Agenda item
Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 25th November, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.3)
- View the background to item 6.3
Proposal:
Refurbishment of former Wickham's department store comprising: retention of facade of former Spiegelhalter's shop at 81 Mile End Road to provide new entrance, change of use of second floor to office (Use Class B1), change of use of ground and basement floors to a flexible retail/leisure use (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2) and erection of roof extensions at third and fourth storey levels to provide 1,481sqm (GIA) of additional office space (Use Class B1); as well as reconfiguration of internal layout, restoration of external features and other associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the refurbishment of former Wickham's department store
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dr Fuad Ali (Friends of Wickham House), Shams Doha (Ebrahim Community College) and Councillor Oliur Rahman, spoke in objection to the proposal. They spoke about the need for the existing D2 use community facility at the development and the lack of evidence that the issues stemmed from that unit. In fact, complaints had been made about other units in the development and the report failed to mention the other incidents of non compliance with planning regulations in the development. Some of the complaints made about the existing community use were immaterial. The application should be deferred for a site visit. In response to Member questions, they also spoke about the merits of the D2 use in terms of size, affordability to community groups, charities etc. its accessibility and the uniqueness of the facilities. Officers reminded Members that whilst they may put weight on the planning enforcement issues and the fire safety issues, the building regulation issues were controlled by separate regulations.
James Mcallister (Agent)and Rupert Scott, (local resident) spoke in support of the scheme. They advised that the proposal would provide new jobs, community and leisure space of a better quality to what was there already. There had been changes to the scheme to retain the frontage and minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity amongst other changes. As a result Historic England and most of the local residents now considered that the proposal was acceptable. Complaints had been received about the community facility about disturbance from the property effecting neighbours and other issues. Yet the issues had not been dealt with. It was evident from this that the unit was not fit for use. They also spoke about the suitability of the site for the proposal given the location and the operation of a similar operation on the first floor of the development.
The speakers then responded to questions of clarification about: the plans for Spiegelhalter House, the complaints about the D2 unit and the evidence that they were the source of the problems, (questioned by some Members) and the highway issues. It was expected that given the nature of the proposal most of the trips would be by foot.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation on the scheme describing the site location, surrounding area in the Stepney Green Conservation Area. Whilst not listed, the subject buildings were non designated heritage assets.
The proposals involved the refurbishment and extension of the department store to create a large co-worker hub for start up and SME businesses. The scheme had been amended to address objections. Images of the scheme before and after amendment were shown. Consultation had been carried out on both the revised proposal and the main issues raised were summarised on the presentation slide and in the Committee report. As a result, both Historic England and the Victorian Society were pleased with the improvements. The scheme, including the roof extension, had been carefully designed to preserve the setting of the buildings and the surrounds including the operation of the nearby Mosque. The measures to ensure this were noted including generous set backs in the design. Overall, it was considered that the changes would be minor in nature and that due to the improvements would deliver a net benefit in terms of heritage. Furthermore, as a result of these measures, the scheme would not adversely affect amenity.
It was also considered that the site was particularly suitable for the intended use given amongst other matters: the need for SME start up space, the town centre location with good public transport links and the regeneration benefits. It was also noted that the flexible business space in the basement could be used by a range of different business within the permitted classes. They may be subdivided to accommodate their specific needs and included a D2 use.
Officers were mindful of the ongoing issues with the existing D2 facility partly caused by noncompliance with the planning regime. Whilst mindful of the representations made in support of the facility, it was considered that benefits of the proposal outweighed the limited public benefits of this facility.
In view of the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommended that it be granted planning permission.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about:
· The changes to the appearance of the building.
· Capacity of the banqueting hall and whether it could be retained.
· The case for locating the scheme in this particular area.
· The type of the businesses that may occupy the office floor space.
In response, Officer stressed the merits of the scheme from a heritage perspective. Specifically, it was pointed out that roof extension would be subservient to the building and that the Council’s Conservation Officer was supportive of the scheme given the heritage benefits. It was also noted that little of the original internal features had been preserved. The evidence suggested that small and SME businesses would naturally be attracted to this type of environment given the merits of the site mentioned above and the relatively affordability of the units compared to other places.. Furthermore, in view of the economic benefits, it made sense to group the various uses together. As explained above, the layout may be adapted to accommodate a variety of different business types within the permitted classes of use.
It was also noted that substantial changes would need to be made to the scheme to retain the existing community D2 use.
Councillor Mahbub Alam proposed and Councillor Shah Alam seconded a motion that the planning application be DEFERRED for a site visit.
Accordingly on a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against, it was RESOLVED:
That the planning application be DEFERRED at Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) for a SITE VISIT to enable Members to better understand the impact of the scheme on the area
Supporting documents:
- Wickhams Development Committee Report FINAL 25 November 2015 ref PA-14-03547, item 6.3 PDF 4 MB
- wickham update, item 6.3 PDF 47 KB