Agenda item
418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU (PA/15/00095)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Thursday, 14th May, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.2)
- View the background to item 6.2
Proposal:
Creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; New shopfront; Extension of the basement; Erection of a mansard roof extension
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Joshua Peck spoke in objection stating that he was representing the Roman Road Business and Residents Association. He objected to the proposed reduction in retail space, as this would seriously harm the viability of the retail unit and ultimately that of the Roman Road Town Centre. He considered that the viability of the Town Centre was already at risk due the number of other similar proposals. This scheme would worsen this problem. Therefore the scheme should be refused and existing retail unit should be retained.
In particularly, he objected to the proposed width of the retail unit; that meant that it would be unusable for many uses and that a large part of the new retail space would be a basement. He also considered that that proposal conflicted with Council policy that sought to maintain and increase retail space in the Roman Road area.
In response to questions, he expressed concern about the quality of the residential unit given the site constraints and the poor quality amenity space. He made further reference to the adjacent shop, that due to similar conversation, could now only be used as an office space and that the residential unit hadn’t been sold. Should the current owner move on, then the unit would be difficult to lease. There was a shortage of good quality retail units in Roman Road.
Robert Webster (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application stating that it was a family owned business and the current owners fully intended to stay there. He read out a letter from the applicant explaining this. He considered that the current business could be easily accommodated in the reduced retail unit due to the use of modern technology. So it would remain a viable business unit. The size of the current unit was in fact surplus to requirements.
He also explained the need for the residential unit and that practice of reducing the width of retail units to accommodate residential space was common practice in the area.
In response to questions, he explained that the proposal retail unit would still be larger than many other units on Roman Road and that it was in a secondary location outside the market. He also responded to questions about the need for the new entrance, the quality of the residential accommodation, that the plans would mirror the adjacent property and improve the viability of the unit. The plans would make better use of the rear the site and complied with policy. The applicant would finically benefit from the scheme.
Gerard McCormack, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location and that a number of the nearby retail units had been altered in a similar way resulting in a reduction in retail space, in some instances to around 30sq. Given this, the proposal (seeking to retaining 77 sq. of retail space) compared favourably to this and Officers were confident that the retail unit would remain viable, despite the lack of specific policy tests for this. The present occupants have expressed a commitment to carry on running the retail unit.
Consultation had been carried out and the outcome of this was explained as set out in the committee report.
The proposed external changes would be in keeping with the neighbouring properties including the new Mansard Roof and the revised shop front. Permission for a similar scheme already benefit from planning permission.
The plans also involved the amendments to the shop front to facilitate access to the residential unit. The quality of which was considered acceptable and would increase the housing supply.
Given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted.
In response to questions from Councillors about the policy support for the proposal, it was explained that given the proposed size of the retail unit, the the similarities with the adjacent permission and also the long term nature of the occupancy, that it would be challenging to sustain a reason for refusal on the impact on the viability of the retail unit. Furthermore, according to the Planning Inspector in assessing a recent appeal, there was no commercial evidence that a smaller unit in that case 50sqm would be less attractive to potential users , noting that the shop in question was already let.
Whilst there was no specific benchmarks in policy for assessing the viability of a retail unit based on floor space, Officers felt that should the unit become available, it would remain marketable and would attract commercial interest (if permission was granted) especially with the added benefit of the good quality storage space. It was required that the public areas of the unit complied with the Disability Discrimination Act (under building regulation). The type of adaptations that could be supported were noted.
Despite these assurances, some Members expressed doubt that the retail store would remain viable noting the number of similar conversion in the area and also expressed concerns about the quality of the residential unit.
With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Peck asked questions of the Officer about use of neighbouring retail units. In response, Officers expressed confidence that these units could accommodate businesses, for example A1 or A2 uses. These would constitute lawful business and would provide a commercial frontage.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Committee proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 2 in favour of this recommendation, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU be NOT ACCEPTED for the creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; new shopfront; extension of the basement; erection of a mansard roof extension (PA/15/00095)
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns that the reduced retail space would undermine the viability of the retail unit and the nearby Roman Road Town Centre.
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: