Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Levy and Cllr Samatar.

2.1  Councillor Young had declared an interest in relation to item 5, however, as no decision was being made at the pre-application meeting, the Councillor did not have to recuse herself from the meeting.

3.1 None.

There are no Pre-application meeting minutes requiring approval.

4.1  There were no Pre-application meeting minutes requiring approval at the meeting.

5.1  The designated Planning Officer introduced the proposals. They were for a future planning application for a residential-led mixed-use redevelopment of Phases five to eight (inclusive) of Woodberry down Estate, N4 together with associated landscaping, public realm, servicing and other development, with all matters other than access to be reserved.

5.2  Martin Kiefer, representing Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands (LDS), a practice of architects, urban designers and masterplanners, addressed the Sub-Committee. He gave a presentation setting out the current proposals for phases five to eight of the Woodberry Down Estate and other related matters.

5.3  During the course of submissions and a discussion of the proposal, the following points were noted:

·  Replying to a question on the rationale behind the increase in density, the applicants explained that compared to 2014 there was now a more challenging environment. There had also had been significant shift in 2020. They were now seeking to provide more homes as house prices steadily increase along with the cost of building those homes at a significantly higher rate and there was still a commitment to providing 41.7% of affordable homes on site, which would be funded through private delivery

·  Responding to a question about the tenure breakdown of the 41.7% figure, between shared ownership and social housing, the applicant replied that 57% would be shared ownership and 43% social rented. The number of social rented homes would be up to 574 across phases five to eight. In total there would be  1220 homes across the entire master plan;

·  Replying to a question about the number of initial Council Homes on the estate prior to regeneration, the designated Planning Officer responded that they did not have that figure immediately to hand. The applicant added that they would be over providing the floorspace from what was there. Compared to 2009 the applicant explained that they were now providing more family units;

·  Responding to a question about whether all residents would have access to all facilities and what type of heating system would be in place on site for each unit, the applicant replied that in terms of access they took a tenure blind approach. Some details were still to be determined in relation to where tenures would be located but they could see no reason why all residents would not have access to all facilities. There would be a mix of public open space and communal space, the latter being shared by the residents of the block rather than residents of the estate as a whole.  There had been seen a significant uplift in the public space in phase five to eight proposals. The heating system proposed had changed from the original pre-application stages which envisaged a gas-led system under phase three. This had now changed under phase four to a system being fed by Air Source Heat Pumps;

·  Responding to a question about tall buildings and the wind tunnel effect, the applicant replied that in terms of mitigating the effect various studies had been commissioned with detailed and full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  The designated Planning Officer briefly introduced the application. The proposal relates to the reserved matters for Plot 1 of the Bishopsgate Goodsyard development. Plot 1 would be an office building on the northern boundary of the site. The building would cross the Borough boundary, with the western part in London Borough of Hackney (LBH) and the eastern part in London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH).

6.2  There were current negotiations around the reserved matters involving some aspects outside of the parameters set out in the approved Design Guide for the hybrid application. These aspects would need to be decided by a Non Material Amendment (NMA) application to LBH and a similar application to LBTH. These changes to the design guide were the focus of this pre application meeting.

6.3  Jonathan Clarke, representing the architecture firm Gensler, addressed the Sub-Committee giving a presentation on the current proposals.

The designated Planning Officer stated confirmed that following publication of the meeting papers options under consideration had been narrowed down to one. A higher plinth. However, this resulted in the proposals being now within the agreed parameters and therefore the plinth was no longer under consideration. The Sub-Committee was now only considering what had been outlined with the minimum and maximum parameters e.g. curved corners, and the lobby space inside near to the TfL infrastructure.

The Sub-Committee noted that they were not considering any proposals related to plot 2.

The representatives for the applicant had brought with them an architectural model which Committee Members briefly examined.

6.4  During the course of submissions and a discussion of the application, the following points were noted:

·  Responding to a question about the TfL box, the applicant replied that it as unclear as why it was set that way that it was. It was understood that there was a previous architectural model with the minimum and maximum parameters set around that model and that was locked in around the TfL box. It was noted that there was a two metre offset from TfL that had to be respected with access and safety and the applicant could build around it that could be temporary which require some screening elements to be removed once every year and once every five years for maintenance;

·  Replying to a question about how much affordable office space would be offered, the designated Planning Officer responded that currently that detail was not yet available. The applicant added that 7.5% of the area would be discounted 60% in the LBH (approximately 3000 square metres);

·  The Sub-Committee noted that under the proposals that the majority of the office space was in the LBH and the housing was in the LBTH

·  Responding to the question about whether there was a need for all the proposed office space, in light  changes in working habits i.e. more working from home and less time spent in the office, the designated Planning Officer replied that that the site was in a priority office area and would deliver a lot office space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.