Agenda item
Dean Swift Public House, 2-6 Deancross Street, London, E1 2QA (PA/18/00472)
Minutes:
The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report
After receiving specific requests from two members of the public and to permit full consideration of the matter, the Chair agreed to vary public speaking rules to allow Mr Miah and Ms McGlynne to make representations before the Committee.
The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report which concerned a proposal for the demolition of an existing building and redevelopment of the site for mixed-use purposes in the form of a six story building comprising of x7 residential apartments and non-residential floor space at ground and basement floors (use class aA4/D1/B1), cycle parking and associated works.
The Chair then invited the objectors Ms Day and Ms McGlynne to each make their presentation to the Committee.
The objectors put forward the following arguments against the grant of planning permission:
- The present building was attractive, well maintained and well used by the local community.
- The report did not indicate that reasonable efforts had been taken to preserve the public house facilities.
- The proposal did not include any provision to reinstate a public house but offered other potential speculative uses such as a health facility – this was unnecessary since a GP surgery was located a short distance away.
- The development did not incorporate any disability access, facilities for parking or social rent element.
- Ms McGlynne further informed the committee that she had been the lessee of the premises for three and half years. She had worked much to ensure the premises were pleasant and to ensure the public house was viable.
- Hers was the last public house of five in in the area to remain operational; the others nearby had closed down.
Responding to Members’ questions the objectors informed the Committee that:
· The public house remained viable.
· Regarding consultation there had been no community meeting of the developer. There had been poorly executed consultation – Ms McGlynne stated that seven leaflets at once had been posted into her premises; however she received no letter from the Council informing her of the application.
· The proposed re-provision of space was, for potential use as a public house was unsatisfactory since the present building was pleasant and well maintained.
The Committee then heard from the Applicant’s Representative who outlined that the purpose of the application was to make better use of the land occupied by the Dean Swift public house. He advised that:
· Consultation with the Council and residents had been undertaken.
· It was intended that the ground floor would be for community use. He alleged that the public house did not trade well and that the lease would not be renewed.
· The community use space incorporated any D1 use and was designed to be flexible.
· Officer feedback had been supportive.
· The proposed development sat well its surroundings.
The Committee then heard from Mr Miah a resident of the borough who supported the application. He informed Members that:
· He supported the proposal since redevelopment was happening throughout the world.
· A new building would provide new facilities that were more useful to the multicultural community surrounding it.
· Shadwell had the highest crime rate.
· There were other public houses 75 metres and 125 meters away from the premises.
Responding to Members’ questions Mr Miah further informed the Committee that:
· The development would bring facilities for use by all races in the vicinity.
· The premises proposed for redevelopment was not a historical building and development was bound to happen.
· He was making his submission based on his own views and feelings on the proposal.
· He had not had direct contact with other consultees; however the applicant's agent said that he had received a petition of 80 signatures in support of the proposal.
The Agent responding to Members’ questions also informed the Committee that:
- In regard to the renewal of the lease, the lessee had not availed herself of the facility to renew the lease.
- Concerning the juxtaposition of the loss of the community asset (the public house) against the proposal to replace with a development of poor standard, he advised that the ground floor was for flexible community use and could be used for a range of purposes.
- The proposal concerning the use of the ground floor of the new premises states a community use which can be a public house. The application marks this area as a shell and core facility.
- Should there be demand for a public house there would be negotiations in accordance with a normal commercial lease.
Ms McGlynne contended that the exterior of the premised had been upgraded from the visual images presented to the Committee.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the technical report outlining the proposed elements of the development and the key attributes of the existing premises. He advised that the planning issues for Members to consider were:
· land use,
· design -- including overdevelopment,
· standard of accommodation - not all habitable units met the requirements of floor space design.
· impact on neighbouring buildings – there would be impact on daylight at 298 Commercial Road and
· whether the benefits of the housing provided outweighed the harm to the surrounding scene in terms of appearance and loss of community facilities.
Responding to Members’ questions the Committee was informed that:
- The Council was undertaking a reassessment of public houses and their role as a community asset.
- The new Borough Plan will contain tighter conditions around public houses as community facilities (in light of the new London Plan recently published).
Having discussed the matters at issue, the Committee then moved to vote on the application.
The Chair proposed and, on a vote of 5 in favour of and 1 against officers’ recommendation to refuse the application for the demolition and redevelopment of the site, Members refused the application, supporting the reasons outlined in the report.
RESOLVED
That planning permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:
1.Loss of community asset
The proposed development, on account of the loss of the existing public house and the poor quality of the replacement commercial unit, would result in the loss of a community asset for which no satisfactory justification has been presented. The development therefore fails to address the policy requirements under policy DM8(2)(3) of the Council’s Managing Development Document 2013 and policy D.CF4 of the Council’s Emerging Local Plan as well as Policy 4.8 of the London Plan (2016).
2. Design
The proposed development, on account of its bulk, scale, detailed design, height, proportions, inactive ground floor frontage, plot coverage and the loss of the existing building, would result in a development of poor overall design quality, with a cramped layout that fails to respond sensitively to site constraints or its wider context. As such, the development fails to meet the policy requirements under policy DM24 in the Council’s Managing Development Document 2013 and policy SP10 Creating distinct and durable places of the Core Strategy (2010).
3. Standard of accommodation
Two of the proposed residential units fail to meet the minimum internal floor space requirements, resulting in a cramped and poor quality standard of accommodation, contrary to the policy requirements under policy DM4 in the Managing Development Document 2013.
4. Impact on neighbouring amenity
The proposal, on account of its position 7 metres away from bedroom windows to three flats at number 298 Commercial Road, would introduce unacceptable loss of privacy, unreasonable levels of overlooking, and significant loss of light and outlook, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of those flats. The scheme is therefore contrary to policy DM25 of the Council’s Managing Development Document 2013 and policy SP10 of the Core Strategy 2010.
Supporting documents: