Proposal:

Mixed use redevelopment of site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height from four to eight storeys above a shared basement, to contain a maximum 9 residential units (Class C3) up to 10,739m2 (GIA) hotel floor space (Class C1) up to 3,529m2 (GIA) employment floorspace (Class B1), up to 358m2 (GIA) flexible office and retail floorspace at ground level (Class A1, A2, A3 and B1) and provision of Public House (Class A4) along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and s106 agreement

Update report tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the report for the mixed use redevelopment of the site to provide a maximum 9 residential units, hotel floor space, commercial space, the provision of Public House along with associated works.

Daria Halip (Planning Services)  presented the application, describing the site and surrounds and details of the extant planning permission. Consultation had been carried out. The presentation summarised the outcome of the objections and that they mainly related to the impacts from the proposed hotel use, amenity issues, the highway impacts and other issues.

Officers drew to the Committee’s attention  the following points:

·       All the land uses had been established as acceptable in principle with the extant consent, the hotel use is the only new use introduced with this proposal

·       The similarities with the extant scheme in terms of the height, massing and the design. The amenity impacts were considered to be broadly comparable to the extant consent with only some limited minor additional impacts surrounding daylight/sunlight.

·       Details of the heritage assessment. The public benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the identified harm to heritage, (that would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm), and satisfies the relevant policy tests.

·       That the provision of the hotel use satisfied the relevant tests in policy, given the size, and scale of the scheme, it’s location and the  distance with nearby visitor accommodation and the adequate servicing arrangements. Officers drew attention to the challenges of providing residential development at the site. In view of this, it is not considered the scheme compromises the supply of housing land.

·       Officers were mindful of the concerns around noise and ASB from the new hotel. Due to the mitigation measures (around controlling this), which were detailed, Officers considered that these issues can be successfully managed. 

·       The scheme would result in a number of public benefits that go beyond those set out in Council’s Planning Obligations SPD. Some of the main benefits included:  Provision of financial contributions for affordable housing and the re-provision of a Public House for the LGBT+ community, to replace the former Joiner’s Arms Public House, (with a better internal layout and a contributions towards fit out costs including to deal with acoustic breakout controls), and a financial obligation towards provision of meanwhile use space for the Friends of the Joiners Arms to operate temporarily during construction period and until the permanent venue is made available on site.

·       Other benefits included: new public realm and landscaping, bespoke Section 106 obligations in relation to careers program, working with local HE and FE colleges and construction & end phase training and apprenticeship programs

·       Transport matters were acceptable.

·       In view of the merits of the application, Officers considered that it should be granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Penny Creed and Kevin Mckenna  addressed the Committee  in objection, as members of a local Tenants and Residents Association . They expressed concern about:

·        The proposed night time economy orientated hotel, which was a significant change from the extant scheme,

·       Harm to neighbouring amenity, particularly the residents nearest the site, due to the increased footfall, increased noise nuisance and ASB. This was mainly a residential area

·       Oversupply of hotels in the area.

·       That the images in the report were old and out of date and excluded some newly built buildings

·       Concerns about the increased height and bulk of the development.

·       That the fabric of building had been left to decay and its retention and repair should be monitored.

·       Lack of consultation with residents, with Hackney Council and the Columbia Tenants and Residents Association.

·       Concerns about the construction impacts.

·       Later construction hours were requested for the hours of construction given proximity to residential homes.

·       Refuse arrangements.

The applicant representatives, Sam Stackhouse and Steve Harrington addressed the Committee. They advised of the developer’s and the hotel operator’s excellent track record and their commitment to provide a 4 star high-quality hotel providing new jobs and investment in the area. The benefits of the scheme were broadly similar to the extant scheme, including enhanced proposals for the Joiner’s Arms Public House.  These were detailed in the Committee report. The Application had evolved over the course of 2020, since its submission in 2019 in consultation with the Council, stakeholders and residents. They also underlined their commitment to  consult with residents and to establish liaison arrangements with the local community. They also provided assurances about the measures to mitigate the impacts from the development.

Committee’s questions:

The Committee asked questions of the registered speakers and Officers. In response the following points were discussed.

·       Sunlight and daylight Impacts on 1-14 Vaughan Estate.  The Committee noted the nature of the existing constraints that restricted access to sunlight daylight to these properties. Consequently, these impacts were primarily associated with these existing features as set out in the Committee report. The impacts were broadly similar to the extant scheme, with the exception of additional minor impacts mostly affecting ground floor properties. The Council had received three letters of objections from 1-14 Vaughan Estate Strout’s two about overlooking and one about loss of light. 

·       The opening hours. The Committee noted details of opening hours of the hotel bar and the A4 use. Similar to the extant scheme, it was proposed that a condition be imposed on the A4 use limiting the late night opening hours for a 12 month period.  In discussing this, Officers noted the need to protect residential amenity and to secure the Joiner’s Arms as a late night venue, consequently they considered that this condition to be appropriate. Members questioned the benefits of this requirement and asked that it was reviewed in view of the uncertainty it may create.

·       Members sought further clarity on the measures to mitigate the concerns about noise and ASB and the involvement of residents in the proposals especially the TRA.

·       In response, it was noted that conditions would be imposed to manage any impacts in this regard, similar to the arrangements with the Joiners Arm’s under the extant scheme. Details of these measures were noted, including proposals for ensuring ongoing community engagement.

·       In response to questions about whether this could alleviate the issues, the objector’s underlined their concerns about these issues, especially from the cumulative impact from the Joiner’s Arms and the hotel bar, as well as the increased footfall.

·       They also expressed concerns about the refuse collection arrangements as big trucks could block access to homes and emergency access. Concern was also expressed about the noise impacts from this.

·       Regarding the use of the roof top, it was confirmed there would be no roof top access for the hotel, only for the office building at the 5^th floor. A condition could be imposed to control access to this space. The applicant’s representatives expressed a commitment to restrict use of this space for maintenance purposes only.

·       Regarding the consultation process carried out by the applicant, the objectors underlined their concerns especially about the lack of adequate consultation by the developer with George Loveless House and properties in Pelter Street. They also highlighted their concern about the lack of consultation with Columbia Road Tenants and Residents Association.

·       Officers confirmed that the Council had carried out the statutory consultation exercise with residentsin accordance with the requirements. The Council had also consulted Hackney Council regarding the application.

Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE proposed and Councillor Kahar Chowdhury seconded that the consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons set out below.

On a vote of 4 in favour and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That the consideration of the planning application is DEFERRED at 114 - 150 Hackney Road, London, E2 7QL for a Committee Site Visit to better understand the site and its context, the impact on residents and the consultation.

The Committee also sought further information on:

·       The condition limiting the late night opening hours of the Public House to 12 months.

·       The rent levels for the Public House with a view to providing longer term affordable rents.

·       Review the radius for the provision of the meanwhile off – site temporary venue

·       Daylight/ Sunlight Impacts on Vaughan Estate, particularly with the view of the existing architectural constrains

·       Conditions regarding use of the roof area

·       Management of the footfall from the scheme including details of the joint management for the operation of A4 and the hotel bar.