Agenda item
111-113 Mellish Street, London E14 8PJ (PA/18/00424 )
Proposal:
Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission.
Decision:
An update report was tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour and 6 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse temporary planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor John Pierce proposed, and the Chair seconded a motion that the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against it was
RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 111-113 Mellish Street, London E14 8PJ (PA/18/00424) for:
· Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period of 18 months for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1).
The Committee was minded to overturn the recommendation and grant a temporary permission because there was a demonstrable need for a community facility (class D1 use) as evidenced by the level of support for the application and there had not been a material change in circumstances relating to the site or the visual impact of the buildings, since the last temporary permission which was granted in 2016. Taken together this was an example of where it would be appropriate to grant a further temporary consent in the context of the NPPF and NPPG guidance on granting temporary permissions.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, Councillor Pierce put forward an alternative proposal that the application for Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period of 18 months for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1) BE GRANTED. The proposal was seconded and on a vote of 6 in favour and 0 against it was
RESOLVED:
· That the application for Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period of 18 months for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1) BE GRANTED.
The Committee, taking account the following:
- The NPPF and NPPG guidance on granting temporary permissions.
· That proposals for the redevelopment of the site were not advanced
· The representations of the Ward Councillor
· The representations of applicants representatives
· That in this case the Council was both the Planning Authority and Owner
The Committee also came to a view that, given the above factors, services to the community would suffer and that a temporary permission was justified to allow these services to continue while proposals for alternative permanent accommodation for the organisation occupying the premises are brought forward.
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager Planning Services) introduced the application for the retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1). Officers were recommending that the application was refused permission for the reasons set out in section 3.1 of the report.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
The Committee first heard representations in favour of the Officer recommendation to refuse the application from Councillor Woods, the Ward Councillor, on the basis that:
· The application was misleading in regard to the primary use of the building which, he asserted, was that of a faith building rather than that of a community facility and public space. Additionally the use of speakers at Friday prayers and during Ramadan caused noise nuisance.
· The quality of the premises was detrimental to the amenity of the area in that the building was not of quality material and did not enhance visual amenity.
· There were other suitable facilities in the vicinity which the occupying organisation might otherwise use to deliver their projects.
· The permission granted was temporary; should it be renewed, it would prevent the redevelopment of the space.
· The circumstances associated with the renewal of permission were complex.
The Committee asked questions of the Ward Councillor and noted the following responses:
- There had been no enforcement to address issues raised relating to the activities at the premises. However the matter had been taken up via Member Enquiries, many times with Planning Officers and CEO; the outcomes of these enquiries had not resulted in enforcement action.
- The primary use of the premises had not been properly reported.
The Committee then heard representations against the officer recommendation from two registered speakers. They addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and presented the following arguments:
- The organisation occupying the premises provided activities which all in the community were able to access.
- Faith and non-faith activities were provided at the venue.
- The premises had been maintained by the occupant.
The Committee asked questions of these speakers and noted the following responses:
- The premises were used for a range of community and faith activities including women’s activities.
- Enforcement issues relating to noise had been addressed by the occupant.
- The applicant was in dialogue with the Local Authority regarding compensation for the loss of community facility that would occur once the temporary permission had lapsed.
The Committee then heard from the Planning officer, Victoria Olonisaye-Collins who advised Members on the technical elements of the key features of the application. The planning officer presentation summarised key aspects of their report to the committee and highlighted the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) approach to temporary planning permissions.
On a vote of 0 in favour and 6 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse temporary planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor John Pierce proposed, and the Chair seconded a motion that the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against it was agreed that the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be not accepted.
The Committee, having considered all of the written and verbal information, were minded to oppose the officer recommendation and that there were exceptional circumstances to depart from National Planning Policy Guidance on the continued granting of temporary permisssions.. Members came to this view since the actions of the Council as both planning authority and land owner, in not progressing arrangements for an alternative provision for the applicant had created uncertainty around the continued provision of community facilities. The Committee noted the range of services offered which provided a community resource in the area and the importance to the community of permitting these to continue while permanent proposals are brought forward. The Committee noted there had been no material change in circumstances since the granting of the previous temporary permission.
RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 111-113 Mellish Street, London E14 8PJ (PA/18/00424) for:
· Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period of 18 months for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1).
The Committee was minded to overturn the recommendation and grant a temporary permission because there was a demonstrable need for a community facility (class D1 use) as evidenced by the level of support for the application and there had not been a material change in circumstances relating to the site or the visual impact of the buildings, since the last temporary permission which was granted in 2016. Taken together this was an example of where it would be appropriate to grant a further temporary consent in the context of the NPPF and NPPG guidance on granting temporary permissions.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, Councillor Pierce put forward an alternative proposal that the application for Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period of 18 months for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1) BE GRANTED. The proposal was seconded and on a vote of 6 in favour and 0 against it was
RESOLVED:
· That the application for Retention of the single storey modular building for a temporary period of 18 months for continued non-residential use (falling within use class D1) BE GRANTED temporary planning permission for 18 months.
The Committee, took account the following, in reaching their decision:
- The NPPF and NPPG guidance on granting temporary permissions.
· That proposals for the redevelopment of the site were not sufficiently advanced
· The representations of the Ward Councillor
· The representations of applicants representatives
· That in this case the Council was both the Planning Authority and Owner
· That there had been no material change in circumstances since the granting of the previous permission, particularly in respect of the impact on townscape and visual amenity.
The Committee also came to a view that, given the above factors, services to the community would suffer and that a temporary permission was justified to allow these services to continue while proposals for alternative permanent accommodation for the organisation occupying the premises are brought forward.
Supporting documents: