Issue - meetings

2009/0521 - Part-demolition of existing building (with façade retention) and erection of a new part-two, part-four-storey building (plus two basement levels) to provide a two-screen cinema and associated facilities, including café, event/presentation space, office accommodation and data-storage facility (modification of planning permission ref. 2005/2637).

(Councillor Sharer arrived during the discussion of the item and therefore did not take part in the vote).

10.1  Councillors Stops and Hanson both wished to note that they recognised the architect from the labour party group but did not feel it was necessary to declare a personal interest.

10.2  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. 

10.3  Jasia Szerszynska and Janet Scott spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows: 

§  Felt that consultation took place too late in the process.

§  The proposed development was too bulky and in an inappropriate location.

§  The surrounding roads will also be adversely affected by the development.

§  Loss of sunlight and privacy to surrounding properties.

§  Noise pollution with the late night cinema and 24 hour air conditioning system.

§  The development will also adversely impact people that work from home in the neighbouring properties.

§  The area is not served well by public transport.

§  Extend an invitation for Members of the Sub-Committee to attend the site before making a decision on the application.

§  Increase in height in respect of the existing building, which contributes to loss of daylight, outlook and shadowing.

§  Two previous applications on the site had been refused on the grounds of bulk/mass.

10.4  Charles Moran (Shoreditch Trust) and Hugh Gorban (Architect) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The application had previously been approved in 2006 and the revised application incorporated a number of additional facilities.

§  The bulk/scale of the proposed development was unchanged from the previously approved application, which was now marginally smaller at the rear.

§  The objections received during the consultation stage had been taken into consideration.

§  The scheme formed a key element of the Shoreditch Trust Delivery Plan.

10.5  The main differences between the previously approved scheme and the new application were detailed on page 255 of the report.

10.6  In response to questions raised regarding the perceived use of the building and parking, the applicant stated that this was a commercial venture to meet the needs of local communities and that it was a car free development, as it was viewed as a local facility.

10.7  Reference was made to the issue of rainwater harvesting and the Planning Officer explained that this was covered by way of a condition.  The applicant stated that they were restricted by the size of the site and that they would make best endeavours for this to be provided.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

1.  SCB0 – Development in accordance with plans

The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10