Agenda item
375 Cable Street, London, E1 (PA/07/03290)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shahed Ali and Anwar Khan were ineligible to vote on this item as they had not been present at the start of the item.
On a vote of 1 for and 4 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the planning permission at 375 Cable Street, London for change of use of the ground floor from retail (Class A1) to hot food take-away use (Class A5) and the erection of an extract duct on the side elevation be REFUSED for the following reasons:
- impact on the Cycle Superhighway– due to parking and traffic arising from use of the takeaway.
- proximity to schools/health consideration - The scheme, by virtue of its close proximity to schools, contradicts the government’s obesity strategy seeking to locate takeaways away from schools.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shahed Ali and Anwar Khan were ineligible to vote on this item as they had not been present at the start of the item.
Mr Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control, Development and Renewal) presented the report regarding 375 Cable Street seeking permission for change of use form a grocery shop to a hot food takeaway use.
Mr Stephen Irvine (Development Control Manager) presented the detailed application. Mr Irvine explained the history of the application, the outcome of the appeal against refusal and the ruling of the Judicial Review (JR). At which, the court ruled that healthy eating and proximity was capable of being a material consideration and should therefore be taken into account. Overall it was considered that the proposed change of use was acceptable in amenity terms, highways terms, in keeping with policy, and the proposed flue was acceptable and complied with policy. Suitable waste storage/collection arrangements had been secured by condition. The Council’s experts had considered the scheme and had determined that it was acceptable.
However the key issue centred around the healthy lifestyles issue. The Council’s Core Strategy seeks to reduce usages that may detract from healthy lifestyles. Government guidance also stated that Local Authorities should strive to manage the proliferation of fast food outlets to encourage healthy eating. A key issue was therefore whether this proposal comprised this aim.
Members considered a map of the consultation area. (Pg 33 of the agenda) showing that there were no other takeaways within this area.
It was also reported that there were two schools near the site.
The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.
Ms Emma Davidson, local resident, stated the Development Committee had recently considered a similar catering application on 18th August 2010 and decided to refuse it due to overlooking, impact on the street scene and parking. This had set a precedence. Each of the reasons for refusal were relevant to this case. This was a credit to the Council. This decision could be made again here. Residents had submitted a Freedom of Information request as the costs to the taxpayer of this scheme were unknown to residents.
Ms Davidson voiced concerns over damage to the drainage system, which was being inspected by Tower Hamlets Homes. The proposals would make this worse. She expressed concern over the validity of the signatures on the petition in favour. The signatures were ominous and were still being collected after the closing date.
Mr Charles Copeland, speaking in objection, stressed the need for Members to take into account the many objections which provided good grounds for refusal. He expressed concern at the accuracy of the noise assessment. He considered that the design of the flue was unacceptable. The report says that it would be built on the wall but it would run without cover before meeting the wall. The brick cladding was out of keeping with the area and was incongruous.
He objected to the position of the waste storage system and that this had not been adequately addressed. When asked, it was just said that ‘the bin had to go somewhere’.
Mr Copeland objected to the number of fast food outlets located within walking distance of Cable Street. There were many. The report stated that the takeaway would not sell takeaway food. This was inaccurate. He requested that the Council should give credence to the Inspectors decision in Walthamstow. Insufficient consideration had been given to the policy on healthy eating and the need for young people to have a healthy start to their lives and the amenity impact on residents.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke against the application. He advised that, in his capacity as Chair of Health Scrutiny Panel, he had carried out a review of healthy eating and lifestyles. The conclusions made clear that there was a strong link between the availability of fast food, the presence of takeaways and obesity. The existence of a takeaway in Cable street would have a detrimental impact on the health of our young people. The Borough had the second highest rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Life expectancy was 10 years lower in Shadwell than in Millwall.
Councillor Archer expressed concern at the close proximity of six schools to Cable Street. There were already a number of fast food outlets in the area. The Judicial Review made it quite clear that policy on healthy eating was a material planning consideration. He urged the Committee to bear these concerns in mind and to reject this application.
Councillor Peter Golds spoke in objection to the application. He drew attention to the history of the application, the Inspectors judgement, this was the fifth time it had been before a Planning Committee for consideration. He drew attention to the strength of the opposition against the application. Every time it had previously been reported to the Committee, the Police and the Local MP have rejected it. The local Greater London Assembly Member had objected to it too. Last night at Full Council, a Member had asked the Leader to provide assurances on what the Council was doing about fast food outlets.
He claimed that a nearby residents had received a letter from the Planning Department addressed to a person who did not live there. Councillor Golds had the letter before him. He claimed that the persons address was being fraudulently used to generate support. He felt that the takeaway would provide cheap deep fried unhealthy food.
Mr Almin Ahmed, spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He stated that the Applicant had been pursuing this application for three years. He expressed concern at financial implications for his family. The Application would meet the needs of everyone. The Applicant had spent a lot of time addressing the objections and had carried out a lot of work to address them, which had now all been completed. It would not be a typical takeaway. It would also sell healthy food as well such as salads and sandwiches The neighbours were notified and invited to comment. He urged the Committee to support the application.
Mr Paplu Ali also spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the Applicant was a long standing business, and his last business was very valuable to the community. He had to overcome a lot of obstacles along the way. The conditions had been meet. It appeared that a minority of the community were unnecessarily wasting time over issues that could easily be resolved. The fact of the matter was many people supported the proposals. The majority of the community were in favour of it. The court battle was lengthy and unfair. The Guidance on healthy eating was not planning law it was just guidance.
In reply to the presentation, Members raised the following points:
- Queried the significance of fast food outlets in contributing to health issues compared to other factors,
- what the takeaway would be selling,
- Anti Social Behaviour issues given the concerns expressed by the Police. The need to pay attention to their comments.
- Asked officers to clarify the significance of the 200 metre walking distance measurement from the premises.
- Queried the number of fast food outlets in the wider area outside the consultation map area.
- The proximity of the proposed takeaway to the nearest schools, the number of school journeys that pasted through Cable Street.
- Expressed concern about impact on the Cycle Superhighway arising from traffic from use of a takeaway. It was already well used and needed to be kept free from traffic. Cable Street was not a wide street. Any increase in traffic would have a detrimental affect on it.
In reply to these points, Officers reported the following points.
- Referred to the difficulties in establishing a link between hot food takeaways and unhealthy lifestyles as highlighted by the Waltham Forest decision.
- It was difficult to argue that all hot food, by definition, was unhealthy and that takeaways were solely to blame for unhealthy lifestyles. It was a matter for the Committee to determine how much weight they put on the healthy eating issue given the premises proximity to schools.
- Noted the letter of support welcoming the sale of chicken and chips at the premises. It was acknowledged that, whilst they may sell this, they may also provide a range of healthier options.
- Planning Officers had met with the Police, who worked closely with the team, to discuss the application. The main issues for the Police were the reports of low level crime in the area. However there was no evidence linking anti social behaviour with the existence of a hot food takeaway.
- The nearest takeaway was located to the North East of the site and was over 300 metres away.
- As indicated in the report the nearest schools were the Bishop Challoner School and the Bluegate Field School.
- Issue around costs were not a material consideration.
In summary, Members considered that the issues around healthy eating and proximity to schools were material.
Consequently, in view of the healthy eating policy, the proximity of the premises to schools, and the concerns around impact on the Cycle Superhighway, the Committee were minded to refuse the application.
On a vote of 1 for and 4 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the planning permission at 375 Cable Street, London for change of use of the ground floor from retail (Class A1) to hot food take-away use (Class A5) and the erection of an extract duct on the side elevation be REFUSED for the following reasons:
- impact on the Cycle Superhighway– due to parking and traffic arising from use of the takeaway.
- proximity to schools/health consideration - The scheme, by virtue of its close proximity to schools, contradicts the government’s obesity strategy seeking to locate takeaways away from schools.
Supporting documents: