Issue - meetings
Department Store x 2
Meeting: 16/12/2015 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) PDF 50 KB
Proposal:
Refurbishment of former Wickham's department store comprising: retention of facade of former Spiegelhalter's shop at 81 Mile End Road to provide new entrance, change of use of second floor to office (Use Class B1), change of use of ground and basement floors to a flexible retail/leisure use (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2) and erection of roof extensions at third and fourth storey levels to provide 1,481sqm (GIA) of additional office space (Use Class B1); as well as reconfiguration of internal layout, restoration of external features and other associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- Wickhams Development Committee Report FINAL 25 November 2015 ref PA-14-03547, 25/11/2015 Development Committee, item 5
PDF 4 MB
- wickham update, item 5
PDF 47 KB
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour 3 against and 1 abstention with the Chair casting a second vote in favour of the scheme, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) for the refurbishment of former Wickham's department store comprising: retention of facade of former Spiegelhalter's shop at 81 Mile End Road to provide new entrance, change of use of second floor to office (Use Class B1), change of use of ground and basement floors to a flexible retail/leisure use (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2) and erection of roof extensions at third and fourth storey levels to provide 1,481sqm (GIA) of additional office space (Use Class B1); as well as reconfiguration of internal layout, restoration of external features and other associated works subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for the refurbishment of the former Wickham's department store. At the last meeting of the Committee, Members deferred the application for a site visit that took place earlier in the week to enable Members to inspect the site and better understand the impact of the proposal. At which, a number of issues were raised and responses to these questions were set out in the update report, regarding amongst other matters the impact of the roof extension and the proposed refuse collections arrangements.
Piotr Lanoszka, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report highlighting the site location, the proposed layout, the proposed uses and the amendments to the plans. Responding to the issues raised at the site visit, he showed views of the proposed roof extension from the surrounding area, showing that it would be subservient to the former department store. In relation to waste collection, it was confirmed that this would remain as per the existing arrangements. Officers considered that the on street collection service would have little impact on the highway.
In view of the merits of the scheme, Officer were recommending that it was granted planning permission.
In response to questions from Members, it was explained that it would be very difficult to retain the existing banqueting hall as part of scheme. This would require far reaching changes such as unplanned physical changes to the building. Furthermore, whilst it was proposed to include a D2 use in the basement area, due to the nature of this environment (i.e. lack of windows) it was questionable whether it could operate from this unit. Members needed to weigh up the merits of retaining the banqueting hall against the merits of this scheme. The Waterlily facility, (whilst under previous management), had an extensive enforcement history including prosecutions that can be given some weight. This application should help address these problems
As explained above, it was recommended that the current waste collection arrangements be retained. Images were displayed showing that these could be successfully accommodated within the scheme. Consideration had been given to the suggestion that the collection take place within the building as set out in the update. However, it was found that, due to the nature of the site, this would require significant alterations.
Whilst there would be some impact on the tower, its significance would be protected. Historic England and the Victorian Society had withdrawn their objections to the scheme. The Council’s Conservation Officer had looked carefully at the scheme and was satisfied with the plans in terms of both the enhancements to the external façade and the internal changes recognising their value. Overall there would be a net gain in heritage terms
It was noted that the scheme could accommodate a range of business uses and that the Council could go no further than specify the use class. It could not specify the end user. However, given the factors in favour of creating ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 25/11/2015 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) PDF 4 MB
Proposal:
Refurbishment of former Wickham's department store comprising: retention of facade of former Spiegelhalter's shop at 81 Mile End Road to provide new entrance, change of use of second floor to office (Use Class B1), change of use of ground and basement floors to a flexible retail/leisure use (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2) and erection of roof extensions at third and fourth storey levels to provide 1,481sqm (GIA) of additional office space (Use Class B1); as well as reconfiguration of internal layout, restoration of external features and other associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Mahbub Alam proposed and Councillor Shah Alam seconded a motion that the planning application be DEFERRED for a site visit.
Accordingly on a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against, it was RESOLVED:
That the planning application be DEFERRED at Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) for a SITE VISIT to enable Members to better understand the impact of the scheme on the area
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the refurbishment of former Wickham's department store
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dr Fuad Ali (Friends of Wickham House), Shams Doha (Ebrahim Community College) and Councillor Oliur Rahman, spoke in objection to the proposal. They spoke about the need for the existing D2 use community facility at the development and the lack of evidence that the issues stemmed from that unit. In fact, complaints had been made about other units in the development and the report failed to mention the other incidents of non compliance with planning regulations in the development. Some of the complaints made about the existing community use were immaterial. The application should be deferred for a site visit. In response to Member questions, they also spoke about the merits of the D2 use in terms of size, affordability to community groups, charities etc. its accessibility and the uniqueness of the facilities. Officers reminded Members that whilst they may put weight on the planning enforcement issues and the fire safety issues, the building regulation issues were controlled by separate regulations.
James Mcallister (Agent)and Rupert Scott, (local resident) spoke in support of the scheme. They advised that the proposal would provide new jobs, community and leisure space of a better quality to what was there already. There had been changes to the scheme to retain the frontage and minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity amongst other changes. As a result Historic England and most of the local residents now considered that the proposal was acceptable. Complaints had been received about the community facility about disturbance from the property effecting neighbours and other issues. Yet the issues had not been dealt with. It was evident from this that the unit was not fit for use. They also spoke about the suitability of the site for the proposal given the location and the operation of a similar operation on the first floor of the development.
The speakers then responded to questions of clarification about: the plans for Spiegelhalter House, the complaints about the D2 unit and the evidence that they were the source of the problems, (questioned by some Members) and the highway issues. It was expected that given the nature of the proposal most of the trips would be by foot.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation on the scheme describing the site location, surrounding area in the Stepney Green Conservation Area. Whilst not listed, the subject buildings were non designated heritage assets.
The proposals involved the refurbishment and extension of the department store to create a large co-worker hub for start up and SME businesses. The scheme had been amended to address objections. Images of the scheme before and after amendment were shown. Consultation had been carried out on both the revised proposal and the main issues raised were summarised on the presentation slide and in the Committee report. As ... view the full minutes text for item 6