Issue - meetings
Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287)
Meeting: 09/04/2014 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287) PDF 63 KB
Proposal:
- Erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system.
- Partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden.
- Erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar.
- Installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof.
Recommendation: To resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- PA-13-02287 Coborn Arms Coborn Road expansion of public house FINAL checked by legal, 12/02/2014 Development Committee, item 5
PDF 354 KB
- Update Report Colborn Arms, item 5
PDF 43 KB
Decision:
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to approve planning permission and 3 against, the recommendation was not accepted.
On a vote of 3 in favour to refuse planning permission and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287) be REFUSED for the erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system; partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden; erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar; installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof for the following reasons
The proposed extension to the public house would result in an increase in late evening noise, disturbance and general activity within the forecourt and in the vicinity of the premises and thus lead to an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions and amenity of the adjoining residential occupiers. This would be contrary to the general principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policy 7.15 of the London Plan (2011), policy SP03(2B) of the Core Strategy (2010), and policies DM8 and DM25 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies require development to protect, and where possible improve, the amenity of surrounding existing and future building occupants, as well as the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed did not vote on this application having not been present at the previous Committee meeting where the item was considered.
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item to extend the premises at Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London.
The Chair advised that, in view of the changes to the application, that public speaking would be allowed on this item. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Roy Sully spoke in objection to the application. He considered that the proposed extension, despite the amendments, would still expand the premises and therefore worsen the existing problems in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour from the comings and goings. Therefore would affect residential amenity. There had been a lack of proper consultation with residents about the proposal aside from the consultation meeting. The aims of the initiative could be achieved within the existing parameters.
Shirley Day spoke in objection the application. She described the character of the area that was mainly residential in nature and family orientated. The community enjoyed having a local public house that was in keeping with the area. It should remain so, rather than be converted to a ‘town centre’ style public house to protect residential amenity. She expressed concern at the prospect of families and children having to walk past this extended public house. In response to Members, Ms Day considered that the plans would put additional pressure on the outside forecourt and therefore disturb residents.
Councillor Joshua Peck also spoke in objection. He objected to the impact the increase in customers and coming and going would have on neighbours, especially as their bedrooms were very near the premises. Despite the changes, the plans would still increase the size of the premises and its customer base and would worsen the existing amenity impact. Councillor Peck requested that the Committee confirm their previous decision to refuse the application.
Steve Gallagher (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the scheme. Mr Gallagher explained the business case for the plans. The premises was a well managed public house with no history of nuisance. He outlined the key features of the revised proposal, including the new dinning area at the rear, to keep the public house itself local at heart. The new customer base would mostly be customers of the restaurant. So the plans were unlikely to increase anti-social behaviour. In reply to Members, he confirmed that there were no plans to expand the outside forecourt. He disagreed that the extension would result in disturbance due to the nature of the plans and new customer base.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. Mr Lanoszka reminded the Committee that Members previously considered the application at its February 2014 meeting where Members were minded to refuse the application due to the concerns over the impact on the proposal on local amenity. Since that time, the applicant had met with residents and had amended the scheme to address the concerns. Mr Lanoszka described in detail these amendments and the outcome of the further round of local consultation on the proposal. Officers considered ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 12/02/2014 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287) PDF 354 KB
Proposal: Erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system.
Partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden.
Erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar.
Installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof.
Recommendation: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 1 in favour in favour of the Officer recommendation, 4 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/02287) at Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA be NOT ACCEPTED
for:
· the erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system.
· Partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden.
· Erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar.
· Installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the impact on residents in terms of increased noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour deriving from the increased capacity of the pubic house arising from the proposed extensions.
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.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Judith Gardiner, Tim Archer, Rajib Ahmed, Gulam Robbani and Harun Miah)
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA for an extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system, partial demolition of existing side extension and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden, a side/rear extension to existing bar and associated works.
Gamon McLellan spoke in opposition to the application as a nearby resident. He expressed concern about the impact on residents from the proposal in terms of increased noise and disturbance (i.e. from the increased capacity, outdoor space and the opening hours). There would be more use of the heated forecourt late at night and noise from deliveries disturbing residents.
The premises had become bigger and noisier over recent years and there had been an increase in residential properties nearby, since the public house had opened. Given the changing nature of the area, the plans to expand the premises as proposed was inappropriate. He questioned whether the local community actual needed this project. If expanded, the public house would no longer be a local public house.
Serena Jenks spoke in opposition as a local resident. She expressed concern about the impact on residents from the existing activities in terms of noise and disturbance. Particularly from the opening hours and use of the heated forecourt. The plans would worsen this by increasing rowdiness, ASB and general comings and goings at anti social hours. Her bedroom was at the front of her property so at a very noise sensitive location. She considered that the premises should be updated but in a way that protected residents amenity. She cited an example where she personally experienced ASB from a customer from the premises.
Members noted the lack of complaints from the Police about the premises in the report. Ms Jenks, in response, confirmed her fears around noise and disturbance due to the nature of the proposal.
Councillor Joshua Peck, as a ward Councillor spoke in opposition. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of many local residents. His main objection was to the perceived over intensification of the site. The public house already had a capacity of 200 that was very large for a residential area. If granted, there would almost be a doubling of useable floor space given the reduction in other internal areas. As a result, the actual capacity of customers drinking was more likely to rise to, in practice, 350 not 250 as stated in the report. At weekends, the numbers were more likely to reach 750 (taking into account the total turn over for the entire evening) with 500-600 people walking past peoples houses at night.
In response to Members, he welcomed the engagement with the community over the design of the proposal and considered that the public house should be brought up to modern standards. However, stressed that the capacity should be kept to the existing capacity of 200 with possible an increase in ... view the full minutes text for item 6