Agenda item
216 - 218 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ (PA/15/01526)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 8th June, 2016 5.30 p.m. (Item 8.1)
- View the background to item 8.1
Proposal:
1. Application for variation of conditions no. 5 'hours of operation', 8 'use of rear yard' and 10 'use of rear yard and details thereof' of planning permission ST/96/00059 dated 04/02/1998 for: "Conversion and change of use from light industrial, office and storage into ground floor retail shop, first and second floors into 2 x 2 bedroom flats, demolition of rear single storey buildings to form vehicle parking spaces plus ancillary uses to the retail shop, and the retention of existing warehouse, with access for the rear activities from Beaumont Grove, E1."
2. Variation of condition 5 is to extend the hours of operation of the shop from 8:00 - 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays to 9:00 to 21:00 Mondays to Sundays. Deliveries to take place between 10:00 - 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays. No deliveries would take place on Sundays.
3. Variation of conditions 8 and 10 is to allow the rear yard to be used as a customer car park. The rear yard would be in use 9:00 - 21:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 9:00 - 16:00 on Sundays.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to carry over all of the obligations attached to the original planning permission, taking account of the revised conditions, conditions and informatives on the planning permission as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for variation of conditions for planning permission ST/96/00059 dated 04/02/1998 for: "Conversion and change of use from light industrial, office and storage into ground floor retail shop, first and second floor residential use details thereafter. Variation of condition 5 was to extend the hours of operation of the shop from 8:00 - 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays to 9:00 to 21:00 Mondays to Sundays. Deliveries to take place between 10:00 - 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays. No deliveries would take place on Sundays. Variation of conditions 8 and 10 was to allow the rear yard to be used as a customer car park. The rear yard would be in use 9:00 - 21:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 9:00 - 16:00 on Sundays.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Jim McKinney and Dr Shanti Velmurugan (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They objected to the impact on the highway network and highway safety given the poor quality access arrangements, the scale of the operation, the existing highway issues and the proximity of the site to a nursery. The Planning Inspectorate had previously refused a similar application due to the concerns about the impact on the highway. The proposal would add to the existing problems, resulting in further incidences of vehicles reversing from the tunnel onto the busy highway, forklift truck activity and loading and unloading of large items on the highway due to the use of the site as a cash and carry and not as a retail store. No transport assessment had been submitted. So it was only possible to assess the impact on the day to day evidence.
The speakers also expressed concern about noise disturbance from the use of court yard and continued use of the forklift trucks given the proximity of the site to residential properties. The proposals would add to the existing problems in this regard, so, steps should be taken to prevent this. The Planning Inspectorate (when considering the earlier plans) was of the view the proposals would have a significant effect on amenity.
In response to Members, they clarified there concerns about the lack of an adequate transport assessment, the use of the premises as a cash and carry intensifying the impacts, the impact on highway safety given the proximity to the school and ambulance bays, the existing impact on amenity and the lack of a retail assessment to quantify the commercial benefits. They also discussed their concerns about unauthorised parking and servicing on Beaumont Grove giving examples of the type of problems experienced.
Sebastian Charles (Applicants Agent)spoke in support of the application. He highlighted the business case for the application to make the business more competitive given the number of nearby retails stores opening for longer hours. He also explained some of the steps that the business had been taken (since the Appeal decision) to mitigate the impact on the area, which included the relocation of the wholesale business off site (ensuring HGVs no longer visited the site) and the provision of a public car park.
He also stated that the premises had an excellent track record in terms of highway safety and gave his thoughts on the cause of the parking problems in the area.
In response to Members questions, he stated that the premises had previously been operating 7 days a week to maintain it competiveness in view of the changing nature of the area. He further explained the measures to mitigate the impact on the highway and noise disturbance. The applicant would take all reasonable steps to minimise the impact. He felt that the right balance had been struck between increasing the competitive of the premises and preserving highway safety.
Piotr Lanoszka, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location and the proximity of the nearest residential properties. He also explained the nature of the existing site use and its key features including the access arrangements and the proposed hours that were in line with other retail stores in the area.
He drew attention to the outcome of the consultation. Concern had been raised about harm to amenity from the premises and highway safety issues. However, it should be noted that, since the previous application, the area had been designated as a Town Centre location in policy. There would also be a range of measures to minimise the impact of the application that went above and beyond those attached to the previous application, including additional highway safety measures (as detailed in the update report) and measures to safeguard amenity on Sunday.
In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it be granted.
Members asked questions/sought reassurances about:
- The potential impact of the scheme on the highway and the lack of an adequate transport assessment.
- The concerns about unauthorised parking and loading/unloading on the highway
- The Planning Inspectorates’ views on the scheme and how the concerns, particularly about the impact of the Sunday trading and noise and disturbance had been addressed
- Enforceability of the conditions, particularly the restrictions on use of the yard.
- The measures to prevent the operation of a cash and carry at the site.
- Recent enforcement activity
Officers responded to each question. It was explained that given the limited scale of the proposal, it would have been excessive to have requested the submission of a full transport assessment. TfL and the Council’s Highway Service had raised no objections about the application. The application included conditions preventing servicing and deliveries on Sundays. There would also be restrictions on the use of the warehouse as a cash and carry and a condition that a highway safety scheme be submitted (as set out in the update report). Steps would be taken to enforce these conditions. If minded to approve the application, the Committee could strengthen these conditions. Officer had recently visited the site and could confirm that the business operated as a retail store.
Officers also explained the role of Highway Services in enforcing the highway restrictions to prevent unauthorised parking and use of the highway. It was unlikely that the proposal would add to this.
Officers also gave a brief overview of the recent enforcement action and what this covered.
In summary, the Chair commented that in many ways he was sympathetic to the applicants case given the efforts to minimise disturbance from the business, the commercial reasons for the application and the opening up of the car park to the public. However, he remained concerned about the potential increase in vehicle activity, the impact from use of the forklift truck in the courtyard and the impact on amenity particularly on Sundays. He also felt that the applicant should continue to engage with the community to address the issues.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 3 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Sabina Akhtar seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 216 - 218 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ for:
- Variation of conditions no. 5 'hours of operation', 8 'use of rear yard' and 10 'use of rear yard and details thereof' of planning permission ST/96/00059 dated 04/02/1998 for: "Conversion and change of use from light industrial, office and storage into ground floor retail shop, first and second floor residential use, demolition of rear single storey buildings to form vehicle parking spaces plus ancillary uses to the retail shop, and the retention of existing warehouse, with access for the rear activities from Beaumont Grove, E1."
- Variation of condition 5 is to extend the hours of operation of the shop from 8:00 - 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays to 9:00 to 21:00 Mondays to Sundays. Deliveries to take place between 10:00 - 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays. No deliveries would take place on Sundays.
- Variation of conditions 8 and 10 is to allow the rear yard to be used as a customer car park. The rear yard would be in use 9:00 - 21:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 9:00 - 16:00 on Sundays. (reference PA/15/01526)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to the potential adverse impact of the proposal on the highway and residential amenity.
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 Andrew Cregan did not vote on this item having not been present the consideration of the item.
Supporting documents: