Agenda item
London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London (PA/11/02220) ( PA/11/02221)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed did not vote on this application as he had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
On a vote of Nil for and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendations to grant planning permission and conservation area consent for London Fruit & Wool Exchange, Brushfield Street, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield Street & Whites Row Car Park, London, (PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns in connection with:
- The loss of employment uses
- The lack of any on-site social housing development in the proposed scheme.
- The loss to the local environment and heritage that would arise from the proposed demolition of the Gun public house historic building.
The Committee also expressed an expectation that the applicant should engage actively with the objectors to address the concerns expressed by them.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning and Building Control, introduced the application for planning permission (PA/11/02220) and conservation area consent (PA/11/0221) regarding demolition and redevelopment works at the London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield Street, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield Street and Whites Row Car Park, London.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Dan Cruikshank, speaking in objection to the proposal, stated that he appeared on behalf of the Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust, which had been in existence since 1975. Spitalfields had been greatly transformed over the last decade, generally for the better, and as a very vibrant quarter where diverse communities co-existed peacefully. Sensitive development of the site would reinforce what was considered a modern urban ideal, fed by notable local history. However, the opportunity to do so would be lost through the current development. Many offices and shops were proposed but there was no residential component. The Pinnacle development in Bishopsgate had not been able to pre-let office space and there was accordingly a question about whether LFWE would remain as a vacant site and dormant for years. Dorset Street would be obliterated but should be retained and the Trust was asking that the application be refused in its present form.
Mr Peter Boisseau, speaking in objection to the proposal, expressed the view that the development would harm this residential area and would mostly affect the south west corner. A supersized restaurant was proposed to be located opposite homes and residents would be disturbed by laughter, drunkenness, urination, taxi noise and loud chatter. Deliveries, etc. at 2.00 a.m. would also disturb residents. Developers would argue that these matters would be controlled by a management plan but this was likely to be ineffective. The proposed public open space would be overlooked by almost 1500 students who would wish to make use of it. There was also a shelter for the homeless in Old Providence Row. Accordingly, the park area should be gated at night to ensure the security, peace and wellbeing of local residents. The scheme could have been very good but was actually ill thought-through.
Mr John Nicholson, speaking in objection to the proposal, indicated that he was representing the Spitalfields Community Group. People knew when a development would be wrong for an area and residents did not want this scheme. The development was ugly, looked cheap and did not fir in with other local architecture. He felt that the proposal was contrary to the Council’s conservation area guidelines. The historic Dorset Street would be wiped from the map. Spitalfields had been much improved but more shops and homes were needed and the current proposal had resulted in 600/700 objections from residents. There had been lack of consultation and his Group had been refused a meeting by Planning Officers. He requested that the application be deferred so that developers and the Community Group could meet for further discussions
In response to queries from Members, Mr Nicholson indicated that meetings with the developer had not involved conversations and had been merely a presentation of proposals. Spitalfields Community Group was relatively new but wanted to be a proactive organisation to represent the views of its 160 members like a mini Spitalfields Parliament.
Mr Philip Vracas, speaking in support of the application, stated that he was Honorary Treasurer of the Spitalfields Society. The current proposal was the third variation of the proposal and the developer had carried out consultation that had resulted in the scheme being amended. The park space in the south west of the site should not have a pavilion building but the proposed cross-route was supported, although the restaurants should be moved towards Commercial Street. Not all residents approved of the proposal but it represented overall improvements, retained key views and would provide 2,000 jobs for the neighbourhood. The Society did not welcome the loss of the Gun public house and The Bank but could accept it. On balance, the scheme would preserve the conservation area, even if it represented pragmatism over idealism.
Mr Vracas responded to matters of clarification raised by Members relating to the need to secure the park area at night, employment provision and the proposed mix of sue classes.
Ms Em Ekong, speaking in support of the application, stated that she worked with Urban Inclusion, an organisation based in Artillery Lane, which had worked with local communities for over 20 years. She felt that the proposal provided great opportunities for employment and enterprise in the Borough. The group had spoken with the developer and now it was proposed that at least 75 apprenticeships would be provided. Youth unemployment was a huge problem in the Borough and the developer was offering a minimum of 20% employment of local people during construction. Local businesses would also benefit. Retail space in the area was currently very expensive but the proposals would allow small to medium traders access to local premises.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Ekong stated that the proposal would provide more security for people in the Whites Row area at night; better rentals for local traders and showed the developer’s commitment to working with local businesses.
Ms Rohema Miah, speaking in support of the application, indicated that she worked with community groups from offices in Osborn Street and felt that the proposal was in keeping with the local historic feel. The small retail premises would preserve opportunities for local enterprise and would increase local jobs to 3,000. The proposal supported local businesses and would enhance security in the currently unsafe car park area.
Replying to queries from Members, Ms Miah stated that she was attending the meeting in a personal capacity. She worked with women’s groups in the area and was reporting what local people thought of the development in retaining the character of the locality with better business usage.
Members queried the length of the supporters comments on the S106 agreement and lack of comments on the more general concerns.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, made a very detailed presentation of the application, as contained in the circulated report and tabled update, including plans and a slideshow. He commented particularly that:
· Through routes would ensure the permeability of the scheme
· The pavilion building would provide a busy activity centre, however, in view of some views expressing opposition, the developer was prepared to discuss this aspect further with residents and would prepare alternative design details for this part of the site.
· The GLA were generally supportive but had some concerns regarding the demolition of the Gun public house and The Bank. English Heritage were also concerned at the loss of the Gun. Although the scheme had been amended, the demolitions were still intended but this was accepted by Officers to achieve a balance of planning priorities.
· Proposals for employment and training opportunities would be provided to a level in excess of SPD requirements.
The Chair pointed out that Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed, who had joined the meeting at 8.15 p.m., would not be able to vote on this application as he had entered after consideration of the business had commenced.
Members then put questions relating to:
- The lack of housing provision in the scheme.
- The position of the City of London in that they had not commented upon the scheme.
- Measures available to enforce the conditions relating to the employment of local people and the mix of employment types..
- The future of current entrepreneurs on the site.
Officers made responses including:
- The main current occupation of the site comprised offices and a car park. Off-site housing had been negotiated to mitigate the application.
- The City of London were building owners but were not the applicant. However, they had forwarded a letter commending efforts to assist existing business users.
- A minimum of 75 apprenticeships was significant and work would ensue with Skillsmatch and local businesses to help residents into jobs.
- Measures to enforce the social compact would be written into the S106 agreement.
Following further debate, on a vote of Nil for and 5 against, (Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed not voting) the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendations to grant planning permission and conservation area consent for London Fruit & Wool Exchange, Brushfield Street, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield Street & Whites Row Car Park, London, (PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns in connection with:
- The loss of employment uses
- The lack of any on-site social housing development in the proposed scheme.
- The loss to the local environment and heritage that would arise from the proposed demolition of the Gun public house historic building.
The Committee also expressed an expectation that the applicant should engage actively with the objectors to address the concerns expressed by them.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
At 9.10 p.m. the Chair indicated that the Committee would adjourn for a short period to allow members of the public to vacate the public gallery. The meeting reconvened at 9.15 p.m.
Supporting documents: