Agenda item
Shoreditch Station, Pedley Street, London E1 (PA/12/02661and PA/12/03383)
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
The Officers recommendation had been amended to remove the reason for refusal in relation to the proposed A3 use as this had been removed from the scheme and to omit the application for conservation area consent as this application had been withdrawn by the applicant as detailed in the tabled update report.
On a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/02661) at Shoreditch Station, Pedley Street, London E1 be REFUSED for the partial demolition of former Shoreditch Station building, with retention of brick facade, and erection of a new 6 storey building to include retail, cafe, office, and art display and studio space (Use Class A1, A3, B1 and D1) at lower ground, ground and first floor level and 9 residential units (Use Class C3) at second to fifth floor level, comprising 2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed units (amended proposal) for the reasons set out below:
· It is considered that the former Shoreditch Station building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and the proposed demolition of substantial elements of the building would fail to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, it is considered that the public benefits that would be brought by the proposed development are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area that would be caused by the proposal. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP10(2) of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010), Policy DM27(3) of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) and government guidance set out in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
· Based on the information submitted, the proposed development would fail to adequately protect future residential occupants from unacceptable levels of noise and vibration, to the detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP10(4) of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) require development to protect, and where possible improve, the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants, as well as the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for the partial demolition of former Shoreditch Station building, with retention of brick facade and erection of a new 6 storey building to include retail, cafe, office, and art display and studio space at lower ground, ground and residential units.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Anthony Hoate spoke in support of the scheme as the application was recommended by Officers for refusal. He stated that the proposals were supported by the local community. There had been 23 letters in support with only 4 objections. The scheme would support a range of community activities and would activate the site and provide natural surveillance. As a result it was supported by the Police. The scale and height was acceptable and the design respected the surrounding area. The only works to the station building would be to the roof. Due to this, the application was below the threshold for Conservation Area Consent.
Adam Williams (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update. He highlighted the changes to the Officers recommendation to remove the reason for refusal for the A3 use as this had been removed from the scheme. He also advised of the changes to omit the application for conservation area consent as this application had been withdrawn by the applicant. However, Officers considered that this application was still necessary based on the application and the opinion of English Heritage.
The Committee were advised of the key features of the scheme including the location, the good transport links and the outcome of the local consultation. It was considered the proposal was acceptable in terms of land use, scale and height and would provide an acceptable housing mix. It should also reduce opportunities for crime in the area. However, a key area of concern was the demolition of the Shoreditch Station building in the Conservation Area. The Borough’s Conservation Officer considered that the building made a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and the plans would harm the area. English Heritage and the Victorian Society also supported this view and opposed the demolition.
A second concern was the impact from noise and vibration to future occupants given the proposed building’s proximity to railway lines. Officers considered that the noise levels would be in excess of the accepted levels, based on the submitted noise report. (The applicant’s consultant had advised that a reasonable level of insulation would be provided as opposed to a good standard as required). The applicant had summited additional information on the day of the Committee regarding this issue. However the Council’s Environmental Health considered that this was insufficient to overcome the issues. On balance, Officers considered that the application should be refused.
In response to questions about the importance of the building, the Committee heard from Mark Hutton, a Council specialist on Conservation issues, who highlighted the views of English Heritage and the Victorian Society on this matter and spoke about the historic interest of the building as a station. As a result, it was considered that the proposed demolition should be refused. Instead the Council should seek the retention and repair the building due to its importance to the area.
In terms of the noise levels, it was reported that the site was located immediately adjacent to railway lines and an overground station. As a result, the future residents would be subject to ground borne noise that would travel through the building. It was noted that this issue could be addressed through conditions. However the information needed for this had not been provided.
On a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/02661) at Shoreditch Station, Pedley Street, London E1 be REFUSED for the partial demolition of former Shoreditch Station building, with retention of brick facade, and erection of a new 6 storey building to include retail, cafe, office, and art display and studio space (Use Class A1, A3, B1 and D1) at lower ground, ground and first floor level and 9 residential units (Use Class C3) at second to fifth floor level, comprising 2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed units (amended proposal) for the reasons set out below:
· It is considered that the former Shoreditch Station building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and the proposed demolition of substantial elements of the building would fail to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, it is considered that the public benefits that would be brought by the proposed development are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area that would be caused by the proposal. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP10(2) of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010), Policy DM27(3) of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) and government guidance set out in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
· Based on the information submitted, the proposed development would fail to adequately protect future residential occupants from unacceptable levels of noise and vibration, to the detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP10(4) of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) require development to protect, and where possible improve, the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants, as well as the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
Supporting documents: