Agenda item
London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London (PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221)
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221) at London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London is not accepted and subject to any direction by the Mayor the London, the applications be REFUSED.
Councillor Carlo Gibbs moved an amended to the suggested reasons for refusal seconded by Councillor Bill Turner to include the demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange Building itself’ in the second reason for refusal of the planning permission as set out in the report. On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention this was agreed.
Councillor Turner moved a further amendment to remove the White’s Row Car Park from the suggested reasons for refusal for the Conservation area consent as set out in the report. On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention this was agreed.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/02220)& (PA/11/02221) at London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Paragraph 7.2 of the committee report subject to the two amendments agreed by the Committee regarding the inclusion of the demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange Building itself in the second reason for refusal of the planning permission and the removal of the White’s Row Car Park from the reasons for refusal for the Conservation area consent.
(The Members that considered this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Dr Emma Jones, Carlo Gibbs and Denise Jones).
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the Committee report and the update regarding the London Fruit and Wool Exchange(PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221). It was reported that the application was previously considered on 6th March 2012 where the Committee were minded to refuse the application for a number of reasons as set out in the updated Committee report. Mr Smith highlighted the modifications made to the application by the applicant to address the concerns and the representations received since 6th March 2012 as detailed in the report and update.
Paul Buckenham (Deputy Team Leader, Pre- applications Team) gave a presentation of the application explaining the key aspects. In particularly the proposed layout, the design, the views from key points and the plans for the Gun public house.
He explained in more detail the clarifications and modifications offered by the applicant to address Members concerns. He described the increase in SME space, the enhanced employment and training offer, the proposed employment and skills centre and the additional planning contributions.
He addressed the additional representations as set out in the update. He also explained the additional conditions recommended in the update to further address the concerns.
The impact on the Gun public house had been fully assessed by Officers and the applicant. Given the wider public benefits of the scheme, Officers considered that the plans were acceptable and that the proposal complied with policy and the National Planning Policy Framework
The applicant had submitted a viability assessment detailing recent events that increased viability. The study showed that the revised scheme could be afforded without leaving the scheme unviable. The assessment had been independently assessed.
On balance, the Officers recommendation remained unchanged to grant the application. However should Members be minded to refuse the application, suggested reasons for refusal were set out in the Committee reported based on the reasons given by Members on 6th March 2012.
In response to the presentation, the Chair noted the improvements to the scheme and the opportunity presented to redevelop the site. He also noted the many objections and the numerous opportunities for people to express their views during the planning application process.
Members then raised a series of questions and concerns around the following issues:
- The potential occupants of the units.
- The plans to commemorate the history on site.
- The commissioning and tendering process for the employment and training provision.
- The expected outcomes for the service and testing done to identify this.
- The nature of the job opportunities.
- The merits of relocating the Gun public house. The views of the occupants about this.
- The impact on the Conservation Area. Concern was expressed at the lack of new measures to mitigate the impact given the improvements to address the other concerns. It was questioned whether more could be done to retain the public house as part of the heritage offer.
- Concern about the loss of heritage on site in general. For example the loss of the Fruit and Wool building its self. It was remarked that the Spitalfields area thrived on having many old buildings. The scheme could jeopardise this. The heritage issues had not been fully addressed.
- The off site housing offer and the policy support for this.
- The effectiveness of the Enforcement Officer
- The time length of the post.
- The public toilet facilities.
- Evidence that restaurant uses caused nuisance behaviour.
- The need for the ‘before and after slides’ in the presentation to be consistent in terms of format – for example both in colour.
Mr Buckenham responded to the questions from Members. He referred to the many expressions of interest in the units in the scheme. The negotiations with potential occupants were at an advance stage. This would have a positive impact on viability.
He explained the plans to display the site heritage on site that would be dealt with via the s106 agreement. At the request of the Committee, Mark Hutton Conservation Officer explained in more detail some suggested ideas for achieving this to ensure there was an adequate commemoration of heritage on site. He expressed confidence in the plans. The plans would be prepared with the Design and Conservation Team. Great care had been taken to ensure the scheme fitted in with the Conservation area.
Officers had engaged in discussions with the Council’s Employment and Enterprise team regarding the employment and skills centre. The centre would provide a wide range of opportunities at different skills levels including assistance for the unemployed. It was intended that the developer would work in partnership with the key employment stakeholders to deliver the aims.
Officers also referred to a letter from the owners of the Gun public house. According to which, they supported the re – development and their return to the scheme due to the business opportunities it presented. The developer had fully examined the potential to retain the public house but found that due to incompatibilities in the layout, it could not be incorporated into the new scheme. Officers detailed the reasons for this as detailed in the design assessment.
The additional contributions for employment and the skills centre exceeded the requirements in the SPD. Therefore were not necessary for the development. The post of the Enforcement Officer would be initially be a for five years period. There would be obligations in the s016 to provide this post. The provision of public toilets could be funded via the existing proposal avoiding the need for an additional contribution that could raise the contributions above the threshold.
The off site housing offer complied with the London Plan given the designation of the site and the nature of the development.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/02220) (PA/11/02221) at London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London is not accepted and subject to any direction by the Mayor the London, the applications be REFUSED.
Councillor Carlo Gibbs moved an amended to the suggested reasons for refusal seconded by Councillor Bill Turner to include the demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange Building itself’ in the second reason for refusal of the planning permission as set out in the report. On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention this was agreed.
Councillor Turner moved a further amendment to remove the White’s Row Car Park from the suggested reasons for refusal for the Conservation area consent as set out in the report. On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention this was agreed.
On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/02220)& (PA/11/02221) at London Fruit & Wool Exchange (LFWE), Brushfield St, 99-101 Commercial Street, 54 Brushfield St & Whites Row Car Park, London be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Paragraph 7.2 of the committee report subject to the two amendments agreed by the Committee regarding the inclusion of the demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange Building itself in the second reason for refusal of the planning permission and the removal of the White’s Row Car Park from the reasons for refusal for the Conservation area consent.
(The Members that considered this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Dr Emma Jones, Carlo Gibbs and Denise Jones. The other Members present did not vote on this item having not been present at the 6th March 2012 meeting when the application was last considered and deferred).
Supporting documents:
-
LFWE update report final, item 8.1
PDF 167 KB
-
LFWE Appendix 1 final, item 8.1
PDF 2 MB
-
LFWE Appendix 2 final, item 8.1
PDF 78 KB
-
LFWE appendix 3 final, item 8.1
PDF 47 KB