Appeal 6002725

The appeal is dismissed.

It is clear from the appeal documents that the appellant intended to vary a condition of an earlier planning permission, which restricted the operating hours of the premises. Nonetheless, the completed application form seeks planning permission, rather than a variation of an earlier planning permission. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Based on the evidence before me, the premises is already operating according to the hours to which this appeal relates.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupants of [address], with particular regard to noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour.

Policy D.DH8 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031, adopted 2020, (the LP) requires that development protects and where possible enhances or increases the extent of the amenity of new and existing buildings and their occupants. Its provisions include reference to noise pollution.

[address] is a narrow street which runs behind [address]. It is tightly enclosed by buildings at the footpath’s edge, which provide a strong sense of enclosure. [address] contains a mix of small commercial premises, primarily close to the junction with [address], as well as residential properties which have their entrances and some windows at the ground floor level, as well as windows facing the street on the upper floors. Given the heavy likelihood that those windows serve some of the main habitable spaces of those properties, the conditions outside those windows undoubtedly contribute strongly to the overall living conditions experienced by their occupants.

The evidence suggests there is a vibrant character to [address] in the evenings, arising from the small commercial uses and the need for customers to stand in the street. Comments from third parties, as well as comments from the Council’s Community Safety Officer, report ongoing nuisance and anti social behaviour on [address], arising in part from groups of individuals late at night and necessitating visits by [name]. While the appellant suggests the proposal supports natural surveillance and increased safety on the street, this is heavily at odds with the evidence before me from other residents and users of [address], which point to significant disturbances.

The above effects are likely to arise from the cumulative impacts of several late night uses on [address], including the cafes. Nonetheless, the extended operating hours of the appeal site play a part in lengthening the hours at which visitors are attracted to the area, and in which its customers convene on the road. Given the heavily enclosed nature of [address], together with the close proximity of residential windows and accesses to the appeal site, the effects of the proposal therefore cause harm to the living conditions of those occupants. The ongoing effects would be significant and long lasting.

For these reasons the proposal causes harm to the living conditions of those nearby occupants. The proposal is at odds with Policy D.DH8 of the LP summarised above, as well as policies S.SG2 and D.ES9 which seek healthy environments, and policies GG3 and D14 of the London Plan 2021, which similarly relate to the effects of noise, health and wellbeing. Insofar as this main issue is concerned, I do not find conflict with LP Policy D.DH2, which relates to the quality of the public realm.

The appellant has highlighted other premises nearby, which have received approval for similar opening hours. Some of these appear to be closer to the junction with [address] and, in any event, I cannot be satisfied that the circumstances at the time they were granted were the same as those at the time of this appeal. As such they do not amount to a reason to alter the above judgement.

The proposal would support the evening economy and contribute to the vitality of the commercial uses and small businesses on the street, in turn supporting employment to some extent, which is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the extent of these benefits would be limited and this does not outweigh the harm to the living conditions of those nearby occupants. I also appreciate the role of other legislation, beyond the planning process, in helping to control matters of noise disturbance and anti-social behaviour. However, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would still be at odds with the development plan, insofar as it relates to residential amenity.

The appellant sets out that the business’s operational costs cannot be sustained by the previously conditioned opening hours. However, there is not substantive evidence to support that claim and I can therefore give it only limited weight.

The site is in the [address] Conservation Area (the CA). I observed the CA to derive its significance from its vibrant commercial frontages onto large roads, as well as the narrow alleys behind. The CA Character Appraisal and Management Plan [address] as a rare survival of this pattern. Having regard to the relevant statutory duty1, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. However this is a neutral matter and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are not material considerations of sufficient weight which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.