Issue - meetings

(A)  Full Planning Permission:  Conversion of former Light Industrial premises, demolition of outhouses and erection of part two storey rear extension, part single storey rear extension and part two storey side extension, together with balconies alterations to front elevation to provide 8 units (3 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed).

(B)  Conservation Area Consent:  Demolition of outhouses and ad-hoc extensions.

7.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.

7.2  Claire Milhench and Ian Rudolph spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  Felt that the scheme was worse than the previously rejected proposal, as a sun terrace had now been added.

§  The sun terrace will create overlooking into the lounge of the neighbouring property and also a security issue.

§  Feel that the objections raised had not been addressed in the report.

§  Issue of noise nuisance.

§  No dimensions given on the plans and they made reference to photos circulated at the meeting.

§  Issue with insufficient headroom in one of the proposed bedrooms.

§  The site boundaries are incorrect.

§  The proposed building would be located less than 10m away from 25 Fassett Square.

7.3  David Gibson and Ingmar Wilken spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  This was not just a re-submission of the previous scheme, as the architects were not involved in the previous design.

§  The officer report sets out the responses to the objections received.

§  The sun terrace faces towards the railway and not into the neighbouring property.

§  Do not feel that the proposed scheme would create additional noise.

§  The site had been assessed by a surveyor who confirmed that all the measurements confirmed with guidance.

7.4  Discussion took place regarding room sizes and whether there was sufficient head room in some of the bedrooms.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the overall height of the building had been increased to 5.7 metres to allow for sufficient head room in each of the dwellings.

7.5  Reference was made to the distance between the proposed development and the neighbouring property, as identified by the objector.  The Planning Officer explained that the proposal accords with the policies in the Hackney Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan.  

7.6  In response to a query from the Chair regarding materials, the architect stated that the roof would be made of zinc, with white render and brick work on the north elevation and timber sunscreen to the south elevation.  The materials were conditioned, to be approved.  

RESOLVED that:-

(Councillor Sharer voted against the recommendation).

1.  SCB0   Development only in accordance with submitted

  plans

The Development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans hereby approved and any subsequent approval of details.

REASON: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is carried out in full accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7