Agenda item
Unit FG-012A, Block F, Trumans Brewery, 91 Brick Lane, London E1(PA/11/03311)
Decision:
Councillor Helal Abbas left the meeting for the consideration of this item (7.6) and items 7.7 and 7.8.
COUNCILLOR SHIRIA KHATUN CHAIR
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/11/03311)be REFUSED for the reasons set out in Section 2 of the report.
Minutes:
Councillor Helal Abbas left the meeting for the consideration of this item (7.6) and items 7.7 and 7.8.
COUNCILLOR SHIRIA KHATUN CHAIR
At the request of the Chair, Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager introduced the report Unit FG-012A, Block F, Trumans Brewery, 91 Brick Lane, London E1(PA/11/03311).
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Mr Nasir Uddin spoke in opposition to scheme on behalf of the Brick Lane Residents Association. There would be an over intensification of the late night economy in the area if granted. There were already problems with anti social behaviour with incidences of residents being harassed. This would exacerbate these problems. He welcomed the Officers report.
In response to question from Members, he referred to the perceived problems with nuisance behaviour at the brewery site. In his opinion, the units typically attracted social behaviour linked to public nuisance to the detriment of the surrounding area. Staff had been involved in altercations. The neighbouring properties were about 150 yards away. It was questionable whether the scheme would create local jobs and employ local people. Businesses that promoted the day time economy were welcomed.
He considered that the local community were not consulted on the proposal.
Mr Rupert Wheeler also spoke in opposition to the scheme as a representative of the Spitalfields Society. He objected on the grounds of increased noise, public nuisance, rowdiness and cumulative impact of night time economy. He estimated that the combined floor space of the three applications for the site would total at least 6000 square metres. This would allow for 450 covers not 150 as claimed in excess of any other similar establishment in this area. There would be a significant increase in night time use requiring greater policing, waste facilities and public realm improvements. He urged that the Council and the Applicant to work together to mitigate these impacts, and until this need was met, the application should be refused.
In response to Members, he considered that there was a long history of complaints to the Police about public nuisance at the brewery site. The proposals would exacerbate such problems.
Mr Zeloof spoke in support of the proposals as the Applicant’s representative. He disputed the status of the Council’s Managing Development Plan as it was still subject to public consultation. The relevant policy was the Core Strategy and this identified this area as suitable for such a scheme. The entries and exists would be staggered and carefully managed. The surrounding site would be manned by accredited security staff. It would create jobs. There would be no noise increases as supported by the acoustics report. The 2011 Appeal Scheme granted by the Inspectorate (for a similar scheme near the site) set an important precedent. It would be a pure restaurant with no bar. There was a lack of pure restaurants in the brewery site. Therefore he disputed that this would be over culmination. The replacement of the workshop with an active frontage in the day time would enhance the day time economy. The waste management plans were satisfactory.
In relation to item 7.7, (PA/11/03312) the scheme was located in the middle of site far removed from the surrounding areas. Regarding item 7.8, (PA/11/03313) there was a restaurant on this site two years ago without concern setting an important precedent.
In response to Members, Mr Zeloof stated that each application would create 18 new jobs benefiting the local economy. There would be off site servicing minimising the impact on street. He disputed that there would be an impact on pedestrian traffic as it would increase choice rather than bring new visitors in. The Applicant didn’t believe that the plans required consultation due the perceived non controversial nature of a restaurant use.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented a detailed presentation of the application for refusal. The application (together with applications Items 7.7 and 7.8) had been brought to the Committee due to the number of representations.
Mr Murrell described the site location, the existing uses, details of the application, the outcome of the consultation. He emphasised the evidence led approach taken to assessing the impact.
He drew attention to the large number of evening and late night establishments in the Brick Lane area and the impact on the amenity of residents. He also referred to the high crime levels in the area linked to the late night economy. He also confirmed the threshold in the Managing Development DPD for A3/A4/A5 uses in the area which was 25%. The percentage of which currently totalled 26%.
It was therefore considered that the proposal would add to this over concentration of such uses in the area and associated amenity impacts. On this basis it was recommended for refusal.
In response to Members, Mr Murrell referred to the treatment of restaurant establishments in planning policy. There was evidence that such uses increased the influx of visitors in the area at night associated with public nuisance.
It was also necessary to take into account the threshold in the Managing Development DPD for A3 uses in the area. This was a key consideration. In exceeding this threshold, the proposal would lead to an overconcentration of such uses contrary to policy.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/11/03311) be REFUSED for the reasons set out in Section 2 of the report.
Supporting documents: