Issue - meetings

2008/1753 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 storey building with basement level to provide 327 residential units and 7,871sqm of business floorspace (class B1a, B1b and B1c) with associated car parking, access and landscaping. The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES), as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

·  The amount of proposed employment floorspace has increased from 6,521sqm to 7,871sqm

·  The proposed employment floorspace has been made more flexible through provision of goods lifts which make the floorspace suitable for the full range of B1 users (class B1a office, B1b research and B1c light industry) rather than just offices (class B1a) as originally proposed.

·  The application now formally seeks planning permission for this full range of B1 uses.

·  The residential space has been altered slightly to ensure that all of the affordable family sized units now have access to balconies.

·  The landscaping proposals have also been revised. Two of the piers which extended into the basin have been removed and more planting of native species are now proposed along the basin edge.

·   Lighting over the basin has been omitted.

13.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. Reference was made to the addendum and a correction to paragraph 2.1 of the report.  This should have stated that the site was located within the Regents Canal Conservation Area.

13.2  The addendum also stated that a further 10 objection letters had been received from local residents, which raised similar concerns to those set out in the report.  The comments received from English Heritage were also highlighted within the addendum.

13.3  Piers Heron, Mr Aiton, Kevin Root and Nick Turner spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The proposed development was too high and overbearing.

§  Loss of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties, especially business units.

§  Too bulky and requested that the height be reduced, in-line with neighbouring properties.

§  Requested that the architects be retained throughout all the development stages.

§  Some of the distances between the development and the neighbouring properties was less than the 30m guidance.

§  Adverse impact on neighbouring properties during the construction phase of the development.

§  The site was defined as an employment area within the UDP.

§  Parking issues.

13.4  Steve Marshall (Architect) and Simon Dilly (Invest in Hackney) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  Providing highly flexible space, with employment opportunities.

§  Affordable housing being provided, with balconies.

§  Opening up the area around the canal.

§  Car parking will be provided in the basement.

§  Intend to be a good neighbour, which is reflected in the considerate design.  Step back technique was proposed as a way of reducing massing and loss of daylight/sunlight.

§  No existing trees would be removed and 20 new trees would be planted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13