Agenda item
Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 12th February, 2014 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.2)
- View the background to item 6.2
Proposal: Erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system.
Partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden.
Erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar.
Installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof.
Recommendation: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA for an extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system, partial demolition of existing side extension and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden, a side/rear extension to existing bar and associated works.
Gamon McLellan spoke in opposition to the application as a nearby resident. He expressed concern about the impact on residents from the proposal in terms of increased noise and disturbance (i.e. from the increased capacity, outdoor space and the opening hours). There would be more use of the heated forecourt late at night and noise from deliveries disturbing residents.
The premises had become bigger and noisier over recent years and there had been an increase in residential properties nearby, since the public house had opened. Given the changing nature of the area, the plans to expand the premises as proposed was inappropriate. He questioned whether the local community actual needed this project. If expanded, the public house would no longer be a local public house.
Serena Jenks spoke in opposition as a local resident. She expressed concern about the impact on residents from the existing activities in terms of noise and disturbance. Particularly from the opening hours and use of the heated forecourt. The plans would worsen this by increasing rowdiness, ASB and general comings and goings at anti social hours. Her bedroom was at the front of her property so at a very noise sensitive location. She considered that the premises should be updated but in a way that protected residents amenity. She cited an example where she personally experienced ASB from a customer from the premises.
Members noted the lack of complaints from the Police about the premises in the report. Ms Jenks, in response, confirmed her fears around noise and disturbance due to the nature of the proposal.
Councillor Joshua Peck, as a ward Councillor spoke in opposition. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of many local residents. His main objection was to the perceived over intensification of the site. The public house already had a capacity of 200 that was very large for a residential area. If granted, there would almost be a doubling of useable floor space given the reduction in other internal areas. As a result, the actual capacity of customers drinking was more likely to rise to, in practice, 350 not 250 as stated in the report. At weekends, the numbers were more likely to reach 750 (taking into account the total turn over for the entire evening) with 500-600 people walking past peoples houses at night.
In response to Members, he welcomed the engagement with the community over the design of the proposal and considered that the public house should be brought up to modern standards. However, stressed that the capacity should be kept to the existing capacity of 200 with possible an increase in the restaurant capacity.
Note. The Applicant had been invited to address the Committee for 9 minutes, however had declined the offer.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. Mr Lanoszka explained the surrounding area that was mainly residential, including the location of the nearby heritage assets, town centre and notable commercial units. He explained the outcome of the local consultation with 44 individual objections and the representation in the update report. He explained the changes to the plans in response to the public consultation, the floor layouts and the access arrangements. All of the public areas would be fully enclosed with no public access to the external areas.
It was considered that the proposal was acceptable on land use terms given it was unlikely to draw customers away from local trade and therefore harm trade. The Council’s Conservation Officer and Highway Officer had no objections. Environmental Health had no objections to the proposal.
A key issue was the impact on residential amenity from the plans. The Committee were invited to balance this against the benefits of the scheme for the local economy.
Officers confirmed the expected increase in floor space. It was considered unreasonable to claim that there would be a consummate increase in disturbance from this.
In view of this, the controls available under the various regimes and the historic public house use, Officers considered that the impact on the neighbours would not be so significant to warrant a refusal.
Members noted the concerns around noise from the outdoor area and asked about the discussions with the applicant to minimise any nuisance. In response, Officers explained the measures to minimise this. The applicant would be required to apply for planning permission to extend the outdoor area any further. Officers also explained the need for the smoking area to be at the front of the premises to minimise any rather than at the back. It was necessary to consider this application on the planning merits. Nevertheless, it was possible to apply further measures to minimise the impact on the neighbours through the Licensing regime (around noise nuisance, late night events etc).
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 4 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/02287) at Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA be NOT ACCEPTED
for:
· the erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system.
- Partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden.
- Erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar.
- Installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the impact on residents in terms of increased noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour deriving from the increased capacity of the pubic house arising from the proposed extensions.
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: