The Tower Hamlets Council Development Committee met to discuss a planning application for an outdoor seating area at 5 Park Drive, Canary Wharf. The committee overturned the officer's recommendation to approve the application, citing concerns over the loss of public realm and potential safety issues.

Planning Application: 5 Park Drive, Canary Wharf

The committee considered planning application PA/25/00513 for a seasonal outdoor seating area associated with the Row restaurant at 5 Park Drive, London, E14 9GG.

Victoria Coelho, a planning officer, presented the application, explaining that it sought permission for additional seasonal seating outside the restaurant, which already had consent for outdoor seating. The proposal included an indicative plan showing a two-metre clearance to maintain public access through the site. Ms Coelho stated that the proposal aligned with relevant policies and recommended approval, subject to conditions limiting the hours of use and maintaining the required access.

The committee heard that 480 neighbouring properties were notified, resulting in 19 letters of support and 20 objections. Supporters cited economic benefits, enhanced public realm, and reduced antisocial behaviour. Objectors raised concerns about encroachment on public realm, a narrow walkway, loss of access, negative impact on amenity, and public safety.

During the discussion, councillors raised several concerns:

• Councillor Ayman Rahman, Chair of Strategic Development Committee, asked about the number of seats and tables, and whether the tables were for two or four people. Ms Coelho clarified that the illustrative plans showed approximately 20 tables, mostly for one or two people, resulting in 62 covers in total outside.
• Councillor Mufeedah Bustin sought clarification on the layout, questioning whether the raised area would be used for seating. Ms Coelho confirmed that tables and chairs would be placed next to the raised area, and that a two-metre pedestrian route would be maintained. Councillor Bustin also raised concerns about signalling to residents that the walkway was public space.
• Councillor Shafi Ahmed, Cabinet Member for Environment and the Climate Emergency, questioned whether there would be enough space for wheelchair access and whether signage would be installed to indicate public access. Ms Coelho responded that two metres was a generally adopted width for wheelchair users and that no additional signage was proposed.
• Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury, Chair of the Health & Adults Scrutiny Sub-Committee, questioned how narrowing the walkway could be justified. Ms Coelho reiterated that the two-metre width would be maintained and that an alternative route was available via the boardwalk.
• Councillor Marc Francis raised concerns about the loss of public realm and whether the proposal would significantly detract from people's ability to access it. He asked about the original application's designation of the space as public realm and whether the wider development had met its obligations in terms of public realm provision. Ms Coelho explained that the Wood Wharf redevelopment was in its third phase and had met its public realm requirements, adding that design guidelines for the outline consent anticipated commercial units spilling out onto the outside with tables and chairs. Councillor Francis further questioned whether the constant flow of people across the path would make it feel less like public realm and diminish the ability to stop and dwell.

Thaddeus Wackmans, who wished to object, arrived late and was not permitted to speak.

Councillor Rahman sought clarification on the reasons for objection, which Ms Coelho summarised as encroachment on public realm, a walkway that was too narrow, loss of access, negative impacts on amenity (noise, odour, smoking, loss of privacy), lack of evidence for economic benefits, and public safety concerns. Councillor Rahman also asked about the distance from the outside seating to the first-floor flats. Ms Coelho clarified that the first floor was amenity space (swimming pool, gym) and that residential flats and terraces began on the next story, at least three metres above.

Councillor Bustin asked about the public benefits of the proposal, to which Ms Coelho responded that they had not identified any harm and therefore had not weighed up any public benefits. Councillor Bustin also questioned the consultation on the hours of use. Ms Coelho stated that the hours were consistent with previous approvals and other commercial units.

Councillor Francis raised concerns about enforcing the two-metre condition and how it would rely on passers-by reporting breaches. An officer responded that the onus would be on the applicant to be compliant and that residents of Five Park Road, who overlook the area, would likely provide primary evidence of any breaches, supplemented by CCTV footage.

Councillor Iqbal Hossain, Chair of Development Committee, shared his experience of a site visit, stating that the gap was not even a metre and a half in some places and that it was uncomfortable to walk through two rows of people eating.

During final thoughts, Councillor Francis stated that while he wanted to be flexible to facilitate business, this proposal stretched too far and that the space should be retained as publicly accessible. Councillor Bustin disagreed, arguing that the economic environment warranted encouraging restaurants and that the boardwalk provided an alternative route. Councillor Rahman felt that public space should remain public, that the restaurant already had over 90 covers, and that the additional seating would create a safety issue with waiting staff crossing the walkway. Councillor Choudhury echoed concerns about the narrowing of the walkway.

The committee voted to overturn the officer's recommendation to approve the application by five votes to one.

The reasons for refusal were:

• Loss of public realm
• Health and safety concerns for pedestrians due to the narrow walkway and waiting staff
• The impracticality of enforcing the two-metre condition

Gareth Gwynne, a planning officer, suggested the committee consider a temporary consent, but no motion was proposed.