorry, the scheme has been assessed by an independent consultancy on the behalf of the Council. They've confirmed that the scheme is acceptable in terms of biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, and with consideration to trees, it's important to note that the borough's tree officer has raised no objection to the scheme, subject to conditions being applied as outlined within the committee report. In terms of contributing towards the green grid, officers consider that the improvements both to Jasmine Park and the creation of Sycamore Park both serve to achieve the borough's strategic aims. And with consideration to carbon offsetting, it's important to note that we would secure by Section 106 a financial contribution of £111,435. So on the screen now is a list of financial obligations to be secured by way of Section 106 agreement. And on the screen now, or soon to be, is the non-financial obligations. You can click that to them if it's helpful. So yeah, officers advise the committee to result to ground planning permission subject to Section 106 agreement and conditions informatives as set out in the committee report. Thank you for your time and listening to this presentation. I'm now happy to answer any questions that you may have with regard to the scheme. Thank you very much. As we have no registered speakers in objection to this application, I will proceed to members' question. Do members have any questions for officers? Or if we would like to... Sorry, just one minute. Clarion, I'm sure. Sorry? Is Clarion out here? Is Clarion out here? Oh, yeah. So if the members want to ask the questions to Clarion, I can arrange that for you as well. So just indicate if you want the question for officers to answer or Clarion. Chair, if I may, the rules of the committee actually require speakers to be entitled to answer questions. So if they haven't spoken, they can't answer questions unless you feel there are exceptional circumstances. In which case, say so, and we can proceed on that basis. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick one. Can I... Can you confirm? Is it four elevators? And so... Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. So there is a lift in either mansion block, and then within the tower you have three lifts. So in total across the scheme it's five, but in the tower there is three, and I think that's probably the most pressing one. I want to confirm, is this an existing building that's been developed on? So there is an existing building, but it's been vacant since 2021. So previously, present it's got 129 vacant flats. The applicant has explored opportunities to renovate it and bring it out to standard, but it's just not feasible. So they are proposing to demolish it and redevelop the site to create the proposals that we're seeing at present. So there is currently a tower on site, but the proposals seek to replace that. I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Councillor Iqbal Hussein. Thank you, Chair. Is one of the concerns raised by the objection to the construction period actually? I'd need to defer to the applicant with regards to the length of time for the construction period, but it's important to note that they have submitted an outlying construction management plan at this stage. The sort of typical procedure, just to ensure that any construction phase is carried out in a manner that's causing the least amount of mitigation for local residents and users of the highway. But yeah, if you want to know the length of time, I'd have to defer to Claren. Thank you, Chair. My next question is about returning to the new block and how these people understand a significant number of people who rely on private hire taxi for their living, parking space available for their vehicle. So in terms of the number of residents who are looking to return at this stage it's not known, but the applicant team are in contact and regularly updating all residents who were rehomed and updating the stages of where they are within the planning process. I think they've contacted them on a minimum yearly basis just to ensure that they have an up-to-date understanding of who's interested and who's not. In terms of the transfer of parking spaces, the development is delivered as a car light, so it would be only for the blue badge parking spaces on site. The wider estate is Claren managed, so they are at this stage trying to manage the amount of car parking that becomes available, so as people leave the wider estate they're not advertising it as yet to accommodate the anticipated number. But Claren and I are working on that, and as part of the proposals we would apply secure, sorry, with regards to the car parking management plan, so we should properly understand how that's taking place. And then in terms of the permit transfer scheme, again that's got its own criteria, and that would have to be factored into the car parking management plan. But as I'm sure you can appreciate at this moment it's not outlined, but as I understand the applicant are and have been taking steps in advance. Thank you, Chair. My colleague already asked the same question I was going to ask, but anyway. So I understand that this affordable housing, I want to know height of the room, I mean unit up to the ceiling, what's going to be the height of the room? And also we know that we have a major issue in the borough, resident constantly for the housing, resident constantly contacting me about the housing, they are waiting for the 10-15 years, so which is good, you're going to have a, you know, like development area, there are going to be like 145, you know, the residents going to be offered. So I understand that, yeah, but when someone moved, you know, in a development area, they need a car space. Whoever don't have car, they don't need it, but whoever have the car, they will have like, they will have a huge, you know, issue about the parking space. They will have to wait for the, you know, long time or they're going to wait for the other side of the road, you know, for the car parking space. So I think it will be impact on the amenity of the development. And how do you ensure enough parking facilities for the residents? Thank you. So, thank you for that question. It's really insightful. To begin with, in terms of the ceiling heights, I know that they are achieving the minimum of 2.5, but I'd need to sort of have a quick check to find out the exact ceiling height. I know that's the top of my head, but I can come back to you that if it's pressing. But they, to be clear, they meet the, the GLA guidance in terms of what is an acceptable standard accommodation, so. And then, in terms of the car parking, yeah, I think that, that is a, that's an element. That's again, returning to the site. But that would be, to a degree, it'd be a decision. Um, I think we kind of, there is an element of needing to be pragmatic about this. Do you recognise that in some situations, this will cause a nuisance for residents who may wish to return back, but don't necessarily have the parking transfer scheme. Um, but, in terms of this application site, it's got its own site constraints, it's of a certain size. And if it's to, uh, provide the planning benefit of the 145 affordable homes, community facility. Um, and then, on top of that, I guess, I just refer to the fact that Clarion are working to try and ensure that there is capacity on site within wider estate. Um, so, at this stage, everyone, the applicant really does parking management condition. Works as, as we envisage it should do. We should be sort of minimising those, those issues from arising. Um, so, I hope that answers. Chair, can I just add to that point? Just, because obviously car parking is a very, um, kind of, uh, topic that, uh, a lot of residents are interested in. Um, but what the planning policy is requiring is less parking on site. But also, during the pre-application stages, we have explored with applicant to provide on-site spaces. But, because of site constraints, as Oli explained, that, you know, they will have to go down to the excavation of basement, which is then costly, then that means reduction in affordable housing. So, it's, it's all about balance and trying to meet the needs and what the priorities, which is, in this case, was for housing. Um, but equally, as Oli explained, there's estate management of car parking. So, and we, the planning process doesn't prevent the parking transfer scheme. So, you know, they are entitled, everyone is entitled to bring their parking permit. But it is about making sure that everyone can park within the locality. And, I think, uh, working together with our resolve that, you know, would happen. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kamrad Hussain. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. It's been hard to create this presentation and presenting before us. Thank you. Um, just trying to understand a couple of points. Pardon me if you've already demonstrated this in your presentation. Maybe I missed it. 5.13 in health and safety executive planning gateway. So, they have raised some of the concerns. And then, 5.14, again, the applicant have mitigated this, uh, concern with some of the proposed changes. After that, 5.16 is saying it will be for applicant to demonstrate compliance at later regulatory stages. So, when is the later regulatory stages? After that, today, I don't think any regulatory stages left. Uh, maybe, I don't know. So, uh, it's clearly, it's not all the concern has been mitigated. And when is that next stage to mitigate this concern? Uh, thank you for your question. Um, in terms of fire safety. So, at gateway stage one, we consult HSE with regards to fire safety, especially in tall buildings. And they've confirmed that from a planning use from at this stage, the scheme is compliant. And it's, um, there is no fire safety concern. But as I'm sure you can appreciate the, the stages of construction, they will then do further checks at a later point as details get. So, there are, it's just sort of framing things that the applicant will need to consider in the construction. But in terms of what we're assessing at this point, there is no reason to fear sort of fire safety. The, the application has essentially got the thumbs up from HSE. It's just, they have another regulatory, uh, stage, which they, which the applicant will then have to deal with. Um, but yeah, there's no, there's no concerns in terms of fire safety at this stage. Process during the construction periods that they have to fulfill this criteria. Yes. So, in terms of when HSE basically went, when the process was changed to introduce what we've called this gateway system. So, gateway one is effectively planning. And what gateway one has meant is that at planning stage, developers have had to start considering matters of fire safety. However, there is a gateway two, which is basically building regulations. So, with all schemes like this, they will do their drawings that, that meet essentially the planning requirements. Once they get their planning permission, they will then have to go through the building regulations process, which often requires more detailed drawings. And it's where matters of fire safety will really be tested. So, that's called gateway two. So, they have to go back to HSE to go through the gateway two process. But that's all dealt with by the building regulations framework, which is separate legislation, isn't subject to planning legislation. So, essentially what HSE have said to us is, for the purposes of planning, this is acceptable. And it will be picked up at a later stage if there are any further queries. Thank you, Chair. So, very similar to these, again, Metpolis has some of the concerns on 5.20 and, again, on 5.21, they have introduced some of the mitigating changes. Again, on the later stage, if I'm not wrong, it has to mitigate some of the other concerns. Is it correct? Is it the same way it's going to be dealt with during the process? Yes. So, typically we apply a condition for development to pass a secure by design certification. So, that will take into consideration things like materials of windows or balustrades and stuff. So, there may be some concerns raised during the planning process. But similar to how we secure details of final materials and design features, just to sort of make sure that it is feasible on site. We also have that mechanism to allow for the Metpolis to just ensure that it's hitting that safety standard. So, it's, yeah, again, at this stage, there's no secure by design concerns. But it's just sort of outlining the reason why we're applying that condition. So, yeah, I hope that clarifies. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, officers, for your presentation. I understand this is car free development. And you mentioned there will be a six visible base for the residents. So, my question to you, are they going to be designated for the individual person? If so, you mentioned there will be 16 wheelchair accessible properties. So, how can you justify if there is six bays, there are 16 wheelchair accessible properties? So, if it's going to be open for all or it's going to be designated for the individual person, the base? Thank you for that question. So, in terms of the London plan, there is a requirement. I think it's 3% of the total for wheelchair car parking spaces or, sorry, accessible car parking spaces. So, the minimum provision is six for a development of this size. But the applicant needs to be able to demonstrate that they would be able to provide an appropriate provision of parking to demand or people expressing demand at a later stage. So, those initial six spaces would go to residents who meet identified need that would be likely carried out in part through the car parking management scheme. If there was more residents living in the wheelchair accessible units who needed car parking spaces, the applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient space within the immediate of the site to accommodate that. So, yeah, at the moment, it doesn't provide for everyone, but that's not to assume that everybody who lives in those houses would also need a car parking space. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. You have mentioned that you don't need to comply. So, sorry, are you asking how we can sort of justify the tall building on site? The increase in height. The increase in height. The increase in height. Okay. So, in terms of the existing site, prior to it being vacated due to fire safety issues, it had primarily just ones and two bed properties. It didn't have any unit sizes for larger family-sized homes or wheelchair accessible homes. So, this development seems to sort of intensify the site and maximise the provision of housing. In order to sort of further intensify the site, there is a slight increase in scale. The primary sort of, I guess, concern with the tall, it being a slightly taller building, is in terms of impacts to the local skyline and the local setting. The proposals have undergone three pre-application meetings and then being taken to the quality review panel, who have got to the point with the applicant of sort of agreeing to the principle of the tall building in terms of its impacts to the local sort of townscape. So, yes, it is taller, but because of the sort of the design, the improvements being accepted, if that makes sense. Chair, can I just add to that answer? Also, you might need to be mindful of the fact that existing building has a much shorter floor-to-ceiling height, and they now need to design it in a way so that meets the minimum threshold, which is 2.5, and they have done that, and hence it does elongate the building a bit, trying to accommodate all the replacement dwellings, but also, in this instance, trying to add family-sized housing in there, hence why it has gone increased in height. But, as Oliver said, we have really satisfied with the proposed higher densities. Chair, if I might just come in. I mean, as Ms. Gin said, the building has to be higher for the same number of storeys because we ask for a better floor-to-ceiling height to provide better quality of accommodation for the occupants. So, the existing building on site is 22 storeys. It's only one additional storey is 23 storeys. It is increasing the overall height of the building by 14 metres. So, we're not trying to hide that. Obviously, that has a certain degree of additional impact, but it is relatively modest. And I know, hopefully, the members have certainly made the site visit. I think, hopefully, you'd agree with officers that the existing building really hasn't got any kind of architectural merit or really contribute positively to the surrounding area and views from the Victoria Park Conservation Area, whilst the proposed replacement building is altogether, you know, much more architectural merit. So, we, you know, our place shape and our conservation officers have assessed the scheme and are of the opinion that it causes no harm from views from the conservation area because, indeed, you might say it enhances it because, I say, the existing building is certainly no thing of beauty, I think. Councillor Shubo Hussein. I think, if we could, if we could give Councillor Ahmed a chance. Yeah, he'll be late. I'll call him later. You want him to call him? Okay. Councillor Hulu Ahmed then. Thank you, sir. I think the building, when we visit Councillor Rah, and Iqbal Barba was there. So, we had to discuss, it's a many important thing. Is this actually car-free zone? And so far, I know that it's a three-bedroom, they have priority for the parking, they will eligible. I just want to be clear that the car parking priority, the men have to be the previous car holder or the anyone coming. Is it the same priority or the car holder man only can be priority or the new person? No, that's the things I want to know. And other things, one more thing I want to ask, how many of the affordable homes will be for a family? And are they truly affordable for local people? Just with respect to the car parking, so, if people are eligible for the permit transfer system, i.e., they're already in property, maybe over their car parking permit through the permit transfer system. What the applicant has tried to do is, because they're well aware of this issue, they're well aware of the potential impacts that this could have on the surrounding street network, highway network. They've tried to plan ahead by, in terms of, obviously, they control the existing estate. It's not LBTH highway immediately around the site. They, Clarion, control that. And so, in advance of this building coming forward, they've been trying to manage that space. I think it comes free, or has become free in the recent past. They're not advertising it. They're holding it back in the event that people who move into the new building require car parking spaces. Now, I think we can't accurately suggest at this stage how many people might have permits and come into this building. It's hard to say how well that, whether that will be quite a lot, because there are a lot of three and four bed units. And so, people who are in demand of that kind of accommodation may well already have a permit, and they'll be able to transfer it across. So, they've been doing their best to try and manage the situation. Obviously, as my colleagues have pointed out, land is ultimately limited. So, they can't have car parking spaces everywhere, but they have been trying to plan in advance for this issue. And as I said, they've identified that there already is capacity on the existing, their estate. There are already some available spaces. And they've been trying to increase that amount over time, recommending, which will require them to give us full details of how that process is to be managed. How spaces will be allocated to new residents who have car parking permits. But I suppose the confusing thing is when we say, oh, that it's permit free. What that means is that people who come to the development and they're not eligible for the permit transfer scheme, they will not be able to apply for a car parking permit. So, people who don't already have a permit necessarily already in a three- and a four-bed unit and are transferring over to this, they cannot apply for a new permit. But people who already do have the permit, they can bring it over. So, it's kind of like distinction. Oli, I don't know if you want to go on. Yeah, thank you. In terms of affordable housing, so there would be 45% larger family-sized homes. So, that's 52 three-bed homes and 22 four-bed homes. So, that's quite a significant proportion of larger family-sized units. And then you're questioned in terms of whether they're truly affordable. The applicant is proposing the social rented tenure. And that does work out as being cheaper than both the London affordable rent and Tower Hamlets living rent, which we typically look for a 50-50 split. So, in terms of affordability, this scheme is unusually good. And then, like I say, there is a pretty significant proportion of larger-sized family units. Thanks. This is the best affordable housing product. Thank you. I think I want to ask, if I'm not mistaken, you said the rent would be the very cheap and affordable rent building. So, what is the cheapest category or category? I just want to . So, you mean the actual name of the product? It's social rent essentially. I think if I'm not mistaken, I have one. So, there's various different kinds of affordable rented products. Typically, and this is what's required by planning policy, we're usually directed to, when we're talking about low-cost affordable rent, we're usually directing people to London affordable rent and Tower Hamlets living rent. And there's a slight difference between those two products because one of them is measured at award level and one of them is taken a bit more broadly. And then one of them includes service charges and the other one doesn't include service charges. So, they've been typically what we've always secured through new planning permissions. However, there is now what the GLA are strongly encouraging is going back to traditional social rent, which is actually cheaper than London affordable rent and Tower Hamlets living rent. So, in terms of new schemes that are coming forward, the GLA is strongly pushing that we secure them as this, and the housing associations are signing up to this. And so, this is going to be basically the cheapest affordable rent product that you can get on the market. And that's what we're securing here. Thank you. Chair, if I just take you to page 88 of the committee report. It sets out the individual prices just to reinforce what Mr Westmoreland says. So, they are the cheapest and best rents. And a one bed is £194, and then the six or more go up to £259. The four beds are £228. Thank you. Thank you. You remember your question. I remembered my question. Last question from me. How will the community hub be used, and who decide who goes in there? So, we're looking for a local community group to sort of take ownership or management of that. We would be looking for a management plan on that front. So, those details will be sort of clarified as part of the ongoing Section 106 agreements, which we look to secure an affordable rate for residents of the development. And so, in short, at present, it would be the applicant team, but they are looking for a local community group to take operation of that. As in who? I think that would be something that we'd have to sort of take up with the applicant team. They aren't going to be states. Very rude. So, thank you for that. The figures in the committee report, which Gareth referred to, they are the rent caps for this year. I can't say for certain, but there is a likelihood that that would rise with inflation. It's typical, but given that they are social rent, and at the moment it is the most affordable, but at this present time, like I said, this is the most affordable rent. So, yeah, I hope that answers your question. Thank you very much. I don't think anybody wants to ask any more questions. So, do members have... Okay. Would members like to share their thoughts or debate on the applications? I can open it, the floor, if you want to say anything. Councillor McVarrowsen. Thank you, Chair. I think this is a very decent development, quite impressive design, and it will help the housing crisis we are facing at the moment. So, it sounds good. Thank you. Anybody else? You want to... Thank you, Chair. There's really not much to add, really. I mean, the scheme is an unusual scheme. It's 100% social rent scheme, so we don't see this. It's providing over 51% of the housing as family-sized housing, and, actually, that masks the real figure, because, normally, that would be on a 70-30 split between the intermediate and affordable rent, but, actually, they're all social rent, so, as a proportion, you're getting even more than one would normally see with a normal scheme. The scheme is of a high-quality design. The very good quality of accommodation, very good daylight, over 87% of them meet the daylight, sunlight standards. There's a very high level of dual-aspect units. It's providing a new park or improvements to the existing park and a new park, as well. So, from an officer's perspective, we see it as a very good scheme. Thank you, Chair. Now, we're going to move to the boat. Can I see all those in favour of the application? Oh, it's unanimous. But I don't have to say all this again. And no abstention as well, so it's quite unanimous. Guys, can you please confirm the complete decision, please? Thank you, Chair. Just to say the recommendation for approval was approved unanimously by the committee, subject to planning conditions and planning obligations. The scheme is recommended for approval and is granted. We now move to agenda item 5.1, planning application at Global Switch House, 3.0 LL E14 to action. Gareth will introduce the application for consideration. And Hanna Wadis, planning case officer, will present the application. Shall I just give one minute to everybody? Thank you, Gareth. Can you introduce the application, please? Yes, sure. Thank you, Chair. This application is on the site of the Global Switch House, 3 network lane, London E14. Seeing popular ward. The proposal is for the erection of east and west extensions to an existing data centre building, alterations to the north and south facades, infill of reception, atrium, installation of new flues and plants, upgrade of rooftop chillers and other social works, including landscaping, cycle parking and lighting. Chair, just before the case officer introduces the application, this application is unusual for us to come to the Strategic Development Committee because it's a relatively modest extension. But because it's only 6,000 square metres, which obviously we would not normally classify as strategic development. But because the extensions, although it doesn't increase the overall height of the development with the exception of some flues, it is over those kind of extensions on the side of the building are over 30 metres. So therefore it triggers the reason why it comes to this application and indeed why it's referable to the GLA. It's perhaps useful to note that actually when we refer to the GLA they didn't, they don't want the, we don't have to refer it back to them because the scheme, if you like, from their perspective doesn't raise any strategic issues. So can I ask Hannah, what is the planning officer to present the application? Thanks chair, good evening committee members. I'll now do a short presentation on agenda item 5.1, which comprises extensions to the Global Switchhouse data centre. Just to give some background on what data centres contain. So data centres contain data halls, power and cooling plant, ancillary space and circulation. The image on the left shows a data hall, which is a space designed to accommodate data storage servers. The ancillary space comprises facilities required to run and secure the building. Office and meeting accommodation for a small number of people is provided as well as a security office and a control centre. Global Switchhouse is located in Blackwall in the Docklands area of Tower Hamlets. The surrounding area is mainly occupied by office buildings and data centres. The application site boundary is shown on the image in red. The site is not located within a conservation area and the existing building is not listed. The images on the screen show the existing building, which was built between 1999 and 2002 as a purpose-built data centre. The building comprises 13 levels, which include data halls, power and cooling plant, ancillary space and circulation. The proposals comprise the erection of extensions to both the eastern and western elevations, including the infill of atrium to the eastern elevation, alterations to the north and south, facades, installation of new flues and plant and an upgrade to the rooftop chillers to include screening and other associated works, including landscaping, cycle parking and lighting. The extension to the western elevation would provide a revised layout to the entrance area, allowing for connection to the approved London south building through a bridge link which was approved under the London south application. On this image, the proposed extensions are shown in red and the proposed upgrades to the rooftop chillers are shown in green. This image shows a CGI of the proposals as an aerial view from the south of the site. Here you can see that the extension to the eastern elevation has been stepped back to reduce the visual impact. The proposed flumes extend approximately three metres further than the existing rooftop plant. You can also see London south highlighted in blue, which comprises a data centre that was approved in 2023. In terms of consultation, no objections and one letter of support was received. So moving on to land use, the site is located within a local employment location and is located within an area that is considered suitable for providing data centres, which support the needs of Canary Wharf and the City of London. The provision of additional floor space to the existing data centre is in compliance with both local and London plan policies. The proposals will provide additional employment floor space and, as required by policy, there needs to be an affordable workspace provision. Given that data centres are made up of data halls rather than traditional office floor space, a financial payment will be secured by the section 106 agreement as payment in lieu. Moving on to design, the image shows a relationship between the global switch house building, the approved London staff data centre and the approved telehouse data centre. Overall, the height, scale and massing of the proposals respond well to the surrounding area. The proposed design and materiality complement the host building and provide visual interest. Therefore, the proposals are supported in terms of design. The materials reflect the functional nature of the building and complement the existing building and surrounding area, which predominantly comprises office and data centre use. Overall, the design is acceptable and in compliance with the relevant policies. In terms of heritage, although Global Switch House is not a designated heritage asset, to the west of the site is East India Dock House, which is grade 2 star listed and currently operates as a data centre. The extension to the eastern elevation will have no impact on the setting of the listed building, particularly as it is set back from the northern and southern elevations. The extension to the western elevation is set between the existing tower stair pods and so does not protrude any further than the existing building. The proposed rooftop plan and screening will not extend beyond the height of the existing plan, including the proposed flues which will extend approximately 3 metres past the height of the current top of the roof parapet to the north, east and south, eastern corners of the building. This will not give rise to concerns in terms of the setting of the listed building. In terms of amenity, the closest residential occupiers to the site are located to the north of the A13, approximately 110 metres from the site, and to the south of the A1261, approximately 117 metres from the site. Given the separation distances, the residential properties will not experience any impact in terms of loss of light, privacy or increased sense of enclosure. The proposals would also not result in any undue impact in terms of noise, as supported by the noise impact assessment. Currently, there are 20 standard and two disabled bays. However, the proposals would result in the loss of all car parking on site. The applicant is proposing that the bays approved under the London South application will be available for users of the site. This is shown in the image on the right. A car parking management strategy for the campus would be secured through section 26 to ensure blue badge parking is provided. The proposals include the provision of ten long-stay cycle parking spaces and two Sheffield stands for visitors. There is also adequate provision of waste facilities. Overall, the proposals would not result in adverse impact on the surrounding highway network. The environmental impact of the proposals has been considered. This includes air quality, land contamination, flood risk and drainage, biodiversity, microclimate, energy and sustainability. Subject to the appropriate mitigation measures, these are all acceptable. It is recommended that financial planning obligations, as shown on this slide, are secured by a section 106 agreement. This includes the affordable workspace payment in lieu of just under £235,000. The non-financial obligations include a campus-wide car parking management strategy to ensure blue badge parking is provided. To conclude, officers recommend that the committee resolve to grant planning permission subject to the conditions, informatives and planning obligations as set out in the committee report. Thank you. I will now take any questions. Thank you. As we have no registered speaker in objection to this application, I will proceed to members' question. Do members have any further questions to the officers? Thank you, Chair. It says it doesn't have any negative impact on the higher network of public transport. Does this nature of this development have any known impact on the human life, living in close proximity? In terms of the environment, we have considered all those impacts, but in terms of human life, we have just considered the immunity impact, which comprises noise and loss of light to neighbouring properties. In terms of health hazard, does it have any known precedent that people living close by to the data centre have suffered any health condition or something like that? Yeah, I understand your question. The data centre has been there since 2002 and there have been no impacts on human life. Chair, if I may come in to answer that question. It's a data centre, so it's a building that stores large hardware drives, basically, and that's all it is. And it requires all that space around the hard drives because it needs to air and it needs to circulate and it needs to have a temperature that's appropriate for the running of the... It's just like a supercomputer kind of hardware that sits on the floor. So there's no danger to human life at all with this use. And within that estate, it's all surrounded by all the other data centres to serve places like Canary Wharf and, you know, have this... It holds a lot of data and server for different companies such as Amazon and, you know, the Google and so and such. So it's not hazardous to human life whatsoever. I can answer that question, Chair, if that's OK. So basically, all the development have to go through an air quality neutral assessment. However, in the GLA guidance, it states that if a development has its own... It's regulated by its own environmental permit, which this data centre and other data centre buildings do, so it's regulated by an environment agency, they're not required to go through the assessment because it's actually regulated by an environmental agency who looks after that. So whilst our air quality officer have raised concerns about the proposal, the baseline of this assessment is that it's not required to carry out the assessment because it has a separate permit outside the planning remit. So we're satisfied that, you know, whilst air quality officer may raise that concern, that it is still regulated and it still meets the requirements from planning policy perspective. Thank you. Mr Abbas, thanks. Mr Shobol using. Mine's just a relatively quick one. Growing up we didn't know what this building was, but it always looked quite cool. Would it change the look of the building? Yeah, so I can show you a few of the slides. slides. So the main bulk of the is to the eastern elevation. If I could show you here. So that's the main change to the eastern facade. To the southern facade, there's no major difference. The position of the loading bay is going to change. And obviously the rooftop screening, but that will be the only amendment. And then to the western facade, it's just the infill of the stair pods. So that's the main difference. And then to the northern facade, again, there's no major changes proposed, just a cycle store. Chair, I can add a bit more to that if you wish. So as Hannah explained, it does slightly vary the design and external appearance. And I don't know whether you might appreciate all the data center buildings are a bit gray and a bit bulky and chunky. However, what the applicant has here done is trying to articulate it and try to provide some visual interest, which is not so evident in this image. But it is proposed to be in a colored kind of green shade of cladding on the side panels and also on the ground level entrances. They have kind of made it interesting. So when you're walking past this area, which a lot of people in Everfeldy state would do to come through this way, to go to eastgen.dlr, they will provide better visual interest than it previously has. Thank you. Chancellor Rebecca. Thank you so much for the presentation. I just want to have a very short and last question. I want to know, looks to me, it's a huge building. So I want to know how many employees is working, if it is possible, to give me an answer. Thank you. I'm not sure the existing number of employees, but this extension won't generate any additional jobs. Sorry, that doesn't really answer your question in terms of the number of employees. I can add to that. The data centers actually is not like your traditional office buildings or warehouses, where it does actually traditionally employ people to come into work. It's really, because as I explained earlier, it's a, it holds mega storage data and their computer equipment. That is really the personnel who come to maintain it and kind of monitor it and fix it, for instance, will come and go to these buildings, but they're mainly kind of self-serving buildings. So each hub may be, you know, rented out to a company and they would have specialists to come in to look after the data. So it's not a traditional building whereby you have employees coming into it. Hence why, as Hannah explained earlier, with the affordable workspace contribution, we will usually seek affordable work spaces, but data centers are really hard to do because they're quite high security buildings. Not everyone can, public can't go into and out of them. And so therefore we have sought a monetary value out of that and we're seeking financial contribution towards it because it's not, it doesn't operate like a traditional kind of employment building. Thank you. Chair, if I might just come in. Your question's a good one. And actually, on paragraph 8.3, we've got our financial, non-financial, non-financial obligations, but it asks for 20 construction phase, sorry, end phase apprenticeships. Yeah. And because, as Jane just said, there won't, and Hannah, this scheme won't actually bring any new jobs. So what I think we will, we will do, if hopefully the committee will agree to this, if this scheme is given approval, is we will ask for a financial contribution in lieu of those, those end phase apprenticeships, because, because there clearly won't be any, any jobs generated on site. So it's not, not going to be tenable. Any more questions? No. Okay. So there are no questions, so can I ask members to get any more thoughts or depends on the agenda? I'll move on to vote. Before we move on to vote, can I ask Gary or Jan to share any final advice? Yeah. Yeah. As I say, Chair, this, this scheme is unusual. It has come to committee. I think questions have been asked about how will it affect the kind of visual appearance of the building and the area more generally. And the short answer is it won't have any adverse effect. I mean, next door there is the East India Dockhouse, which is the old Financial Times building, which is grade two-star building. And our conservation officers have looked at the, this, this proposal in the context of the setting of that building and says it has, says no, causes no harm at all, which I think speaks of how it's, the scheme is accessible. And all the, the land use is what we propose for this area. So there's, yeah, it causes, raises no issues against the development plan for, for, for the decision maker. Yes, maybe it's just simply to say that the position in respect to the construction phase of apprentices has been brought to your attention, but the report does delegate it down to, um, the corporate directors to negotiate the terms of the Section 106 agreement. So I'm happy to proceed on what we've got in front of us and rely on the delegation to resolve the issue with the, um, apprentices and the workforce. Okay. Thank you very much. So we'll move into board now. Can I ask all those in favour of the application? I'll be. Considated du Ahmed? Can you? Thank you, sir. It's enough. So not Paul Garrett, sorry. Chair, just to confirm the, the application has been, uh, granted, uh, unanimously subject to planning conditions and obligations. Before you go, I think, uh, uh, uh, Karat, is he Karat? Or Jan? I think Jan Husin Anderson, you would like to say a few words for the committee. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Could I just, uh, see, uh, Councillor Kameral Hussain, Councillor Ahmed Raman and, um, Ghulam Kibriya Chaudhry afterwards for a minute, please. Thank you. I shouldn't have said it before, and I said it before. Sorry, Jane. I don't think Jane is living us. Jane Jane. The East area town lead, I mean, town lead now. Sorry, I'm, we are really sorry to see you go. You're going to Ealing Council. Where are you going Ealing? Why are you leaving to Haran? Can I just say on behalf of Dem Services, you will be missed. Can I just say that? You will. You would. No, can I just, can I just say something? Yeah. I will call Councillor Campbell-Rosen. Please change your mind if you can. Otherwise, we're going to miss you too much. Thank you. And, Chair, just, just, just from fellow officers, can we just, I'd just like to echo Jane's been with the council for 15 years, has served the council so well and has been, um, yeah, just came as a principal application, principal case officer and dealt with some of the major applications and then for many years been a team leader and I think she's been an incredible support and inspiration for everybody in, in her team and beyond and so we're eternally grateful. Do we need to vote? Thank you. Wish you well, Jane. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. That concludes the business for this meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.