Agenda item
Bishops Square, Market Street and Lamb Street, London E1 6AD (PA/18/03254 and PA/18/03255
Minutes:
Councillors Ahmed and Qureshi did not participate in the consideration of this item.
An update report was tabled.
The Development Manager introduced the item which concerned a combined application for listed building consent and planning permission for change of use at the commercial development of Bishop’s Square together with the construction of a two storey building. The Committee was informed that the applicant chosen the format of a combined application since the listed building consent was unlikely to go ahead without planning permission therefore Members were asked to consider the matter as one decision.
The Committee then heard from each of the participating parties and afterwards asked questions of the participants. For clarity, the responses are recorded in the minutes together with each of the respective submissions.
The Planning Case Officer presented the report informing Members that the site location fell within the City Fringe Core Opportunity Area and a small proportion of the site fell within the Spitalfields conservation area. The proposal included applications for changes of use of existing buildings at market Street and Lamb Street, the removal of a listed canopy, extensions of existing units together with new shop fronts at Market Street; the construction of a two story building over the existing vehicle ramp at the northern side of Lamb Street together with landscaping. The material planning considerations were land use, design, heritage and local character, amenity, highways and public realm. The proposal would:
· deliver change of use of current office space at Market Street, the loss of a listed canopy, new shop fronts and changes to public realm which would ensure that street furniture does not impede pedestrian and cycle transit.
· Affect unused undercroft at Lamb Street.
· Increase commercial units.
· Reconfigure the existing ramp structure.
· Add a two story building on the north side of Lamb Street, the design of which was intended to contribute to the streetscape and introduce a sense of permeability.
The Committee also heard that:
· Elder Gardens was not part of the proposals but would be affected by it.
· The proposal passed the relevant BRE test to prevent overshadowing of Elder Gardens. there would be no impact on the daylight or sunlight to the residential properties adjoining Elder Gardens.
· Noise mitigation would be delivered via a servicing plan and restriction of deliveries to times outside peak hours.
· Public realm contributions had been secured via an S106 agreement.
Responding to Members questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following information:
· The letters of support referred to in the agenda supplement were from residents and market traders.
· The Authority would ensure that the S106 agreement was maintained by formalising arrangements for food trucks into designated areas.
· Food trucks were presently operating under the same permissions as market stalls.
· TFL guidance based on the draft London Plan had been applied to anticipated growth in cycle traffic levels. This approach ensured that this element had been future proofed.
· There would be narrowing at Lamb Street during construction. However its duration would be shorter because development included elements of offsite construction.
· Safety elements would be delivered via a safety construction plan.
· The application for change of office space to retail space did not require a marketing test to be undertaken.
The Committee then heard from objectors who made a combined submission outlining the following concerns:
· The proposal would affect Elder Gardens and bring harm to the community and workers that relied upon it by negatively impacting their well-being around mental health. These impacts would be caused by alterations to the areas surrounding the gardens and brought about by the application.
· The proposal would cause a wider loss of ambience and loss of a key public amenity through the construction of an imposing structure which would negatively affect the visual amenity and reduce sunlight levels to thev minimum stipulated in the BRE guidance.
· The development would have a negative effect on health and wellbeing..
· The proposal would create space where there would be opportunity for antisocial behaviour.
· The proposal would negatively impact the management of transit through the public realm at Lamb Street since this area would be narrowed. The narrowing would cause footfall to be transferred to other areas nearby and also harm the amenity of these areas.
· The proposals had not taken into account residents’ feedback.
· Deliveries to the proposed food outlets that would negatively affect the amenity of residents and users of the adjoining areas in terms of noise and disturbance.
· Objectors felt that the application had packaged together disparate elements, some of which were not contentious, to dilute the level of harm that would be caused from the proposed Lamb Street building.
Objectors asked the Committee to refuse the application on the basis of the harms described. They contended that a refusal would bring forward another application with further revised proposals.
The Committee heard from the agents on the behalf of the applicant who outlined the following matters:
· A previous application had been refused therefore the application had been made anew incorporating a redesign which addressed the matters that had led to the refusal of the previous application.
· The current proposal: addressed the concerns raised around Elder Gardens and the narrowing of Lamb Street, reduced overshadowing, returned the pedestrian walkway via the playground and had added safety features at Lamb Street.
· The commercial categories of retail premises applied for were intended to give a mixed tenure of occupation.
Responding to Members questions the agents provided the following information:
· The application had been submitted afresh as a single scheme because the applicant owned the sites at Market Street and Lamb Street. Additionally the scheme was for a whole site development and therefore it was appropriate to treat the scheme in this way.
· To ensure the S106 agreement around clear pathways, the estate would be managed via an estate management plan and applicant would be bound by the legal agreement
· There had been modifications arising from public consultations. These included a Sedum roof and the addition of a glass screen to increase visibility and a sense of permeability. It was felt, also, that creating a sense of activity in the space would help reduce antisocial behaviours.
An objector contended that the construction of a single-storey building rather than the proposed two-storey building would have delivered the desired employment and retail capacity sought by the applicant. Additionally the single-storey construction would have enabled residents to enjoy the amenity of the green roof. The objector also contended that the design of the ramp structure which would exit at the gate of colleges would attract pickpockets and other antisocial behaviours.
In response to a question from members which related to a point of objection, the Development Manager advised that the Core Strategy contained policies concerned with health and well-being and that these could be taken to include mental health. The emerging draft Local Plan will require future major applications to include a health impact assessment.
The Local Plan did not prescribe policies around how commercial and residential development should be located adjacent to one another. The development was in the London Plan Central Activity Zone which anticipated a broad mix of commercial and residential usedDetailed policies in the Managing Development Document would eb applicable in assessing impacts such as noise and amenity.
During the discussion, the Committee noted that the proposal had many interrelated elements and considered whether a site visit might be appropriate in order to better understand the impacts of these elements on the proposed site. At 9:37pm, following the discussion of the application, the Committee adjourned for three minutes to discuss whether to defer the application for a site visit. Upon reconvening, the Chair asked members to indicate whether they wished to propose deferral for a site visit. No members indicated.
The Chair enquired and the Committee indicated that there were no further matters that it wished to discuss and that there were no statements that it wished to make. The Chair then directed the Committee to consider the officer recommendation. The Chair moved and the Members cast 2 votes in favour and 2 against the application. Since the votes were tied, the Chair then made his casting vote in favour of the application and on a vote of 3 in favour and 2 against, the Committee
RESOLVED:
That planning permission and listed building consent be GRANTED at Bishops Square, Market Street and Lamb Street, London E1 6AD, for - change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1, - change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1/A3 on the southern side of Lamb Street, - removal of canopy and extensions together with new shopfronts on Market Street, - construction of a new two storey building (flexible Class A1/D2 gym) over the existing vehicle ramp on the northern side of Lamb Street and new hard and soft landscaping subject to conditions and informatives.
Supporting documents: