Proposal:

Full planning application (PA/19/02404) and listed building consent (PA/21/01396) for:

• The provision of 1,900sqm (Gross external area) of A3 floor space. • Retention of existing slate roof.

• External alterations comprising the installation of roof plant and atrium changes, elevational changes (including dormer extension).

• Internal changes including creation of dining and kitchen areas, pedestrian access and fire escape routes, new waste storage and cycle parking facilities, new accesses (including accessible lifts) to the floor levels and WCs. • Other minor internal changes.

Recommendation:

1. Grant full planning permission subject to relevant conditions and a S106 agreement

2. Grant listed building consent

Update report published

Update report was published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application. The application proposes a change of use of the host building from office/storage (B1/B8) to a fine dining food market (A3). Internal and external changes are proposed in order to

facilitate this.

The Committee were also advised of the content of the update report including additional representations and clarification of the weight attributed to the draft Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan (SNP)

Committee Members had also attended a site visit.

Tanveer Rahman presented the application, highlighting the following points:

· Key features of the application.

· Key issues raised in the consultation.

· The outcome of the 2018 appeal decision (in relation to the previously refused scheme) – refused at appeal on two grounds. It was considered that both of these reasons, regarding the removal of the slate roof and the location of the assessable toilets has been addressed by this

application. In addition, the appeal decision accepted the proposed land use and this had not changed. Overall, the proposed land use was consistent with policy and was therefore considered to be acceptable.

· Officers have carefully assessed the heritage impacts and have given due consideration to the draft Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan (SNP). Officers considered that it would be reasonable to give the policies of the draft SNP moderate weight as set out in the update report. Overall, the proposal would preserve and restore large elements of the historic fabric of the building and use innovative ways to highlight the historic significance of the building. Details of this was noted, including the plans to better reveal historic features to the public.

· Whilst the proposals would result in heritage impacts (identified to the carriage lift, masonry floors and some openings around the central courtyard) there were strong practical reasons why these were considered necessary to facilitate the layout. In addition, the scheme will secure a long-term use for the site that can ensure retained heritage features are well maintained and restored where necessary, in accordance with Historic England’s published advice.

Overall, it was considered that the scheme would result in less than substantial harm to heritage assets. Officers considered that the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh the identified harm. Therefore, the development accorded with paragraph 202 of the NPPF.. The public benefits included: greater public use of the interior, an uplift in employment, benefits for the local economy, improvements to the exterior and a long term use of the building.

· In terms of noise issues, the appeal highlighted no issues in relation to this..Although, officers noted that objections have been received in this regard. The LBTH Environmental Health Team had been consulted and an external noise consultant (who was expert witness at the appeal scheme) had been reappointed to consider the impacts. Subject to the conditions, both had not raised any objections.

· A planning obligation and a number of conditions would be secured and these were noted.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.

Alec Foreshow, James Frankcom, David Donoghue, and Guljar Khan spoke in objection to the application. They raised concerns about:

• Harm to the listed building and its historic fabric. Its status, following the listing, had changed significantly since the appeal scheme. The report failed to address this issue and to give sufficient weight to the loss of the historic features. It also wrongly stated that Historic England had no outstanding concerns with the proposal.

· Not sufficient weight afforded to heritage harm indeed very great weight should be afforded to conservation of heritage

• Whilst the changes were noted, Historic England considered that the harm remained significant.

· Proposals were contrary to the Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan given harm to the listed building. Proposals should enhance the Conservation Area

· Officers failed to apply the test of paragraph 202 of NPPF concerning optimum viable use and that other schemes and uses could cause less harm and officers have not considered these alternatives

· Fire exit /emergency exit strategy using route through Puma Court is not adequate and is not controlled by the developer and leads to conflict with different users.

· Greater congestion/ queuing. This will cause chaos to local area

· Highway impacts.

· It will harm local Bengali heritage and cultural identity, destroy Brick Lane and lead to a loss of curry houses.

The Applicant’s team: Matthew Clatworthy, John Thompson, Shivani Mawji and James Imrie (local resident) highlighted the following:

· The applicant had gone above and beyond addressing the two reasons for refusing the scheme at the appeal. For example, the proposed development had been reduced in size and it would have a smaller maximum capacity. Letters of support had been received and the applicant would put in place robust management plans, as set out the conditions.

· None of the alternative options were viable. The proposal would optimise public use of the site with minimal subdivision of the building.

· The applicant had fully reviewed the design approach with LBTH to ensure that historic features were exposed, and important features would be protected.

· It will bring footfall to the areas and bring business to the area. It would create local jobs and be a welcomed addition to the local area.

· The Time Out Magazine published articles and promoted initiatives to support businesses in London. It has published details of the application and looked forward to building on partnerships to continue to support this proposal.

The Committee then asked questions of Officers and the registered speakers around the following issues:

• The consultation with the community. The applicant’s team commented on the nature of the community consultation, since 2019, including a total of 40 hours of events and meetings, as well as door knocking, the distribution of approximately over 9000 flyers and over 700 letters. Around 700 attendees were present at events. Following the listing of the building, the applicant had carried out further consultation.

· Fire safety issues. It was noted that the applicant had submitted a document regarding third party representations. Page 14 of this contains a letter from the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (Dated 31.10.2016) stating that they were satisfied with the proposals. No issues were raised in relation to this issue at the appeal. Whilst the letter appeared to relate to the previous scheme, this scheme was similar in nature. The proposals would also need to gain Building Regulations approval

· Noise impacts. It was noted that if granted, a Licensing permission would need to be obtained. That regime would deal with any licensable activities and issues, including impact of noise. (in addition to the measures set out in the conditions). The Committee heard from the Council’s expert in this field. They confirmed that the proposal would not have a significant impact in terms of increased noise.

· The total occupancy capacity of the venue would be a maximum of 500 people, with a capacity to seat 360 people.

· At the conclusion of the debate, Members noted the need for the Committee to take into account the public benefits of the proposals as well as the impacts. To make an informed decision, it was felt necessary that a further Committee site visit should be held to assess the heritage of the building to allow the Committee to fully view the interior unimpeded by the structures of the current exhibition.

Councillor Iqbul Hossain moved and Councillor Kamrul Hussain seconded a proposal that a Committee site visit was held.

On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:

1. That the application for planning permission and listed building consent is DEFERRED at 106 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LZ for a Committee Site visit.