Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasNewhamEast Ham Central ward20/00928/COU
Planning application · Newham

20/00928/COU.

135A High Street North East Ham London E6 1HZ

Change of Use at 135A High Street North East Ham London E6 1HZ — refused on 21 Jul 2020.

NewhamEast Ham CentralE6 1HZ20/00928/COU
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationNewham profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 Jul 2020
Decision time
submission → decision
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
1
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Newham planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application

What is it?

Proposed change of use to a bingo hall (class D2).

Reference
20/00928/COU
Type
Change of Use
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Not recorded
Postcode
E6 1HZ
Council
Received
Validated
14 May 2020
Decision date
21 Jul 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Reference
20/00928/COU
Type
Change of Use
Show all 14 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Not recorded
Postcode
E6 1HZ
Council
Received
Validated
14 May 2020
Decision date
21 Jul 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
DELEGATED REPORT
21 Jul 2020
DECISION NOTICE
21 Jul 2020
ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH
8 Jun 2020
APPLICATION FORM
11 May 2020
BINGO PLANNING APPLICATION 135A HIGH ST NORTH
11 May 2020
CIL FORM
11 May 2020
FLOOR PLAN
11 May 2020
LOCATION PLAN
11 May 2020
DELEGATED REPORT
21 Jul 2020
DECISION NOTICE
21 Jul 2020
ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH
8 Jun 2020
Show all 8 rows
APPLICATION FORM
11 May 2020
BINGO PLANNING APPLICATION 135A HIGH ST NORTH
11 May 2020
CIL FORM
11 May 2020
FLOOR PLAN
11 May 2020
LOCATION PLAN
11 May 2020

Documents open on the Newham portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗

Decision

What happened?

Refused on 21 Jul 2020.

Timeline

Date
Event
14 May 2020
Application validated
21 Jul 2020
Delegated decision: Refused
14 May 2020
Application validated
21 Jul 2020
Delegated decision: Refused

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The application site lies within in a Town Centre which has been identified to have a concentrated amount of poor quality leisure uses. The proposal, by reason of the high level of floorspace and seating allocated to gaming terminals, represents a poor quality leisure use. The proposal will further intensify the cumulative impacts of the overconcentration of poor quality leisure uses in this area, undermining the Council's objectives of promoting healthy lifestyles, reducing health inequalities and creating healthy neighbourhoods. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to:  The National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);  Policy 4.7 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016);  Policies SD6, SD7 and SD8 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Intend to Publish version December 2019); and  Policies SP1, SP6 and SP9 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposal will result in the loss of a retail unit which fails to comply with policies which seek to maintain a robust retail core. The proposal is therefore considered contrary:  the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);  Policy 2.15, 4.7 and 4.8 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016);  Policies SD6, SD7 and SD8 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Intend to Publish version December 2019); and  Policies SP1 and SP6 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan 2018. The abovementioned policies can be viewed via the Council’s website: www.newham.gov.uk.
1
The application site lies within in a Town Centre which has been identified to have a concentrated amount of poor quality leisure uses. The proposal, by reason of the high level of floorspace and seating allocated to gaming terminals, represents a poor quality leisure use. The proposal will further intensify the cumulative impacts of the overconcentration of poor quality leisure uses in this area, undermining the Council's objectives of promoting healthy lifestyles, reducing health inequalities and creating healthy neighbourhoods. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to:  The National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);  Policy 4.7 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016);  Policies SD6, SD7 and SD8 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Intend to Publish version December 2019); and  Policies SP1, SP6 and SP9 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposal will result in the loss of a retail unit which fails to comply with policies which seek to maintain a robust retail core. The proposal is therefore considered contrary:  the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, February 2019);  Policy 2.15, 4.7 and 4.8 of The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London (GLA, consolidated with alterations since 2011 and published March 2016);  Policies SD6, SD7 and SD8 of the Draft London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (Intend to Publish version December 2019); and  Policies SP1 and SP6 of the London Borough of Newham Local Plan 2018. The abovementioned policies can be viewed via the Council’s website: www.newham.gov.uk.
Policies cited
London Plan 4.7SD6SD7SD8SP1SP6SP9NPPFLondon Plan 2.15London Plan 4.8

Public response

Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
People

Who is involved?

Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer not recorded
No case officer is recorded.
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer not recorded
No case officer is recorded.
Place

What affects it?

Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.

Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)

No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.