Agenda item
114 -150 Hackney Road, London, E2 7QL (PA/17/00250)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 9th August, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Mixed use redevelopment of site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height from four storeys to six storeys above a shared basement, to house a maximum of 9 residential units (Class C3), 12,600 sqm (GEA) of employment floorspace (Class B1), 1,340 sqm (GEA) of flexible office and retail floorspace at ground floor level (falling within Use Classes B1/A1-A5) and provision of 316 sqm (GEA) of Public House (Class A4), along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the Prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure planning obligations, and conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application for the mixed use redevelopment of the site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height, to house a maximum of 9 residential units, employment floorspace and retail floorspace and provision of Public House along with associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Amy Roberts (Friends of the Joiners Arms) and Frank Davidson (New Joiners Arms Shoreditch Ltd) spoke in objection to the proposal. They expressed regret about the loss of LGBT+ venues in the community given their value to the community. Accordingly, they expressed concern about the development’s impact on the viability of the A4 unit (that served the LBGT+ community) given: its poor design (compared to the existing unit as noted by CAMRA), the costs of bringing the new unit into use, the excessive rent levels, the earlier closing time and the terms of the s106 agreement. Under which, the terms of the lease would remain in the control of the management and favoured the applicant. They wished to see a like for like establishment provided to the Joiners Arms that would preserve this important longstanding community asset.
In response to questions, they clarified their concerns about the terms of the legal agreement. They also recommended that the A4 unit should be relocated to the corner of the site to provide a far more like for like premises. This would also provide opportunities for community uses above the unit. They also clarified their concerns about the expected rent levels, the design and the potential fit out costs to provide a functioning bar area and the developer’s consultation. They also responded to questions about the merits of locating the A4 unit at the alternative location underneath residential properties and potential soundproofing measures.
Jim Poole (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. The plans were a product of lengthy engagement with officers, the LGBT+ community and the Mayor of London’s Night Time Czar. The legal agreement contained measures to protect the LGBT+ use. The future occupants would have a rent free period and also have a larger trading area. The plans would provide employment and enterprise opportunities and would preserve the heritage of the local area. The applicant would continue to work with the LGBT+ community in carrying out the project. In view of the merits, he recommended that the application was granted permission.
In response to questions about the location and the expense of fitting out the A4 unit, Mr Poole confirmed that the unit would be placed at the heart of the development. He felt that a corner location would place it closer to noise sensitive residential properties so would be a less desirable location. The applicant was aware of the issues around the set up costs and was prepared to look at ways of assisting with this. There could also be opportunities to put a break clause into the 12 year lease. Regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity, he stated that the rooms mostly effected would be kitchens and bedrooms. There would also be set backs in the design to preserve amenity and the proposed opening hours should also help ensure this. The results of the light analysis has been independently tested and validated. In terms of the commercial units, he reported that there would be range of flexible retail/office unit types and affordable spaces. Units could be subdivided and would provide opportunities for start up business.
Tim Ross (Planning Services) presented the application and the update report explaining the site location, the character of the surrounding area, the location of the Joiner Arms Public House that was a listed Asset of Community Value, the principles for the site in policy and the planning history. He also explained the key features of application
In land use terms, the principle of an office led redevelopment of the site complied with policy given that it would create employment and new houses whilst preserving the setting of the Hackney Road Conservation Area. The proposed provision of a new Public House within the scheme (approximately of equal size of the existing unit) was considered to meet the policy in respect of Community Infrastructure and promote equality subject to the obligation offering first right of refusal on the lease to a LGBT+ operator. Such an operator would also be offered a one year rent free period. (The terms of the proposed legal agreement was set out in the update report). The development would also provide a number of flexible retail/office units, that could be occupied by small business. The number of A1-4 retail units would be capped so as to prevent any undue impact on the viability of the town centre. The application would also provide public realm improvements.
It was noted that there would be daylight impacts to a neighbouring terrace of houses located near the site. However on balance officers considered that these impacts were acceptable when due weight was given to the public and regeneration benefits of the proposals. Mitigation was also proposed to minimise the impacts.
Given the merits of the application, Officers were recommended that it was granted permission.
The Committee asked questions about the costs of converting the A4 unit to provide the necessary infrastructure and the merits of the location, noting the concerns of CAMRA. In view of the concerns, it was questioned whether the changes could result in the loss of the public house and if this were the case, whether the merits of the scheme would outweigh the impacts of the development.
In response, Officers explained that a lot of effort had gone into maximising the benefits of the application and addressing the concerns around the LGBT+ use. The draft legal agreement included a range of measures that should safeguard the LGBT use. Furthermore, due to the design of the proposal and the differences between it and other public house that had closed down, Officers were confident that it could operate as a viable business.
The Committee also asked question about the speakers offer to help fund the costs of the fit out. Officers report that whilst it was a positive offer further consideration would need to be given to this especially if it turned out to be a determining factor for the Committee. Officers would need more information from applicant about this and report back to the Committee.
The Committee also asked questions about the amenity impacts to the Vaughan Estate giving the information in the Committee report. In response it was confirmed that a number of the windows facing the site (within these properties) would experience a marked reduction in daylight, due to the massing of the development. But the rooms affected were mostly non habitable rooms. An objection had been received from a resident on Vaughan Estate.
Councillor Andrew Cregan proposed and Councillor Helal Uddin seconded a motion that the planning permission be deferred (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 3 in favour 1 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the planning permission at 114 -150 Hackney Road, London, E2 7QL be DEFERRED for mixed use redevelopment of site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height from four storeys to six storeys above a shared basement, to house a maximum of 9 residential units (Class C3), 12,600 sqm (GEA) of employment floorspace (Class B1), 1,340 sqm (GEA) of flexible office and retail floorspace at ground floor level (falling within Use Classes B1/A1-A5) and provision of 316 sqm (GEA) of Public House (Class A4), along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage (PA/17/00250)
The Committee were minded to defer the application for the following reasons:
To undertake a Committee site visit
To receive further information about:
· The future viability of the A4 use that could be used as a LGBT+ venue.
· The fit out of the unit and the applicant’s contribution to this
· The daylight impacts to neighbouring properties.
Supporting documents: