Agenda item
18-22 Damien Street, London E1
Decision:
On a vote of 2 for, 4 against and 1 abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers recommendation to refuse planning permission for the change of use of second floor from music studios (Use Class B1) to educational institute (Use Class D1) including internal alterations at 18-22 Damien Street, London E1 2HX and RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the following reasons:
The Council recognises the desirability of protecting the existing use. However, it also recognises that there are significant community and employment benefits from the proposal. An additional consideration was that the floorspace requirements of the mosque/madrassa are significantly greater than those of the recording studio and this would make finding alternative premises more difficult for the mosque/madrassa. On balance, it was considered that the combination of the community benefits and the relocation factors for both uses tipped the balance in favour of the application.
(Councillors Stephanie Eaton and Rupert Eckhardt voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation; Councillors Helal Abbas, Alibor Choudhury, Shamim Chowdhury and Lutfur Rahman voted against; and Councillor Ahmed Omer abstained.)
Minutes:
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the change of use of second floor from music studios (Use Class B1) to educational institute (Use Class D1) including internal alterations at 18-22 Damien Street, London E1 2HX. He explained that the application had been deferred from a previous meeting. However, the application had been placed in the ‘Planning Applications for Decision’, rather than the ‘Deferred Items’ section of the agenda, as significant new information had come to light following the advertisement of the application as a departure from the development plan. Therefore, the application would be considered afresh, and all Members present would be able to vote.
Mr Kent Brainerd spoke in objection to the application on the grounds that local planning policy supported the retention of the music studios currently in place. He felt that it provided an essential arts and entertainment facility, and it was the only one of its type in the Borough. Mr Brainerd advised the Committee that he had contacted the Rich Mix Centre, as suggested at the previous meeting, and read out a letter received informing him that the Centre did not offer a commercial music recording service. He also highlighted the loss of employment that would ensue from the change of use and the significant cost which would be incurred by having to relocate. He reminded Members that the applicant had bought the premises after the studios had been established in the building.
Mr Omar Beg spoke on behalf of the applicant, in support of the proposal. He explained the intention of the landlord in respect of expanding the educational institute. He felt that the expansion to the institute was needed, and that the two uses did not work well together. He felt that there had been problems with the two uses being in the same building and that there were other similar facilities in the Borough which the musicians could use.
Mr Jerry Bell, Applications Manager, presented a detailed report on the application and the planning policies involved. He emphasised that the planning officers did support the principle of the proposed use. However, they could not justify the loss of the existing use as it was protected by policies in the development plan. Mr Kiely further stressed that the planning policies supported the retention of the use as it contributed to the general economy of London, not just the Borough.
Members asked a number of questions relating to the number of employees which would be lost if the proposal was refused; those which would be lost if the application was granted; and the supporting evidence for those figures. Mr Kiely informed the Committee that the figures quoted were based on representations made by both the objectors and the applicant. The Committee sought clarification of the claim by the applicant that there were suitable premises which could be used in Pennington Street. Mr Bell advised that those premises were similar. However, they only offered 2 studios, compared to 23 at Damien Street. He reminded Members that officers had made a judgement based on planning policies and representations received.
After consideration of all the representations made, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers recommendation to refuse planning permission for the change of use of second floor from music studios (Use Class B1) to educational institute (Use Class D1) including internal alterations at 18-22 Damien Street, London E1 2HX and RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the following reasons:
The Council recognises the desirability of protecting the existing use. However, it also recognises that there are significant community and employment benefits from the proposal. An additional consideration was that the floorspace requirements of the mosque/madrassa are significantly greater than those of the recording studio and this would make finding alternative premises more difficult for the mosque/madrassa. On balance, it was considered that the combination of the community benefits and the relocation factors for both uses tipped the balance in favour of the application.
Officers are delegated authority to impose the appropriate planning conditions.
(Councillors Stephanie Eaton and Rupert Eckhardt voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation; Councillors Helal Abbas, Alibor Choudhury, Shamim Chowdhury and Lutfur Rahman voted against; and Councillor Ahmed Omer abstained.)
Supporting documents: