Skip to content

We use cookies on this site

If you don't want to accept cookies, you can change your preferences

Accept Manage cookies
  1. Democracy in Islington
  3. Agenda item

Agenda item

Former North London Mail Centre, 116-118 Upper Street, London , N1 1AA

Minutes:

Application under Section 73 (minor material amendment) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) to vary condition 6 of planning permission ref: P2016/2471/FUL

The variation relates to the hours of use of the Restaurant/Café (use class A3 unit)

 

(Planning application number: P2018/2464/S73)


In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The meeting was informed that the report erroneously stated 20 objectors instead of 22 however all the issues raised had been addressed in the report.

·         The Planning Officer informed members that the description of the item should be amended to read -  the variation relates to the hours of operation for the previously approved Class A1/A3 uses).

·         The Planning Officer advised that the proposal to vary the hours of operation is supported in planning policy terms and would not result in demonstrable harm owing to the appropriate mechanism in place to safeguard neighbouring amenity. Members were advised that no objections were received from both the Council’s Public Protection Officer and Council’s licensing officer.

·         Members were advised that appropriate mechanisms will be put in place to safeguard neighbouring amenity, in the form of a Night Time Security Management Plan.

·         Objectors were concerned that extending the hours of operation would result in an increase in noise levels from the restaurant and café which would impact the amenity of neighbouring residents who live in close proximity to the site.  Concerns were raised that the proposed hours is contrary to the Council’s licensing hours and would differ from other A3 units and should not be granted as it is setting a precedent.

·         In response, the agent informed members that the request for a change of hours was to remove any ambiguity that exits with the wording ‘shall not operate’ as it is not clear whether this applies to customers. The agent reassured the Committee that the extension was to allow staff sufficient time to open up and close up the restaurant and café.

·         With regard to the Council’s trading hours and licensing hours and how it related to staff and customers, the planning officer advised members that condition 6 in the report is clear and removes any form of ambiguity as it states that the hours of operation when business can be opened to members of the public.

·         Members were concerned with the proposal the hours of use and that it should align with the licensing framework hours as any attempt to deviate from the consented hours would be contrary to Council policy.

·        

·         Members agreed not to amend the consented hours that was granted in the previous permission and that the reasons be delegated to officers.

·         Councillor Klute proposed a motion to refuse planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Graham and carried.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

 

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be refused and the reasons stated above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Reasons:

1.    Given the location of the unit (G7A) in close proximity to nearby residential occupiers, in particular Studd Street and Moon Street, the proposed extension of hours of operation would result in an unacceptable impact to residential amenity due to noise and disturbance, and as such would constitute an un-neighbourly form of development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 4.7 and 7.15 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy CS5 of the Islington Core Strategy 2011 and policies DM4.2 and DM4.3 Of the Islington Development Management Polices 2013.

2.    The applicant has failed to provide measures to mitigate the impacts of the development through enhancements to services and the environment necessary as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of  social and environmental improvements relating to highways, public open space, public realm; local training and employment initiatives; code of construction practice and monitoring; biodiversity; car club provision; car-free scheme, cycle/access path from Studd street to Almeida street; affordable housing; public art). The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 3.12; 3.13; 4.12; 5.3; 5.18; 7.5; 6.13 and 7.19 of the London Plan 2016 and Policies CS5; CS10; CS12; CS13; CS14; CS15 and CS18 of the Islington Core Strategy 2011 and policies DM6.5; DM7.4; DM8.5; DM9.2 of the Islington Development Management Polices 2013.

 

Supporting documents: