Excerpt of Tower Hamlets Council meeting held on 13 November 2024 (AI Generated Summary).
Strategic Development Committee – Wednesday 13 November 2024
The Strategic Development Committee met on Wednesday 13 November 2024 to consider three planning applications. The Committee decided to grant planning permission to change the use of two floors of One Canada Square from office space to teaching space for University College London (UCL) School of Management. They also resolved to allow a variation to a Section 106 agreement to allow the construction of a residential development at the Leaven Road bus carriage depot. The committee also considered an application for a new student accommodation development at 7 Brannan Street, but deferred making a decision on the application until a later meeting, after they voted to conduct a site visit.
Redevelopment at 7 Brannan Street, Wood Wharf
The committee considered a full planning application for the redevelopment of 7 Brannan Street, Wood Wharf for the construction of a 46-storey building for purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), along with a small amount of commercial space for Class E uses1. The committee heard from Nicholas, the planning case officer for the application. Nicholas explained that the application site is located in a new neighbourhood that is being built as part of the wider Canary Wharf Estate. Wood Wharf has outline planning permission for a range of different uses including residential, commercial, community, and educational. He told the committee that the outline planning permission requires the developer to build at least 1,700 homes, and to date they have delivered or have consent for 3,334 homes.
Nicholas went on to explain that while the application site currently has permission for standard C3 residential use2, the developer wants to build PBSA instead. This change in use requires the committee to assess whether the proposal would undermine the supply of self-contained housing in particular family homes as required by Policy SH1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan. Nicholas stated that officers felt it would be difficult to justify refusing the application on that basis as a significant amount of housing is already being delivered as part of the Wood Wharf development, and the developer has already fully complied with their obligation to build homes. He also stated that, as PBSA counts towards the borough’s housing targets, the proposal would actually deliver a greater number of homes than could be built under the existing use class.
Nicholas told the committee that the developer also intends to submit a Section 96a non-material amendment3 to the planning permission for the nearby North Quay development, to reduce the amount of student accommodation to be built there and transfer that floorspace to the Wood Wharf development. He explained that the North Quay development currently has permission for up to 100,000 square metres of student accommodation. The Section 96a application would reduce this by 32,791 square metres and allow that floorspace to be built at Wood Wharf instead. He also pointed out that the development would provide £12.5 million in Community Infrastructure Levy payments4 to the council that would not be payable if the site remained under its existing use class.
Members of the committee asked questions of the officers about a number of topics, including whether the council’s consultation on the proposal had been adequate, given that only two objections had been received, whether enough cycle parking was being provided, and what steps were being taken to ensure the safety of women and girls in the area, given that Transport for London had expressed concerns in their consultation response on the application. Officers explained that while the council had met all of its statutory requirements on consultation, the location of the site means it is unlikely to be of interest to a large number of residents. They also stated that the number of cycle spaces provided meets both local plan policy requirements and Transport for London requirements. In response to the concerns about safety, officers explained that while the application does not directly provide funds for the improvements identified in the Active Travel Zone assessment for the area, the £12.5 million in Community Infrastructure Levy payments from the development could be used for this purpose.
Councillor Sabina Khan stated that she supported the development, arguing that:
‘It’s a really amazing project. We will get business rate and it will keep regenerating. The more activities happen in the area, the more businesses will come.’
Councillor Gulam Kibria Chudri proposed that the committee undertake a site visit before making a decision, arguing that:
‘It’s a massive site. It’s 46 storey. And a number of residential areas there. I think we need to visit this, because I think a lot of students, their schedule is not like resident. A lot of social gathering, a lot of activities they do, and definitely it will disturb our established residential cohesion.’
This was seconded by Councillor Celic Ahmed, who stated that he supported a site visit for clarification. Councillor Khan argued against a site visit, stating:
‘We have made an attempt to contact each and every single one of us, and a couple of weeks ago, to get us to go to a site visit before this application was presented to us. So I think we would have had plenty of time to go and do that. Then we would be looking at the papers and we’d be looking at this probably. We get the papers as well as that as well. So we get that amount of time to look at the papers and then we’d go to do that which is asking for the council services.’
Councillor Khan went on to explain that she was already familiar with the area, having been to that area and know[ing] the area quite well, and so she was:
‘in a position where I’m comfortable of making a decision today.’
When put to a vote, four members of the committee voted for a site visit and four voted against. The Chair, Councillor Amin Rahman, used his casting vote to decide in favour of a site visit. The application was therefore deferred to a later meeting.
This summary is provided by Open Council, which uses AI-generated summaries to ensure that journalism fulfils its role in informing the public of the activities of government.
MORE INFO
