Agenda item
216 - 218 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ (PA/15/01526)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 3rd August, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
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."
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 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays.
[Amended proposal: Rear yard to be in use between the hours of 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays (opening 1 hour later)]
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.
The Chair reported that the Council had received requests for speaking on the application from objectors and the applicant with regards to the updated information. The Council’s Development Procedure rules did not permit further public speaker on deferred items so the Chair had refused this request.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for variation of conditions to extend the hours of operation of the shop and allow the rear yard to be used as a customer car park. He reminded the Committee that at its previous meeting on 8th June 2016, Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the adverse impact on the highway and amenity. The report now before the Committee considered the reasons for refusal and whether these were likely to be sustainable in the event of an appeal.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. The Committee were reminded of the site location, views of the vehicle access tunnel and details of the application itself. There had been one change to the application since it was previously considered by the Committee in June in respect of the opening hours for the read yard. It was now proposed that the yard be in use between the hours of 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays (opening 1 hour later). In addition since the June meeting, the applicant had submitted additional information, as set out in the updated Committee report and update, including fuller details of a traffic management system, the business case for the development to meet local demand amongst other matters. The Committee also noted images of the store and the applicant’s other premises at Hackney allowing the company to relocate the warehouse element out of the shop.
A further round of consultation had been carried out on the revised proposals. In response, the Council had received an additional petition in objection that had been signed by residents of Louisa Street and also one petition in support of the application. No one had withdrawn their objection.
Officer have examined the Committee proposed reasons for refusal and their comments on the strengths of the reasons were out in the Committee report. The Officers recommendations remained unchanged to grant permission. But should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, they were directed to the suggested reasons for refusal in the updated Committee report.
In response to the presentation, the Committee questioned whether, in view of the concerns raised at the previous meeting about the impact on amenity, that the proposed change would adequately addressed these concerns. Officers responded that Officers did not in the first instance consider that the proposal would have any major adverse impacts, but the proposed revised opening hour for the yard should go some to way to addressing the Committee concerns. It was down to Members to decide how much weight they should place on this additional step.
Members also requested that the proposed highways measures, including the proposed warning light system, be explained in further detail. Members also asked about the impact from forklift truck activity and the measures to minimise this.
Officers reported that the highway measures included a range of solutions to mitigate the highway impact. Details of the proposed measures were set out in the Committee report and the June update, including restrictions limiting the impact from forklift truck activity. If approved, the applicant would work with TfL and LBTH Highways to develop these measures and they would be secured by condition.
A Member questioned if the plans could result in an over intensification of the site in light of the perceived enforcement issues (with regard to the unauthorised storage of goods, vehicle activity at the site). Officers advised that the Council’s Enforcement team would investigate any breaches in the planning condition. Enforcement of the planning permission was a separate matter and the Committee should only consider the material planning matters relevant to this application. It was also noted that there would be a condition restricting the storage of goods. Furthermore, it would be matter for the Health and Safety Executive to take steps to ensure that the storage arrangements complied with the HSE regulations.
Members also asked about the nature of the previous scheme and the reasons for refusal at appeal in 2003. It was questioned whether the concerns had adequately been addressed especially those around the use of the rear yard. In responding Officers explained the differences between this and the previously refused scheme in terms of the proposed opening hours. The circumstances had changed since the appeal.
On a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at 216 - 218 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ for
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."
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 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays.
[Amended proposal: Rear yard to be in use between the hours of 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays (opening 1 hour later)] (PA/15/01526)
Subject to:
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the 8th June 2016 Committee report and the additional conditions in the update report regarding use of the rear yard and the submission of a highway safety scheme
3. Any other conditions considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
(Note Councillors Andrew Cregan and John Pierce did not vote on this application having not be present for the consideration of the application at the June 2016 Committee meeting)
Supporting documents:
- 216-218 Mile End Road deferred item, item 5.1 PDF 93 KB
- Rahims 216-218 Mile End Road development committee 08-06-2016 FINAL, 08/06/2016 Development Committee, item 5.1 PDF 1 MB
- Update 6.1, item 5.1 PDF 54 KB