The Development Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Thursday 23 April 2026 to discuss a deferred planning application for a terrace structure at Discovery Dock Apartments East. The committee granted planning permission for this application after further clarification on fire safety concerns. The committee also considered a non-material amendment to a planning permission for Canary Wharf College, Glenworth Primary School, which was ultimately refused.

Planning Application for Discovery Dock Apartments East

The committee considered the deferred planning application for a demountable terrace structure with a retractable canopy and seating at the ground floor unit of Discovery Dock Apartments East, located at 3 South Quay Square, London E14 9RZ. This application had been deferred at a previous meeting to seek further advice from the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) regarding fire safety concerns, particularly in light of the building being classified as high-risk.

Paul Buckingham, Head of Development Management and Planning and Building Control, explained that additional advice had been received from the BSR, which was detailed in an update report. He noted that while the BSR was not aware of the building being under a waking watch ¹ at the time of their initial assessment, they maintained that the Fire Risk Assessment of the External Wall (FRAEW) report was out of scope for their planning consultation. The BSR confirmed that even if they had reviewed the FRAEW report, their substantive response would not have changed. They reiterated that the proposed works would constitute building work ² requiring Building Control approval at Gateway 2, ensuring further scrutiny regarding fire safety compliance.

Councillor Mufeedah Bustin sought clarification on what fire safety matters as they relate to land use planning considerations meant, and how the step-by-step approval process worked. Paul Buckingham explained that Gateway 1 (planning) and Gateway 2 (building control) were distinct stages, with the BSR satisfied with the fire safety aspects relevant to land use planning at this stage. He assured the committee that the proposed works would undergo further scrutiny at Gateway 2, and that fire safety matters beyond the scope of the planning application would be addressed under the Building Safety Act and the Fire Safety Order 2005.

Despite some members expressing unease due to the ongoing fire safety issues within the building, Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury stated that fire safety, while important, did not fall under planning material considerations in this context, and he supported the officer's recommendation based on the additional consultation with the BSR. Diane Phillips, Senior Planning Lawyer, reinforced that the BSR was the expert in fire safety and that their advice indicated that sufficient work had been done to grant planning permission on planning grounds. She added that the actual construction of the development was dependent on the Gateway 2 process.

Ultimately, the committee voted by a majority of two in favour with one abstention to grant planning permission for the terrace structure at Discovery Dock Apartments East, subject to conditions detailed in the original report and the update report.

Planning Application for Canary Wharf College, Glenworth Primary School

The committee also considered a request for a non-material amendment³ under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Condition 19 of a planning permission granted in December 2015 for Canary Wharf College, Glenworth Primary School, located at the south west junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB. The 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 Buckingham explained that the key consideration was whether the proposed amendment was material or non-material in planning terms. While officers recommended granting the amendment, noting it would increase the staggering of school times with the neighbouring St Luke's Primary School, thereby still meeting the original condition's purpose, several members expressed concerns.

Objectors, including local residents and ward councillors, argued that the proposed change constituted a material amendment due to potential increases in traffic congestion, highway safety concerns, and the cumulative impact with other nearby schools. Councillor Marc Francis proposed refusing the application, citing these concerns.

After debate, the committee voted unanimously to refuse the non-material amendment. They concluded that the proposed amendment would be material in planning terms, leading to adverse impacts on residential amenity, increased congestion and highway safety concerns, and unacceptable cumulative effects alongside the operating times of nearby schools.