Agenda item
12-14 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE (PA/14/03376)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 8th July, 2015 5.30 p.m. (Item 8.2)
- View the background to item 8.2
Proposal:
Demolition of existing structures on land adjacent to Duke of Wellington public house and creation of a total of 5 x residential units (C3 use). Replacement outdoor area to be reconfigured to the rear of the site. External alterations to the public house to include dormer and mansard roof extensions and rear extension to first and second floors of building, retaining existing ridge line and mansard roof. Retention of A4 use (Drinking Establishments) on ground floor.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dale Ingram (Historic building and planning consultant) spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the tenant of the public house. She drew attention to the strength of opposition to the plans including over 300 individual objections and an online petition with over 500 plus signatures. Many customer of the public house were at the meeting tonight. It was feared the plans would make the public house unviable due to the loss of the outdoor gardens, lack of provision for a bar counter and toilets and the loss of income from the changes. The outdoor area was one of its main assets. Furthermore, due to the changes to the garden space, there would be overspill of customers onto the streets creating noise nuisance, as experienced when the garden was much smaller. She also expressed concern at the overprovision of one bed units. In response to questions about the perceived lack of facilities, Ms Ingram stated that at least two toilets would be needed as well as disabled facilities. She also answered questions of clarity about the loss of outdoor space.
Paul Keenan spoke in support on behalf of the applicant. He explained the merits of the application. The alterations (including new residential units) would be in keeping with the original building that was not listed and would be subservient to the existing building. The residential units would have access to balconies with louvres, added to mitigate any direct overlooking. The plans would improve the frontage of the building and the ground floor layout would be reorganised to make better use of the space. It was emphasised that it was intended that the commercial use would remain an A4 drinking establishment. The applicant was happy to accept the condition removing the permitted development rights to ensure this. There were plans showing that a bar counter could be incorporated into the scheme. The plans for the outdoor area had been amended following consultation to increase the size of that area from that originally proposed.
In response to questions, he further explained that the new residential units complied with policy and were of much better quality than the existing properties. He further explained the amendments to address the concerns. This included the addition of louvres to the private balconies, a bigger smoking area and the relocation of the refuse facility. He referred to the difficulties with building the scheme within the existing layout. This would warrant greater changes to the public house to the detriment of the building.
It was emphasized that the internal floor space of the pub would be increased as a result of the changes.
He also answered questions about the design, described as simple and elegant to complement the existing building and respond to the surrounding area. Replicating the existing public house would confuse the building. Consideration had been given to various different housing mixes such as including larger units in the scheme. However this would adversely affect the viability of the scheme.
Killian Harrington (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the report. He advised that the site falls in Conservation Area and there were a number of listed buildings around the site. He explained the key features of the scheme including the proposed extension, the internal layout and the revised outdoor area. He also explained the outcome of the consultation.
The proposed land use was acceptable and complied with policy given the proposed retention of the A4 public house use and the established residential use. Whilst there would be a loss of garden space, it would still be a reasonable sized space. The housing mix was acceptable given the site constraints. The design was in keeping with the area and the setting of the public house and complied with Conservation Area policy. Aspects of the design were explained. The plans had been amended to protect residential amenity and the measures to ensure this were explained including the noise mitigation.
There had been a letter in support from the neighbouring Carter House stating that on balance it should improve their quality of life due to the reduction in size of the smoking area. Whilst the property would suffer from a minor loss of light, the results complied with the policy standards.
Overall, given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommended that it be granted planning permission.
Members asked questions about:
· The impact on the viability of the public house given the changes to the floor space, garden space and the quantity of the new facilities. It was also questioned whether the pub garden represented a gap site or was part of the main use of the site.
· The removal of permitted development rights. Assurances were sought that this would safeguard the viability of the public house given the changes.
· Appearance of the proposal. It was feared that the plans could over dominate the rear of the building. It was also felt the ‘artificial’ design would be out of keeping with the traditional Victoria building and that steps should be taken to preserve this.
· The consultation exercise given the above issues.
· Noise mitigation. Whilst noting the conditions, it was questioned whether they would be sufficient given experience with similar developments.
· The proposed housing mix. Questions were asked about the lack of family sized units and the number of replacement units given the demand for housing in the Borough.
In response to questions, Officers explained in further detail the condition removing the permitted development rights. The 2015 order could not be applied. Any change of use would require separate planning permission. This condition should safeguard the viability of the public house going forward. Under current policy any applications for change of use would be resisted. It was also explained that there was no guidance in policy setting a minimum size to make a public house viable
It was also explained that the current building was not listed and no application for listing had been received. Currently, there were five one bedroom units above the public house. Environmental Health had no objections to the scheme subject to the conditions to mitigate the noise.
It was reported that the LBTH Conservation Officer had been consulted on the plans from the onset and had worked closely with officers on the plans. It was felt that the contemporary design would be in keeping with the area and would enhance the setting of the area where there were many examples of traditional and modern buildings together. The plans would also irradiate an infill site in accordance with Conservation Area guidance. Officers explained the reasons why the garden represented a gap site as set out in the Conservation Area appraisal.
In terms of the consultation, there had been three different rounds addressing each of issues. All of the history groups were consulted and the early objections were based on the impact on the public house. The more recent ones were more about the impact on amenity reflecting the changes to the application over the course of the consultation.
On a unanimous, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission
Accordingly, Councillor Rajib Ahmed proposed and Councillor Amina Ali seconded a motion that recommendation that planning permission be granted should not be accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 12-14 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing structures on land adjacent to Duke of Wellington public house and creation of a total of 5 x residential units (C3 use); replacement outdoor area to be reconfigured to the rear of the site. External alterations to the public house to include dormer and mansard roof extensions and rear extension to first and second floors of building, retaining existing ridge line and mansard roof. Retention of A4 use (Drinking Establishments) on ground floor (reference PA/14/03376)
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns relating to:
1) Harm to the setting of the pub, from the loss of the pub garden and the proposed residential extension which would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, by reason of it’s overall design, appearance and relationship to the host building.
2) Effect on future viability of the public house, arising from the loss of the outdoor drinking space and erection of residential development
3) Effect on neighbouring amenity arising from increased noise and disturbance.
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.
Councillor Sabina Akhtar did not vote on this item having not been present throughout the consideration of the application.
Supporting documents: