The owner of a listed pub in Stepney used for film shoots and music videos has failed in a challenge to plans for a block of flats next door which she fears may ultimately close her business down.
Pauline Forster, owner of the George Tavern on Commercial Road in Stepney, is concerned that residents of the proposed six flats might complain about noise from live music and other activities at the venue, putting her late night music licence at risk and ultimately threatening the viability of the business.
However, a judge ruled that her fears may be “misplaced”.
Forster had claimed that she brought her case not only to protect her own financial interests, but to protect a Grade II listed venue which is of importance for the local, music and artistic community, arguing that the George Tavern employs 11 young and supports and provides a platform for hundreds of artists from all cultures and backgrounds, local and international.
She said that she had invested heavily in the restoration of the building, funded largely through its being let “as a location for film, music videos and for fashion shoots”. She claimed that the pub is used by numerous stars from all over the world, making it “as famous as the celebrities themselves”, adding: “The artists who use it find it totally unique and enchanting, largely due to the 360 degrees of natural light it offers and the care and hard work I have invested in its aesthetic.”
While Tower Hamlets London Borough Council shared her concerns and refused planning permission, conservation area consent and listed building consent for the redevelopment of the former Stepney’s Nightclub next door, a planning inspector allowed Swan Housing Association’s appeal and granted the necessary approvals.
In Forster’s submissions to the inspector, she had said: “I’ve put my heart and soul into restoring this building, creating a space for the arts, and providing a service for the local community. Please don’t jeopardise all of my work over the last 11 years for the sake of ill-thought plans based around generic flats and retail space. Cultural hubs like The George are few and far between in the local area, and it would be a crying shame for both Stepney and London, if we were to lose The George Tavern.”
But the inspector concluded that future residents of the six flats, above a ground floor commercial unit, would be protected from noise through insulation and a condition requiring construction in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority. As a result, in turn, he found that the pub would not be affected.
Dismissing Forster’s challenge to that decision, Lindblom J shared the view advanced by government lawyers that her “anxiety about the vulnerability of her business to a claim in nuisance may be misplaced”.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Coventry v Lawrence, he said that the inspector’s task was to “make planning judgments on the land use planning issues before him, and not to anticipate the likelihood or outcome of future proceedings against Ms Forster as owner of the George Tavern”.
He added: “He cannot be criticised for not venturing into the law of nuisance. His remit was to determine Swan’s appeal on the planning merits, having regard to the public interest. That is what he did. The issues he discerned in the appeal were truly planning issues, the main one being whether planning permission should be withheld because residents of the flats in the proposed development would suffer unreasonable levels of noise. Having considered those issues, he could see no reason for planning permission to be refused.”
He added that the inspector exercised his own judgment on the noise-related issues in the case, having regard to all of the evidence before him, and “had well in mind Ms Forster’s concern that residents of the new flats might complain about noise coming from the George Tavern, which in turn would lead to difficulties for Ms Forster’s business”.
He said: “It cannot be suggested that he failed to see the importance of exercising his judgment on that question.”
Forster v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Court (Lindblom J) 6 August 2015
Annabel Graham Paul (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the Claimant
Ned Westaway (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the First Defendant
Richard Ground (instructed by Dentons UKMEA LLP) for the Third Defendant
