Issue - meetings

RESOLVED:

Conditional planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

7.1  PROPOSAL: Temporary planning permission for the erection of an additional storey at 2nd floor level to provide 658 sqm of external seating space together with 175 sqm of internal space for flexible Class E (a) retail, (b) restaurant and (d) indoor recreation use with ancillary storage/WCs/facilities space, until 31st May 2023.

POST-SUBMISSION REVISIONS: There have been minor design amendments at roof level post-submission in order to address officer feedback. Some additional information has also been submitted in relation to transport. A reconsultation exercise has been undertaken following the submission of this additional information.

7.2  The officer from the Planning Service’s Major Applications Team introduced the planning application as set out in the published report. During the course of their presentation reference was made to the addendum in which it was noted that since the publication of the report one additional objection has been received from a local resident.

7.3  A local ward Councillor and two residents spoke in objection to the application raising concerns about the application’s potential to increase incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and noise.

7.4  The applicants spoke next giving a brief overview of the benefits of the scheme and also addressing those objections raised. They had submitted two additional images for consideration at the meeting. These were circulated to all meeting participants.

7.5  A discussion took place where a number of points were raised including the following:

·  The previously granted planning permission for Bishopsgate Goods Yard was considered useful as background information to help frame the proposals under consideration;

·  Planning officers noted that this was a finely balanced recommendation. The possibility of increased amenity impacts was noted, but this needed to be considered in the context of the surrounding environment and it was hard to determine that increased impacts from this one use would necessarily be harmful;

·  The applicants were in an ongoing dialogue with residents on Shoreditch High Street. There were 52 objections received but the applicants stressed that it was important to distinguish between complaints about the whole site and objections to their specific application. The applicants felt that they had done all they could to reduce noise breakout in response to the objections received;

·  The additional images submitted showed the proposed structure both with and without the roof. The roof would be movable and when closed would provide extra noise protection;

·  The Planning Service acknowledged that the proposals, if granted, could see an increase in footfall to the area, however, they had concluded that given the temporary nature of the proposals and subject to mitigation, it was not considered that the cumulative impact would be such that it would warrant refusal of the application;

·  The applicants confirmed that there would be  a manager on site to respond to any complaints raised by local residents;

·  Wider issues relating to licensing were not a material planning issue;

·  The applicants highlighted that they were just a small part of a much larger site with several other late night premises in the immediate vicinity.

Vote

For:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7