The Strategic Development Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Wednesday 15 January 2025. The meeting began with a discussion of a previously deferred application, PA/24/00173, a large mixed-use redevelopment scheme at 2-6 Commercial Street, 98-105 Whitechapel High Street and the site of the Canon Barnett Primary School. The application, which was recommended for refusal by planning officers, was to demolish 101 Whitechapel High Street, 6 Commercial Street and the western annex of the Canon Barnett Primary School, partially demolish 102-105 Whitechapel High Street and 2-4 Commercial Street (retaining the façades of those buildings) and redevelop the site to provide an 18-storey office block with community space, relocation and expansion of the school playground, and a new school annex. After discussing the application, the Committee resolved to grant planning permission.

Next, the Committee considered PA/24/00996, a Section 73 application to amend planning conditions on a previously approved mixed-use development at the Bow Common Gas Works. The application was to vary conditions on the previously approved PA/19/02379. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

The Committee then considered PA/23/02097, an application to demolish the existing building at 1 Selsdon Way and erect a 35-storey building comprising residential units, flexible commercial/community space, and other associated works. After a discussion about the potential impact of the development on the neighbouring Canary Wharf College, the Committee unanimously voted to grant planning permission for the application.

Redevelopment at 2-6 Commercial Street, 98-105 Whitechapel High Street & Canon Barnett Primary School

This application had been deferred from the previous Strategic Development Committee meeting on 9 December 2024 following a resolution to undertake a site visit. The Committee report recommended refusal of planning permission for the application.

Since the previous meeting nine additional written representations had been received. These were summarised by the Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control, Paul Buckenham. The Committee then discussed the application with planning officers. During the meeting, members considered the relationship between the proposed office building and the existing school, the loss of retail floorspace, and whether an area of new public realm (the ‘Canon Barnett Yard’) would be sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the proposed office building. The applicant had proposed an alternative to providing a new community hall. This was to provide a financial contribution toward enhancements in the conservation area in lieu of building a new community hall. Planning officers advised that this was not a viable alternative.

Next, the committee heard from those who had registered to speak at the meeting.

Speaking in objection to the application was Stuart Mundy, the CEO of Mulberry Schools Trust, of which Canon Barnett is part. Mr Mundy argued that:

The scheme overlooks the privacy of the playground and will cause health and safety concerns for parents and is an oppressive outdoor environment for children.

He went on to cite adverse daylight and sunlight impacts, wind conditions, and inadequate fire safety access.

Local resident Marion Walker argued that families in the borough need more housing and community space and that any development on the site should be created as a Community Land Trust. She was also critical of the applicant, Alliance Property Asia, who she described as ‘an international development company’ that cared ‘more for profits than they do for borough residents’.

Adnan Shaikh, representing the applicant, then set out the case for the development. He began by highlighting the economic benefit to the borough, arguing that the scheme would deliver ‘close to 3,000 jobs once operational’ and that it would ‘boost the local economy’. He said that the scheme would deliver £23.5 million to the Council in CIL and other payments. He acknowledged the concerns raised by the school and said that they had been addressed, for example by relocating the playground away from Commercial Street.

Oliver Sheppard, of DP9 Ltd, the agent for the scheme, argued that the scheme would regenerate the area and upgrade a derelict part of the borough.

Local resident Shahidul Alam Ratan said that he was in favour of the development because it would improve the school, make the area safer, and provide new community facilities.

The Committee then resumed its discussion. In their deliberations they discussed the following matters:

Whether the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that there was no longer a need for the education facilities that would be lost as a result of the development. Planning officers argued that the applicant had not made this case.
The height of the development in the context of the Whitechapel High Street Conservation Area. The site is not within a tall building zone and planning officers argued that the height of the proposed development was unacceptable.
The loss of existing ground floor retail space and the creation of an ‘inactive’ ground floor frontage to Commercial Street and Whitechapel High Street. The applicant argued that there was no longer demand for retail in this part of the borough. Planning officers countered that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated that there was no demand.
The land swap involving the relocation of the school playground to a new location to the south of the existing school. Planning officers drew attention to the fact that the proposed location of the new school playground would result in it being overshadowed by the new office development to its west.

Following the debate, the Committee voted against the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.

Section 73 Application at Bow Common Gas Works

This application was for the variation of several conditions on a previously approved planning application at the Bow Common Gas Works. The site is a 3.9 hectare former gas works site to the south of Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park. It is an allocated site within the Council’s Local Plan and is designated for the delivery of a mixed-use development including a strategic housing development, a school, and 1 hectare of open space. It is also within the Poplar Riverside Housing Zone.

The previously approved development (PA/19/02379) was a hybrid planning application, with a detailed element and an outline element. The detailed element, which related to three buildings providing 235 residential units, is currently under construction and is expected to be completed next year. The amendments sought through the Section 73 application included the addition of a fourth building to the detailed element of the scheme and an increase in building heights to the outline element of the scheme.

The report presented to the Committee recommended that planning permission for the Section 73 application be granted.

The application was introduced to the Committee by Paul Buckenham, Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control. Kevin Crilly, the Case Officer for the application, provided a presentation detailing the proposed changes, the outcome of consultations and the results of assessments of the impacts of the development.

Following the presentation, the Committee asked several questions of the Officers. These included questions on the percentage of family-sized units in the affordable housing provision, and the impact of the proposals on the setting of the nearby Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park.

Tom Houghton addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr Houghton represented residents of the St Leonard's development. He said that he was speaking on behalf of residents of more than 50 homes adjacent to the application site. He said that their objections focused on excessive building heights, inadequate consultation, insufficient community facilities, and an inappropriate increase in density. He argued that consultation had been minimal and that increases in the height of some of the buildings in the scheme from 16 to 21 storeys was unacceptable. He said that they did not object to development on the site in principle, simply the way in which it was being delivered.

Speaking in favour of the application was Tristan Payne, Senior Development Manager with St William, the applicant for the scheme. Mr Payne began by welcoming the Officer recommendation to approve the application. He argued that the application maintained the original principles of the previously approved development and that it would deliver additional benefits such as the accelerated delivery of 271 affordable homes, an increase in the size of the public park by 70%, and additional financial payments. He said that the revisions had been the result of a collaborative process with officers and a comprehensive community consultation process including four in-person consultation events, delivery of 5,000 flyers, door-knocking, and a dedicated website.

Following the presentations from Mr Houghton and Mr Payne, the Committee discussed the application with them, Officers and the Council’s legal advisor, Ian Austin. They asked Mr Houghton which part of the development he lived adjacent to and he explained that he lived in a block adjacent to St. Paul's Way School. He reiterated that there had been no consultation with residents of the St Leonard’s development.

They asked Mr Payne to detail the community engagement process he had described earlier. Mr Payne responded that four in-person consultation events had taken place, two on the application site and two at the Cemetery Park. He said that 5,000 flyers had been distributed to nearby residents and that door-knocking had taken place. They asked him to provide the numbers of people who had attended the consultation event and he said that 66 attended the first, 31 attended the second, and 200 homes had been visited during door-knocking, with an additional 60 conversations being held with visitors to the Cemetery Park.

The Committee then asked Officers about the proposed mix of affordable housing. Officers responded that the overall scheme would deliver 35% affordable housing. They said that the second phase would deliver 81% affordable housing but that this front-loading would mean that later phases would deliver less. Officers said that the affordable housing would be a 50/50 mix of London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent.

The Committee then asked Mr Payne to respond to a question about how the development would impact on the nearby Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park. Mr Payne said that they had conducted overshadowing studies of the park and that the proposed changes would not result in a change to the amount of overshadowing.

The Committee then moved on to discuss the application. Members described the proposed development as a “wonderful” and “fantastic” project. Members asked Officers if a site visit was necessary and officers said that an invite had previously been extended and declined by all but one member of the Committee. Members were concerned about the level of affordable housing provision. In his summing up, Paul Buckenham explained that while there would be increased density on the site, the benefits of the early delivery of affordable housing were sufficient to justify a recommendation of approval.

The Committee unanimously voted to approve the application.

Planning Application at 1 Selsdon Way

The application proposes to demolish the existing building on the site and replace it with a 35-storey building comprising residential units, flexible community hub space, and other associated works. The site is located to the south-east of Canary Wharf, adjacent to the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) line and is approximately 100 metres from Crossharbour DLR Station.

The report that was presented to the Committee recommended that the application be approved.

The Head of Development Management, Planning and Building Control, Paul Buckenham, informed the Committee that an update report had been circulated, summarising additional representations received on the application. The Committee noted the update report. The application was then introduced by Conor Guilfoyle, Senior Planning Officer. Mr Guilfoyle provided a presentation detailing the site and surroundings, the nature of the proposal, and the results of consultations and assessments of the impacts of the development.

Following the presentation, the Committee asked the Officers a number of questions on matters such as the percentage of family-sized units in the affordable housing provision.

The Committee then heard from Andrew Woods, who addressed them in objection to the application. Mr Woods asked the committee to defer a decision on the application due to concerns about how safety would be managed during the demolition and construction process in close proximity to an active school. He argued that the Council would be ‘legally responsible’ if any of the 500 children in attendance at the school were to be harmed. He highlighted a number of instances where the planning documents did not appear to adequately take into account the proximity of the school, for example, in the case of an assessment of noise impacts. He also drew attention to the loss of football pitches on the site, arguing that they should still be in use by the local community.

The Committee then heard from Chris Allen, Development Director of the Ridgeback Group, who addressed them in support of the application. Mr Allen began by outlining his company's track record of delivering ‘Build to Rent’ schemes in the UK and its approach to community engagement and building management. He said that the proposals would transform a derelict and unsafe site and deliver 307 much-needed new homes, including 35% affordable housing. He highlighted the provision of family-sized affordable homes in the scheme. He also argued that the applicant has carefully listened to, and incorporated into the scheme, feedback from the local community.

The Committee then asked Mr Allen about how the applicant would manage the demolition and construction process in close proximity to the school. Mr Allen explained that they had developed a close relationship with the College, the Department of Education (DfE), and the local Council, and that they were committed to ensuring safety. He added that the most disruptive part of the process, the demolition of the existing building, would take place outside of school term time and that no over-sailing of the school building would occur during crane operation.

A number of members then asked questions about how the applicant had dealt with objections arising from the public consultation. The applicant explained that they had engaged with the community and that the concerns of those associated with the school had now been addressed. Officers explained that the scheme would be subject to conditions on noise, dust, vibration, crane movements and construction times.

The Chair, Councillor Jahed Choudhury, asked members to share their thoughts on the application. Members expressed support for the scheme, noting that there were issues with anti-social behaviour at the existing site. Members were concerned about the level of affordable housing rent levels. In his summary, Paul Buckenham said that while the scheme would result in some loss of amenity, the fact that the site was an allocated site earmarked for high levels of growth meant that the scheme should be approved.

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Subscribe to updates

Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday, 15th January, 2025 6.30 p.m.

Summary

Redevelopment at 2-6 Commercial Street, 98-105 Whitechapel High Street & Canon Barnett Primary School

Section 73 Application at Bow Common Gas Works

Planning Application at 1 Selsdon Way

Attendees

Documents

Subscribe to updates

Strategic Development Committee - Wednesday, 15th January, 2025 6.30 p.m.

Transcript

Summary

Redevelopment at 2-6 Commercial Street, 98-105 Whitechapel High Street & Canon Barnett Primary School

Section 73 Application at Bow Common Gas Works

Planning Application at 1 Selsdon Way

Attendees

Documents