Agenda item
562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road (PA/16/00943)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 12-storey building, 46 residential units, up to 832sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (A1, A2, B1 and sui generis nightclub), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 92 cycle parking spaces; and associated highway works) and other associated infrastructure.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 12-storey residential led building including flexible commercial floorspace and associated infrastructure.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Ms McGinley, Nigel Whitfield and Councillor Peter Golds spoke in opposition to the application. They felt that the previous reasons for refusal of the application had not been overcome in terms of the height, bulk and massing of the development, the impact on the townscape, the density and overdevelopment of the site, the design, the servicing arrangements and the air quality issues. Nevertheless, Mr Whitfield and Councillor Golds welcomed the inclusion of the nightclub within the development and to secure this it was requested that there should be an obligation offering first right of refusal on the lease to a LGBT operator in line with the proposed agreement for the Joiners Arms venue at Hackney Road and that the existing opening hours of the venue be retained. It was felt that the present nightclub had not caused any issues in terms of residential amenity and the reintroduction of a mainstream club could act as a magnet for crime based on past experience. Concern was also expressed about the suitability of a single servicing bay for a development of this scale in terms of highway safety and about the proximity of the servicing route to the social housing. In response to Members, the speakers clarified their concerns about the proposal.
Richard Evans (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He stated that the application had been amended to include the nightclub. Should the current operators not be in a position to take this up, the applicant would help them relocate to a suitable premises. It was planned to refurbish the night club and make it fit for purpose and the operators would be given adequate notice prior to the start of the works. The proposal would also introduce an active frontage, a generous level of affordable housing in a transport hub and provide a landmark building in compliance with policy. There would be measures to improve air quality and an agreement with LUL to protect London Underground infrastructure. LBTH Highways and Transport for London had no objections to the application subject to the conditions. In response to questions about the loading bay, Mr Evans reported that this did meet the standard requirements. Regarding the compatibility of the uses, he confirmed that there would be measures to minimise noise disturbance to noise sensitive properties. He also confirmed that it was intended to offer the lease of the night club to an LGBT operator.
Brett McAllister, (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location and the surrounds. He explained that the application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on two separate occasions 16 February and 25 April 2017. At the those meetings, Members were minded not to accept the application due to concerns about the height, bulk, massing and impact on the townscape, density and overdevelopment of the site, the servicing provision, the loss of community facility, design and air quality issues. Since that time changes had been made to the application to include the existing night club within the basement with a planning obligation to provide first refusal to an operator catering for the current specific use of night club. There would also be mitigation to minimise disturbance from the business.
It was considered that the changes to the height of the proposal (to 12 storey) would ensure that the building would relate better to the local area, whilst delivering a landmark building, good quality homes and commercial space in a transport hub. The development would deliver a policy compliant level of affordable units as well as private, communal amenity space and child play space.
It was considered that any impacts from the development would be minor in terms of the heritage and amenity impacts and had been reduced further following the changes to the application. TfL were supportive of the approach to servicing subject to the conditions. Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
The Committee questioned the merits of locating the night club within a residential development in view of the potential for disturbance from the coming and goings and questioned whether officers were aware of other examples where flats had been placed over a night club. It was felt that this proposal conflicted with the Agent of Change guidance within the Draft Mayor of London Culture and Night Time Economy SPD. In response, Officers confirmed that they were not aware of any precedents for this, however, careful consideration had been given to these issues. It was considered that the impact from the nightclub would be fairly similar to the existing night club. Furthermore, it was proposed that there would be a range of measures to mitigate the impact from the nightclub on residential properties. There would also be post completion testing that would offer the option to add further mitigation if necessary.
The Committee also asked about the sunlight and daylight impacts. Officers explained that any development of the site would affect neighbouring properties because they currently benefited from a low rise building and a part vacant site. The results of the light analysis had been retested and it was considered that the developments at 564 Mile End Road and Beckett Court would continue to receive adequate levels of light and that the impacts could be partly attributed to the site constraints.
Members also asked questions about the proposed height of the building setting an unwanted precedent in the area. Officers reported that each application would be considered on its own merits and in this case it was felt that there were special circumstances justifying this proposal in this location.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor John Peirce proposed a motion that the planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in the Committee report) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at 562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road at 562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 12-storey building, 46 residential units, up to 832sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (A1, A2, B1 and sui generis nightclub), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 92 cycle parking spaces; and associated highway works) and other associated infrastructure. (PA/16/00943)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:
· Height, bulk, massing and impact on the townscape
· Density and overdevelopment of the site
· Servicing provision
· Non-compliance with Chapter 5 “Agent of Change” of the Draft Mayor of London Culture and Night Time Economy SPD (April 2017)
· Design of the proposal
· Air quality issues
Supporting documents: