Proposal:

Part retention of B2 land use (foundry) and internal alterations and refurbishment of listed building to provide new workshops/workspaces (B1 land use) and cafe (A3 land use) at ground floor.

External alterations to listed building to raise roof of hayloft building and create new link building.

Demolition of unlisted 1980s building and wall to the rear. Erection of building along Plumbers Row and Fieldgate Street with hotel (C1 use) with ancillary members and guest uses in part 5, 6 and 7 storeys with x2 levels of basement, with restaurant/bar (A3/4 uses) at ground and mezzanine level and additional workspace (B1 use) on ground and first floors. Roof plant, pool, photovoltaics, waste storage, cycle parking, public realm improvements and associated works.

Note: the development descriptions for PA/19/00008 and PA/19/00009 are the same.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and s106.

The Legal adviser notified committee that there had been a written request copied to all Members of the Committee to postpone the meeting. The Legal Adviser read a letter from the Monitoring Officer explaining why the request could not be agreed.

An update report was tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for Part retention of B2 land use (foundry) and internal alterations and refurbishment of listed building to provide new workshops/workspaces (B1 land use) and cafe (A3 land use) at ground floor. External alterations to listed building to raise roof of hayloft building and create new link building. Demolition of unlisted 1980s building and wall to the rear. Erection of building along Plumbers Row and Fieldgate Street with hotel (C1 use) with ancillary members and guest uses in part 5, 6 and 7 storeys with x2 levels of basement, with restaurant/bar (A3/4 uses) at ground and mezzanine level and additional workspace (B1 use) on ground and first floors. Roof plant, pool, photovoltaics, waste storage, cycle parking, public realm improvements and associated works.

Mr Bell reminded the Committee that this report comprised two applications: one for planning permission and one for listed building consent.

Christina Gawne (Planning Services) presented the report describing the nature of the site and the surrounding area, and the outcome of the consultation, resulting in the receipt by the Council of 802 representations of which 8 were supporting comments; 782 were objecting comments and 5 were no position comments. Ms Gawne advised the Council had also received 2 objecting petitions: one containing 274 signatures and one containing 2278 signatures. Ms Gawne summarised the points raised by both those supporting and objecting to the application (including the 2 petitions).

Ms Gawne briefly summarised officers’ assessment of the option to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the site, as this had been raised during the consultation. Officers conclude the site does not meet the tests for a CPO.

Ms Gawne briefly summarised the results of the assessments relating to:

• Land use;
• Affordable workspace, public access and education;
• New hotel design;
• Heritage, including archaeological assessments;
• Neighbour amenity;
• Transport;
• Environment; and
• Planning obligations.

Officers considered that the applications complied with the NPPF, the adopted Development Plan and emerging plan policy  and so permission should be granted.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Mr Adam Lowe informed the Committee that he was addressing it on behalf of the UK Historic Buildings Preservation Trust (UKHBPT). Mr Lowe informed the Committee that the Trust had developed an alternative vision for the site which it believed was more appropriate than the application in front of the Committee. Mr Lowe summarised that alternative vision, including the additional benefits the Trust believed it would bring to the site, the local area and Borough residents.

Ms Sufia Alam addressed the Committee. Ms Alam felt the proposed development  would undermine community pride in the local area. She asked the developer to work in partnership with the local community to develop an alternative planning application that would protect and restore community pride.

Councillor Ehtasham Haque addressed the Committee. Councillor Haque felt the proposed application presented substantial harm to the site which was not justified by the proposed benefits. He felt a working bell foundry could exist alongside a new hotel, confined to the rear (non-listed) section only. He commended the alternative vision for the site as proposed by UKHBPT.

Councillor Shah Ameen addressed the Committee. Councillor Ameen told the Committee that he felt the proposed development  damaged heritage, and delivered no benefits to the site or to local residents. He believed that there was greater potential for the site and that an alternative proposal, such as that proposed by UKHBPT, could provide more benefits. 

Mr Will Burgess addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Mr Burgess told the Committee that the applicant had worked closely with the former Whitechapel Bell Foundry Limited owners in developing their proposal. The applicant had conducted a wide-ranging consultation. The proposal included substantial public access provision. Mr Burgess summarised the proposed uses of the listed building area of the site and the benefits the applicant felt it would bring to the local area, including art provision and workspaces, apprenticeships and access to historical features. Mr Burgess stressed at the hotel was to be entirely located in the non-listed section of the site.

Ms Kelly Ryder addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Ms Ryder informed the Committee that the application had been amended substantially to respond to the concerns raised by officers and by the public following extensive consultation. Ms Ryder stressed that the proposed development  represented the best way to protect the site, which otherwise would be vulnerable to deterioration/disrepair and or alternative uses within the same use class. The proposals for the listed part of the site would reflect the heritage uses, including the founding of Whitechapel bells by the Whitechapel Bell Foundry Ltd. The benefits proposed as part of the application, including those to be secured through financial contributions, are extensive and go beyond the Council’s policy requirements. Ms Ryder added that Historic England had agreed that the proposals provide appropriate heritage protection and asked the Committee to note that there had been no objections regarding impact on neighbouring properties.

Questions to Officers

In response to questions from the Committee, officers:

• Officers advised that Historic England support the proposals, agree with the assessment of ‘less than substantial harm’ and consider the proposals are a conservation led approach.
• Provided further details on their assessment regarding optimal viable use. 
• Provided further detail on alternative permitted land uses under the existing B2 classification. It was noted that there is no specific bell-making land use classification.
• Provided further detail of the affordable workspace and apprenticeship opportunities proposed to be secured through the Section 106 agreement.
• Provided further detail on the proposed public access arrangements and heritage strategy.
• Provided detail to support their assessment that harm to the site as a result of the development is less than substantial.
• Provided guidance to the Committee on the appropriate level of consideration it could give to:
  • the alternative proposals put forward by UKHBPT. 
  • proposals for Whitechapel Bell-making on the site as part of the application.

Questions to Objectors

In response to questions from the Committee, objectors:

• Explained that they feel the application presents substantial harm to the site which cannot be mitigated under the current proposals.
• Provided further detail to support their assessment of substantial harm.
• Provided additional detail regarding the UKHBPT alternative proposals. Officers also provided additional detail of their meetings and discussions with UKHBPT. Officers expressed concern regarding the deliverability of the proposals. They noted that a business plan had been provided by UKHBPT, but felt it lacked sufficient detail. A full planning application had not been submitted by the Trust.

Questions to Applicants team

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant’s representatives:

• Provided further detail to support their assessment that harm to the site as a result of the development is less than substantial.
• Provided further detail on past and current arrangements for public access to the site.

On a vote of 3 in favour 3 against, with the Chair exercising a casting vote in favour, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.    That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, conditional planning permission and listed building consent is GRANTED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of the report.

2.    That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

3.    That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters set out in paragraph 8.5 of the report.

For the avoidance of doubt the planning officer asked the Committee to confirm that their vote was for both Planning Consent as well as Listed Building Consent. This was agreed.