Agenda item
Rochelle School, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7ES (PA/10/0037)
Decision:
On a vote of one for and three against, it was –
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for continued use of Rochelle Canteen (Use Class A3), independent of the Rochelle Centre with ancillary off-site catering operation be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- The potential overlooking of residential properties.
- The impact on local residents arising from the noise and other operational disturbances from the canteen.
- The impact on street car parking spaces due to traffic arising from deliveries to the canteen and from its clients.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
The Chair invited persons who had registered to speak on this item to address the Committee.
Mr Robert Allen (for Mr Raphael Ashley), a local resident, speaking in objection to the application, indicated that he worked shifts and his sleep was disturbed by activities at the Rochelle Centre as he lived in close proximity. Activities could last from 7.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. and this was unreasonable. Noise and other nuisances emanated from the centre, which also comprised a change of character to the Boundary Estate Conservation Area. There were often hordes of people in the garden outside the restaurant, causing additional disturbance. The premises did not hold an alcohol licence but alcohol was sold there and this resulted in louder behaviour. He had complained about these issues regularly but to no avail. This was the fourth year in a row that he had been subject to adverse impacts to his quality of life. Nothing would change if the application were granted as the premises were already effectively being operated as a restaurant, open to all and not just to those working at the centre. There was already a management in place but this failed to address the problems. Only 9 persons the 67 who had expressed support for the application actually lived on the Boundary Estate. Publicity for the restaurant was becoming more widespread so he anticipated an increase in use. Mr Allen concluded by stating that the centre and its users had disregarded planning rules and the application should be rejected.
Ms Jenfa Khanom, also speaking in objection stated that her home shared a wall with the canteen/school complex and thus there was an immediate effect on her family arising especially from noise, which continued past the centre’s opening hours. There was nuisance from foul smells arising from refuse disposal. If the application were granted, she anticipated an increase in footfall with resultant disturbance, especially as the purpose was being altered from the original use as a canteen for staff only. A large number of members of the public already used the restaurant and there was no effort to maintain any restrictions. The premises were in a residential estate and Members should be mindful that local people had a right to peace and quiet. In addition, it was likely to be run as a bar if an alcohol licence were granted.
Mr Kevin Watson, speaking for the applicant, commented that the canteen was actually a very small scale operation and was not used as a restaurant. There was no alcohol licence and no operation of the café/canteen in the evening. The premises comprised only 30 sq.m floorspace, with 36 permanent covers and a small outdoor area in summer. The application was being made to regularise the situation and not with a view to intensifying operations in the premises. There had been two years of discussions with Officers which had resulted in the current submission, which included a number of controls tied in by the management plan prepared by “A Foundation” and these would be observed.
The canteen had been in operation for 4/5 years and no complaints about it had been made to Environmental Health. All other issues had been addressed by the management plan. He pointed out that the letters of objection had actually only been on two templates raising three or four issues. The Rochelle centre was not only used by local people but, in any event, it was not proposed that there would be an intensification of activities, just a continuation of existing levels.
Mr Anthony Bennett, the applicant, indicated that he worked for “A Foundation” a local charity, which ran the centre. This comprised a community of artists and designers, with a conference centre and library. The canteen was the smallest element of the centre and had been in use since 2006. The canteen had become popular through word of mouth. Income for the centre was provided by grants and an event for the Tower Hamlets Arts and Library Service was being arranged at the centre later in the year. Mr Bennett added that the application was to regularise the position and it was not intended to apply for an alcohol licence.
Ms Ila Robertson, Applications Manager, introduced the report, as augmented and clarified by the tabled update report, making a detailed presentation and addressing the issues raised by the objectors and applicants. Key considerations were the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers and generation of traffic, which were fully addressed within the body of the report. Ms Robertson pointed out that no complaints of noise nuisance had been reported to Environmental Health and Highways Officers were satisfied that the proposal would have no adverse effects on the local traffic network. She added that the current application had to be considered on its own merits.
Members then put questions, which were answered by Planning Officers, relating to any involvement by English Heritage and the implications for the Boundary Estate Conservation Area; the status of signatories supporting the application; current parking issues on the estate; the position for regularising the position of the canteen under planning regulations and enforcement action; potential overlooking of residents’ homes; the time of operation of the canteen and public access.
The Chair stated that she was minded to support the application but shared Members’ concerns about the regularisation of activities which had been previously undertaken without proper planning consents, as this gave an unsatisfactory message about enforcement and retrospective approvals. She made the point that Councillor Ann Jackson, who had arrived late at the meeting, was not eligible to vote on this item.
On a vote of one for and three against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for continued use of Rochelle Canteen (Use Class A3), independent of the Rochelle Centre with ancillary off-site catering operation be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- The potential overlooking of residential properties.
- The impact on local residents arising from the noise and other operational disturbances from the canteen.
- The impact on street car parking spaces due to traffic arising from deliveries to the canteen and from its clients.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: