Agenda item
Silwex House, Quaker Street, London, E1 6NS (PA/14/01897)
Proposal:
Demolition of the roof and part side elevations, the retention and restoration of the southern and northern elevations and the construction of a 3 storey roof extension to provide a new hotel (Class C1) development comprising approx. 250 bedrooms over basement, ground and 5 upper floors with ancillary cafe space and servicing on the ground floor, associated plant in the basement and roof, improvements to the front pavement and associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item
Adam Williams (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation of the scheme, explaining the history of the site and the character of the existing building. The site fell within the Brick Lane Fournier Street Conservation Area, the Central Activity Zone and the City Fringe Opportunity Area in the London Plan and had good public transport links. The surrounding area comprised a mixture of uses and there were listed buildings nearby.
Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were addressed in the Committee report.
He explained the details of the application. The scheme was acceptable in land use terms in view of the extant hotel use consent and the site designation in policy. It was proposed to preserve the majority of the key features of the building recognising that the building made a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. This included the retention of the rear (north) elevation of the building following negotiations with Officers and other consultees. The main changes were explained. The Council’s Design and Conservation Team were satisfied with the design of the scheme and the impact on the Conservation Area subject to the conditions.
The impact on sunlight and daylight was generally acceptable as shown by the independent assessment. Environmental Health had no concerns about increased noise subject to the conditions.
Officers also explained the car and cycle parking, the deliveries and servicing, the waste and recycling plans and the clause in the s106 to restrict coach party bookings following discussion with LBTH Highways and Transport for London.
Whilst there would be an increase in the number of non-vehicle born trips to the consented scheme, importantly there would be a decrease in vehicle born trips. Given this and the high public transport accessibility rating for the site and level of public access, this was considered acceptable.
The section 106 contributions complied with policy. In view of the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the scheme was granted planning permission.
In response, Members noted the need to modernise the building and to bring it back into use. However, it was questioned whether the proposals could be reduced to fit into the existing building envelop in view of the objections from the historic societies.
Concern was also expressed about the modern design in relation to the traditional building. Particularly, it was felt that the new windows and the upper part of the buildings due to the design and the scale and massing would be out of keeping with the building and the surrounding area. Due to these issues, it was feared that the proposal could over dominate the building and have an adverse impact on the area.
Members also requested more details on the commitments regarding local employment in the legal agreement, the Crossrail contributions and also asked whether the number of apprenticeship places could be increased. It was also suggested that Officers should work more with the historic societies to address their concerns.
In response, Officers noted that the scheme was a bold addition to the building. But it was felt that, given the detailed design and subject to the conditions, that the scheme was acceptable and was an appropriate response to the design challenges. The building would be a substantial improvement on the consented apart-hotel scheme. Officers drew attention to specific features of the scheme to fit in with the building and the area. Officers also referred to similar conversions approved by Committee involving a ‘saw tooth’ building.
The height of the scheme was broadly in line with adjacent buildings. Furthermore, due to the design of the building and the nature of the area, it wouldn’t be possible from street level to view the front elevation head on and the massing of the building would be minimised when viewed from street level.
Officers also noted that the Committee were comfortable with the proposed use.
In view of the concerns, Councillor Sirajul Islam moved and Councillor Marc Francis seconded that the application be deferred to address Members concerns over the design of the scheme.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission Silwex House, Quaker Street, London, E1 6NS (PA/14/01897) be DEFERRED for thedemolition of the roof and part side elevations, the retention and restoration of the southern and northern elevations and the construction of a 3 storey roof extension to provide a new hotel (Class C1) development comprising approx. 250 bedrooms over basement, ground and 5 upper floors with ancillary cafe space and servicing on the ground floor, associated plant in the basement and roof, improvements to the front pavement and associated works.
The Committee were minded to defer the application to address Members concerns about the design of the scheme particularly the roof extension, in relation to the building and the surrounding area.
Members also requested further information on the operation of the contributions towards Cross Rail, the commitment to provide 20% local employment and the possibility of increasing the number of apprentice places during the first 5 years of occupation in the legal agreement. Further consultation should also be carried out with the historic groups.
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.
Supporting documents: