Agenda item
Bishops Square, Market Street and Lamb Street, London E1 6AD - PA/17/02470 and PA/17/02471
Proposal:
The removal of the canopy on Market Street; physical alterations to the existing retail units on the northern side of Market Street, including new shopfronts and extensions to the front and rear of the units, involving the change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1; the change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1/A3 on the southern side of Lamb Street, together with new shopfronts; the 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.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANTplanning permission and listed building consent subject to, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East), Planning Services) introduced the application for alternations to the existing retail units at Market Street including the change of use of part of the ground floor with the construction of a new two storey building over the existing vehicle ramp on the northern side of Lamb Street and new hard and soft landscaping.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Margaret Gordon(St George Residents' Association Spitalfields), Susan Kay and Sandra Go (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concerns regarding the suitability of the change of use. They also expressed concerns about the scale of the new building in terms of the amenity impact, including daylight, sunlight and noise impacts. The development would block light, overshadow Elder Gardens, and create a sense of enclosure. It was felt that the assessments were inaccurate in respect of these issues. The proposal would also encroach on properties in Spital Square.
They also expressed concerns about conflict between cyclists and pedestrians from the narrowing of Lamb Street, the impact from the deliveries on Lamb Street and that the development could increase opportunities for crime due to the layout.
In response to questions, they expressed concerns about the lack of consultation by the developer in respect of the revised application and about the accuracy of information in terms of the amenity impacts. They also clarified their concerns about the delivery plans in view of the layout of the area.
Jason Dervin, (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the applicant’s team placed a lot of value on engaging with the community and had sought to engage with the community and heritage groups during the application process. The scheme had been amended to mitigate the visual impact and minimise any impacts in relation to noise, sunlight and daylight and to allow sufficient space for safe movement. Details of the specific changes and the mitigation measures were noted. This included the imposition of restrictions on delivery times. The proposal would deliver a range of public benefits including new jobs. In view of the benefits of the application, the proposal should be granted planning permission
In response to questions, the applicant’s architect discussed the quality of the materials, that had been influenced by the local area. The supporters also provided assurances about the engagement with the community over the amendments, about the natures of changes themselves and the tree planting plans. They also explained the planning history for the site including the aims of the masterplan for the area and the consented applications for two storey development at the site.
Elizabeth Donnelly (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the nature of the site located within the Elder Street Conservation Area and the policy designations for the site. Consultation had been carried out resulting in a number of representations in support and objection as well as late representations as listed in the update report. It was also reported that the applicant had submitted further transport information. Transport for London had confirmed that they were satisfied with the application.
The Committee noted that the scheme had been amended to improve its relationship with the surrounding area and minimise any impacts. The Committee were advised of the key features of the proposal.
Turning to the assessment, it was felt that the proposal including the two storey building was compatible with policy site designations and would not impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. The proposal should enhance the vibrancy of the area and contribute to its character.
The loss of the office floor space would not impact on the level of employment floor space. Therefore it could be considered acceptable in the context of the Preferred Office Location (POL) designation and in this instance could be justified. It was considered that the design of the shop fronts were of a high quality and would relate well to their immediate setting. The removal of the canopy above Market Street would enhance the setting of the listed building and the merits would outweigh the loss of its use as a shelter.
It was also felt that the plans in respect of Lamb Street would ensure a positive relationship between the flow of pedestrians and the cyclists.
Officers were mindful of the issues in respect of the amenity impacts, particularly with regard to loss of light, overshadowing and the noise impacts. As mentioned above, changes had been secured to ensure that the development would not give rise to any significant impacts in relation to these issues. Together with the conditions, this should minimise any harms to amenity.
It should however be noted that the proposal would have a moderate impact on the sunlight received by Elder Gardens. Given the dense urban setting and the benefits of the scheme, Officers did not consider that this impact was significant enough to warrant a refusal.
Officers also explained the cycle parking plans which exceed policy and that it was planned that the existing delivery and servicing arrangements be retained subject to the restrictions on Lamb Street delivery times.
In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the daylight and sunlight impacts and overshadowing in respect of Elder Gardens. In response, Officers clarified the extent of the failings in respect of Elder Gardens as set out in the assessment. It was noted that during certain times of the year, the proposal would result in a loss of sunlight that fell below the BRE standards. However, it was considered that overall, the changes to the scheme should improve the relationship and that overall the impacts would be acceptable and accorded with the BRE guidance given the urban setting and that the site fell within the Central Activities Zone.
The Committee also asked questions about the potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians due to the proposed narrowing of Lamb Street. In response, Officers described the measures to maximise the movement space available within the development to address the concerns about the original plans. This had involved such measures as the removal of street furniture and amending the paving. It was also felt that the narrowing of the street should itself help slow down the movement of cyclists.
The Committee also asked questions about the proposed change of use and the potential for a further change of use of these units. It was reported that any such changes would require planning consent and that the proposed uses were considered to be consistent with the existing uses in the area and complied with the Council’s vision for Spitalfields.
The Committee also sought and received clarification about the planning history.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent.
Accordingly, on a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission and listed building consent at Bishops Square, Market Street and Lamb Street, London E1 6AD be REFUSED for the removal of the canopy on Market Street; physical alterations to the existing retail units on the northern side of Market Street, including new shopfronts and extensions to the front and rear of the units, involving the change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1; the change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1/A3 on the southern side of Lamb Street, together with new shopfronts; the 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 (PA/17/02470 and PA/17/02471)
The Committee resolved to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· The amenity impact on Elder Gardens
· The management of the movement of pedestrians and cyclists on Lamb Street
Supporting documents: