Issue - meetings
Roman Road x 2
Meeting: 16/06/2015 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU (PA/15/00095) PDF 80 KB
Proposal:
Creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; New shopfront; Extension of the basement; Erection of a mansard roof extension
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Additional documents:
Decision:
On a vote of 0 favour of the Officer recommendation, 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
On a vote of 2 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU be REFUSED for the creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; New shopfront; Extension of the basement; Erection of a mansard roof extension (PA/15/00095) for the reasons set out in the Committee report as follows:
The proposed development would result in poor quality retail floor space in terms of overall layout, the reduction in the width for the majority of the ground floor space and the distribution of retail floor space across ground floor and basement level with no step free access. The proposals would reduce the long term attractiveness of the premises to future occupiers and the viability of the retail premises in the town centre. The proposed development would therefore conflict with policy DM1(7) of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan, Managing Development Document (2013), which requires that adequate width and depth of floor space is provided for town centre uses.
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report. It was noted that at the last meeting of the Committee in April 2015, Members were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the impact on the viability of the retail unit arising from the reduction in size. Concern was expressed at the quantity and quality of the proposed retail unit given the length and width of the new unit, the amount of proposed basement space that would have no step free access.
In terms of the policy, Members were reminded that there was no numerical definition setting a minimum size for viable retail space. There was also no evidence that a smaller retail unit would be less marketable. In addition, they were also reminded of the recent appeal decision for a similar application, (retaining 50 sqm of retail space, compared to 77sqm in this case) that reached a similar conclusion.
Given the above, Officers remained of the view that the application was acceptable and should be granted planning permission. However, if Members were minded to refuse the scheme, they were advised to propose the suggested reasons set out in the report that referred to the quality of the retained retail floor space
On a vote of 0 favour of the Officer recommendation, 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
On a vote of 2 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU be REFUSED for the creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; New shopfront; Extension of the basement; Erection of a mansard roof extension (PA/15/00095) for the reasons set out in the Committee report as follows:
The proposed development would result in poor quality retail floor space in terms of overall layout, the reduction in the width for the majority of the ground floor space and the distribution of retail floor space across ground floor and basement level with no step free access. The proposals would reduce the long term attractiveness of the premises to future occupiers and the viability of the retail premises in the town centre. The proposed development would therefore conflict with policy DM1(7) of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan, Managing Development Document (2013), which requires that adequate width and depth of floor space is provided for town centre uses.
Meeting: 14/05/2015 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU (PA/15/00095) PDF 890 KB
Proposal:
Creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; New shopfront; Extension of the basement; Erection of a mansard roof extension
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Decision:
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Committee proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 2 in favour of this recommendation, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU be NOT ACCEPTED for the creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; new shopfront; extension of the basement; erection of a mansard roof extension (PA/15/00095)
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns that the reduced retail space would undermine the viability of the retail unit and the nearby Roman Road Town Centre.
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:
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Joshua Peck spoke in objection stating that he was representing the Roman Road Business and Residents Association. He objected to the proposed reduction in retail space, as this would seriously harm the viability of the retail unit and ultimately that of the Roman Road Town Centre. He considered that the viability of the Town Centre was already at risk due the number of other similar proposals. This scheme would worsen this problem. Therefore the scheme should be refused and existing retail unit should be retained.
In particularly, he objected to the proposed width of the retail unit; that meant that it would be unusable for many uses and that a large part of the new retail space would be a basement. He also considered that that proposal conflicted with Council policy that sought to maintain and increase retail space in the Roman Road area.
In response to questions, he expressed concern about the quality of the residential unit given the site constraints and the poor quality amenity space. He made further reference to the adjacent shop, that due to similar conversation, could now only be used as an office space and that the residential unit hadn’t been sold. Should the current owner move on, then the unit would be difficult to lease. There was a shortage of good quality retail units in Roman Road.
Robert Webster (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application stating that it was a family owned business and the current owners fully intended to stay there. He read out a letter from the applicant explaining this. He considered that the current business could be easily accommodated in the reduced retail unit due to the use of modern technology. So it would remain a viable business unit. The size of the current unit was in fact surplus to requirements.
He also explained the need for the residential unit and that practice of reducing the width of retail units to accommodate residential space was common practice in the area.
In response to questions, he explained that the proposal retail unit would still be larger than many other units on Roman Road and that it was in a secondary location outside the market. He also responded to questions about the need for the new entrance, the quality of the residential accommodation, that the plans would mirror the adjacent property and improve the viability of the unit. The plans would make better use of the rear the site and complied with policy. The applicant would finically benefit from the scheme.
Gerard McCormack, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location and that a number of the nearby retail units had been altered in a similar way resulting in a reduction in retail space, in some instances to around 30sq. Given this, the proposal (seeking to retaining 77 sq. of ... view the full minutes text for item 6