The Development Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Thursday 23 April 2026, where they granted planning permission for a terrace structure at Discovery Dock Apartments East. The committee also refused an application for a non-material amendment to school operating hours at the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road.

Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, London E14 9RZ

The committee granted planning permission for the erection of a demountable terrace structure with a retractable canopy and seating to the ground floor unit at Discovery Dock Apartments East. This decision followed a previous deferral of the application to seek further advice from the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) regarding fire safety concerns.

During the discussion, Councillor Mufeedah Bustin, Councillor for Island Gardens Ward, sought clarification on the BSR's response, asking for an explanation in layman's terms. Paul Buckenham, Head of Development Management and Planning and Building Control, explained that the BSR's assessment was focused on land-use planning considerations at Gateway One, and that further, more detailed scrutiny would occur at Gateway Two, which relates to building control. He emphasised that the BSR was satisfied with the fire safety design as it pertained to the planning application, but that the development would still require building control approval before it could commence.

Concerns were raised by objectors regarding fire safety risks, cladding issues, and the presence of a waking watch at Discovery Dock East. The BSR confirmed that they were not aware of the waking watch and that the Fire Risk Assessment of the External Wall report was out of scope for their planning consultation. However, they noted that this would not have changed their substantive response. The BSR also highlighted that the proposed works would constitute building work requiring building control approval from the BSR at Gateway 2, and that it would be an offence to start without it.

Despite some members expressing unease due to the ongoing fire safety issues within the wider building, Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury, Chair of the Health & Adults Scrutiny Sub-Committee, stated that fire safety, while important, did not fall under planning material considerations in this instance. He supported the officer's recommendation based on the BSR's consultation.

Ultimately, the committee voted by a majority of two in favour, with one abstention, to grant planning permission subject to conditions. These conditions included restrictions on the hours of use of the seating area (8:00 to 22:00), the maximum number of patrons (40), and noise from any associated plant.

Site south west junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB

The committee refused an application for a non-material amendment to Condition 19 of a planning permission granted in December 2015 for Canary Wharf College, Glenworth Primary School. The proposed amendment sought to alter the permitted teaching hours to commence no later than 8:15 am and finish no later than 3:00 pm.

Paul Buckenham explained that the key consideration was whether the amendment was material or non-material in planning terms. While the purpose of the condition, to stagger school hours with neighbouring St Luke's Primary School to avoid congestion, would still be met, the proposed change would increase the stagger.

Objectors, including local residents and ward councillors, argued that the proposed amendment constituted a material change, citing concerns about traffic congestion, highway safety, cumulative impacts with nearby schools, and residential amenity. They requested refusal or deferral for further traffic assessment.

Supporters, including representatives from Canary Wharf College Trust, argued that the proposal would maintain staggered school times, would not materially worsen transport impacts, and was necessary for operational sustainability.

After debate, Councillor Marc Francis proposed an alternative motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the amendment would have a material and adverse impact on residential amenity, result in increased congestion and highway safety concerns, and create unacceptable cumulative effects alongside nearby schools' operating times. The committee voted unanimously in favour of this motion, refusing the amendment.