Agenda item
106 Commercial Street, (PA/16/03535)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 10th May, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Conversion of building (class B1/B8 ) to fine dining food market (Class A3).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to APPROVE planning permission subject to Conditions.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the conversion of building (class B1/B8 ) to fine dining food market (Class A3).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Rupert Wheeler (The Spitalfields Society) and Susan Kay (local resident) spoke in objection to the application. They felt that the plans would result in more crime and ASB in the area and result in noise nuisance in an area already blighted by such issues. This which would spoil residential amenity. The results of the acoustics testing were inaccurate and should be repeated. It was completed at a time when the background noise levels in the area were at exceptionally high levels which were in no way the norm. The benefits for small and medium sized business would be negligible given that the market would be managed by one single operator. The application conflicted with the Brick Lane Town Centre Manager’s advice on these matters. The alterations to the roof would harm the appearance of the building, and spoil the setting of the surrounding listed buildings. They also expressed concern about the capacity of the smoking area for a business of this size, the proximity of the onsite cycling space to restaurant tables and the accessible of the accessible first floor toilet. Concern was also express about the access arrangements for customers and servicing vehicles and the impact of customer’s queuing outside the premises as a result of the issues.
In response to Members questions, they clarified their concerns about the size of the smoking area (compared to the provisions at nearby premises). It could restrict access to the building. They also further discussed their concerns about the servicing plans. It was proposed that the deliveries and servicing would take place through the customer entrance during the daytime along busy unsuitable routes. This could potentially involve many different suppliers and would result in significant congestion and highways issues. They also clarified their concerns about dispersal from the premises given the capacity of the premises. There would be hundreds of customers leaving the premises at any one time, spilling out onto a narrow pavement- potentially into other public houses. It was questioned how this would be managed. They also further explained their concerns about the premises ultimately becoming a drinking establishment and the impact of this, the issues with the background noise survey and the assessable toilet. They also spoke about the applicant’s consultation.
Rupert Warren (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He spoke about the merits of the application. It would fit in with existing uses and create employment. The Council’s Conservation Officer was satisfied with the application. There would be stringent conditions regulating activity including, measures to control noise, odour, the operation of the smoking area, a dispersal policy and a servicing plan. He noted that a change from use class A3 to A4 without permission would be a breach of planning control. He also noted that the application did not make provision for a takeaway service, that no drinks were to be sold without food and that there would be no vertical drinking. Further issues around fire risk, access and the accessibility of toilets had been considered under building regulations.
In response to Members questions, he provided reassurances about the noise testing. All three of the acoustics reports completed were independently reviewed and came back with the same results. He also provided further reassurances about the dispersal policy, the monitoring of the smoking area, and the servicing arrangements. He also responded to questions about the access arrangements, the toilets facilities and the need for the plans to comply with buildings regulations that would provide additional safeguards. In response to questions about the licensing application, he made it clear to members that these were two separate regimes with different policy tests.
He also advised that there had been continuous engagement with the community throughout the planning process. Each of the 17 restaurants would have its own staff and would generate local employment and generally benefit the local economy. He was mindful of the concerns about the on site cycle spaces, but felt that there would be sufficient space between the cycle stands and the restaurant tables to allow for a ‘fine dining experience’. He did not consider that the proposal would increase ASB given the nature of the use.
Jennifer Chivers (Planning Services) gave a presentation on the application describing the site and surrounds and the key features including the internal layout, the proposed plant and equipment, the changes to the roof and light wells to accommodate the sound proofing. She also explained the opening hours and that that the business would accommodate up to 650 people at any one time. Consultation had been carried out. The application had received 63 representations in objection, 27 in support and a 147 signature petition. Turning to the assessment, the application would bring the site back into active use and would generate employment. The site use complied with policy.
TfL and Highways had considered the plans and were of the view that the servicing plans were acceptable subject to the conditions. The noise assessment had been independently reviewed for the Council. The review concurred with the method used. Environmental Health were satisfied that the proposal would meet the necessary requirements in terms of noise levels and there would be conditions to secure this. There would be measures to prevent ASB from the business. However, if Members were minded to approve the application, they might wish to stagger the leaving times of customers or vary the opening hours. This could be secure by condition. Officers also considered that the alterations to the roof slates would preserve the original form of the building and the setting of the Conservation Area. There were S106 employment and enterprise covenants and financial contribution of the additional crossrail contribution of £166,500. Overall, Officers were recommending that the application be granted planning permission.
The Committee asked about the measures for managing visitors to and from the premises and ASB from the proposal. In response, Officers outlined some of the measures in the dispersal policy for ensuring this. It was also explained that it was expected that most of the visitors would travel to the venue on foot or public transport. In addition, Officers have requested that the business monitor visitor numbers to identify any issues. It was not expected that plans would increase ASB given that the premises would predominantly provide a restaurant service and it would not be a later night establishment. The Metropolitan Police Crime and Prevention Officer had been consulted and had not expressed concerns about the proposal.
In response to further questions about noise activity, it was confirmed that the Council’s acoustics expert had assessed the applicant’s noise report. He was satisfied that the findings in terms of the background noise levels were accurate (given the urban environment). There would be measures to minimise any noise disturbance to noise sensitive properties including those at Puma Court and to minimise any noise nuisance from servicing and deliveries. It was required that there would be post noise completion testing. This would be secured by condition.
In response to questions about the previous office use, it was reported that no marketing evidence had been submitted in relation to such a use. Consideration had been given to alternatives uses, but Officers considered that the proposed use was acceptable given the sites central location and the merits of the plans. It was also noted that Officers were unaware of any fire safety issues, but this would be dealt with through building regulations.
Members asked about the measures to minimise the consumption of alcohol without the purchasing food. It was noted that the opportunities for this would be very limited. The sale of alcohol would be part of the restaurant use. Furthermore, there would be restrictions on the permission to prevent the introduction of an ‘A4’ drinking establishment use. Should the business wish to introduce such a use, they would be required to submit a further planning application for such a change of use. Should this generate enough representations, it would have to be determined by the Development Committee.
Officers also answered questions about the internal cycle rack and the need for this to be provided to satisfy policy.
In conclusion, whilst noting the economic benefits of the application, Members expressed concerns about the plans. They felt it that it was just too large for the local area given its confined nature and would have a significant impact on the local community, the surrounding streets and the Conservation Area.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 7 against, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the officer recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 106 Commercial Street, be NOT ACCEPTED for the conversion of building (class B1/B8 ) to fine dining food market (Class A3) (PA/16/03535).
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Impact from the use itself.
· Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area
· Impact on the external appearance of the building, particularly the roof.
· The access arrangements given the level of anti-social behaviour in the area
· Overcrowding in the area and safety implications of this
· Nosie disturbance.
· Increased congestion in Commercial Street
· The servicing arrangements.
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: