Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 630 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA. View directions
Contact: Emma Perry
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: |
|
|
Members to Agree the Order of Business Minutes: 2.1 Item 10 was moved to the end of the agenda.
2.2 Item 15 was moved forward and taken after Item 11, as it had the same architect.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: 3.1 Councillors Stops, ………… declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in Item 6 – St Mary’s Old Church, as they had met Matthew Evans, agent, on previous Members’ Site Tours.
3.2 Councillor Webb declared a prejudicial interest in Item 10 – Mabley Green, Lee Conservancy Road, as she had attended many meetings where this had been previously discussed and left the Chamber during the discussion of this item.
3.3 Councillor Stops declared a personal interest in Item 12 – Rushmore Primary School, as his partner was the Cabinet Lead for Education.
|
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting Decision:
that the minutes of the meeting on 3 September 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendments:
Minutes: 4.1 RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting on 3 September 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendments:
|
|
|
Woodberry Down Estate, N4 Additional documents:
Decision:
The Council, taking account of the environmental information required under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment ) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, resolves to GRANT APPROVAL; subject to any direction by the Mayor of London and the Government Office for London, and conditions.
Minutes: To demolish all existing buildings on the Woodberry Down Estate, with the exception of St.Olave’s Church, the BeisChinuchLebonosGirls School, Reservoir Centre, Primary School and Health Centre. Redevelop the site with 4,684 homes (including 41% affordable), comprising 1-bed, 2-bed, 3-bed, 4-bed flats, and 5-bed flats, 5-bed and 6-bed houses with associated car parking at an overall site provision rate of 50%; approximately 38,500m2 of non-residential buildings and associated car parking, including 5,194m2 of retail buildings within classes A1-A5, 3144m2 of class B1 Business use, 30,000m2 of class C1, D1 and D2 use including education, health centre, children’s centre, community centres, youth centre; provision of new civic space, public parks, open space, landscaping of the edges of the New River and the East and West Reservoirs, construction of bridges across the New river; reduce width of Seven Sisters Road from 6 to 4 lanes and related improvements to the public realm; formation of new access points to the new Woodberry Down Neighbourhood , the creation of new and improvement of existing cycle and pedestrian routes to and within the estate (Outline Application matters for determination siting, design and means of access). Revisions include increase in education floor space; repositioning of cycle/pedestrian bridge between west reservoir and Haringey; re configuration of Woodberry Circus’; relocation of two bridges over New River; increase in footprints and heights of various buildings; provision of a new Health Centre and increase in residential units from 4644 to 4664.
(Councillor Desmond arrived during the discussion of this item and so did not take part in the vote.)
5.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda and reported that the number of units had now increased from 4,644 to 4,664.
5.2 The Chair informed the Committee that the Hackney Homes had been discussed at a previous meeting and that this application purely dealt with planning issues. He added that anybody wishing to address Hackney Homes issues could contact their ward Councillor.
5.3 Councillor Middleton spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:
§ There was no tower block included on the plan, although it was previously included. § No where for residents to go whilst the work was being done. § Again, the request for a meeting to be held on-site to discuss this item had been refused. § Seven Sisters Roadwas already congested and a reduction in the number of lanes would only add to this problem. This would also cause a problem for emergency vehicles accessing the site. § The narrowing of Seven Sisters Road would also have a knock on effect for traders along Woodberry Grove as car parking spaces would be lost.
5.4 Peter Naughton, Chair of Woodberry Down EDC, spoke in support of the scheme with objections, his comments are summarised as follows:
§ The scope of the scheme did not reflect the fact that Vivian and Dovedale Houses had now been demolished. § Precise statement of freeholders’ interests ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
|
St Mary's Old Church, Stoke Newington Church Street, N16 9ES Additional documents: Decision: Minutes: 2008/1099 – (Full Planning Application) Erection of a part single-storey and part three-storey rear extension and change of use to provide a new community arts centre with kitchen/servery facilities and one bedroom flat with balcony at second floor level involving partial demolition of the church building. Opening hours 10:00 to 23:00 hours daily.
6.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.
6.2 Anderson Inge, spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:
§ This was the second round of consultation, however this was not reflected on the notice on-site or on the Council’s website. § What was the need for the project? § Was the proposal financially viable as it was to be funded by the commercial flat located on-site? § Design inappropriate for the location. § Did not feel that the proposal was an enhancement of the existing building. § Felt the drawings were inadequate – not in colour and could not be accessed on the Council’s website.
6.3 Jonathan Clark and Matthew Lloyd spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:
§ There was a need for something to be done with the structure of the building and for the church to be brought back into use and become the ‘hub of the community’. § Received lots of support for the activities proposed. § There were no plans to build on the grave yard. § The flat was a source of income and would allow a range of activities to be provided, to a range of different social groups. § The extension would provide a multifunctional flexible space, which fits the brief. § The proposal is very heavily conditioned, including the design and materials and they have the high aspirations for the scheme. § Following consultation, between 150-200 expressed their support for the scheme. All members of the St Mary’s Old Church were also thoroughly behind the proposal.
6.4 The Urban Design and Conservation Manager stated that the Council had worked closely with the architect and English Heritage and had previously visited the site. The Council strongly supports the proposal, which provides a unique new space which respects the historical architecture.
6.5 Councillor Desmond referred to boxed pews and what was planned for these, as he felt they should be preserved. Jonathan Clark explained that this would be dealt with under faculty procedures, which were not in place yet. The plan was for the oldest south aisle to be retained and restored in situ. He added that they did have the facility to store such items if necessary.
6.6 In response to a query regarding the materials, it was confirmed that the proposed materials would come back to Committee for approval.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:-
Permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCB0 – Development in accordance with plans The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans hereby approved and any subsequent ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
196 Evering Road, E5 Additional documents:
Decision: Minutes: Conversion of a single dwelling house to create 4 self-contained flats (comprising 1 x 4 bed flat and 3 x 2 bed flats) together with alterations to the front lightwell and front basement windows, alterations to the rear elevation including replacement of existing doors at raised ground floor and first floor mezzanine level with sash windows.
7.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.
7.2 Alan Binnie, spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:
7.3 Jay Patel, Architect, spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:
7.4 Following a query from Councillor Buitekant regarding there being no toilet in flat 2, it was confirmed that this had been missed off the plan.
7.5 The Chair made reference to the side entrance to the property and it was explained that there was a standard 6cm threshold and this could be accessed by a disabled person. The architect added that a ramp could be installed.
7.6 Reference was made to the indication from the Architect that the flat roof be conditioned. This was AGREED.
RESOLVED that:
Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCB1N – Commencement within 3 years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. 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 the plans hereby approved.
3. SCR2 – Dustbin Enclosures Details of dustbin and recycling enclosures ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
|
168 Southgate Road, N1 3HX Decision:
A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions
B) That recommendation A be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services.
Minutes: Demolition of a garage and the erection of a two storey, one bedroom dwelling house.
8.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda and explained that this had come to committee because of the number of objections received.
8.2 Mrs Rigden, spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:
8.3 Matthew Goldman, Applicant, spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:
8.4 Following a query regarding the amount of space at the front of the property for a car to park, it was confirmed that there was a total of 4m, which would accommodate a small car.
8.5 Kevin Moore asked whether the Kingsland Conservation Advisory Committee had been consulted as the proposed development was located within a conservation area. The Planning Officer stated that they had been consulted and no response was received.
8.6 Councillor Desmond referred to the loss of daylight issue and wished to clarify whether a daylight/sunlight report had been produced. The Planning Officer stated that a daylight/sunlight report had not been produced for this application due to the size of the extension, and the level of daylight/sunlight loss for the neighbouring property was deemed appropriate.
8.7 In response to a query regarding the materials to be used on the frontage of the property, the applicant confirmed that the lower level would be render with brick above. The Chair asked whether the proposal included the provision of a green roof and the applicant indicated that this had already been discussed and he was happy for this to be provided. The Chair requested that all endeavours for a green roof to be included be added to the list of conditions. This was AGREED.
8.8 A request was also made for the parking space to be removed from the front of the property, to be replaced with a garden. This was AGREED.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:
A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCB0 – Development in accordance with plans The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
|
Land adjacent to 81/83 & 85 Mount Pleasant Lane, E5 9EW Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED that:
A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
B) That Recommendation B be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning and the Interim Director of Legal and Democratic Services.
Minutes:
9.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda. Reference was made to the addendum which stated that a petition signed by 29 local residents had been received by email on 13 October. The main objections and responses to these were detailed within the addendum.
9.2 Brian Eley and Constanze Schmidt, spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:
9.3 Councillor Buitekant wished to clarify whether the fire service was able to access the site and the Planning Officer explained that they would not be able to access the properties through the driveway, however a fire hydrant was usually provided in such cases. She added that this issue would be dealt with at the building regulations stage. 9.4 In response to a query over the density of the proposed development, it was stated that the size of the development did comply with the density figures stated within in the London Plan.
9.5 Discussion took place on the issue of access and the Committee was asked to refer to paragraph 4.7.4 of the report which detailed how the access to the site had been improved in subsequent proposals.
9.6 The Highways Officer added that 3.7m was the minimum width for access for a site, however in some cases this had to be reduced, depending upon the number of car parking spaces being provided. In this case only one disabled parking space was being provided and although they were not happy with the proposal they were prepared to accept the level of access.
9.7 Discussion took place on the refuse storage as it was identified that refuse vehicles would not be able to access the site. It was requested that a condition be added for the landscaping to be looked at, to include the location of the refuse storage. This was AGREED.
9.8 The Interim Head of Regulatory Services stated that a way of addressing the access issue could be for the development to be car free. The applicant indicated that ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|
|
Westgate Centre, Westgate Street, E8 3RU Additional documents:
Decision:
A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
B) That the above recommendation be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration and the Interim Director of Legal and Democratic Services.
Minutes:
Post-submission revisions – Revisions to the detailed design, comprising changes to the stepped-down element of the proposed building to the corner of Sheep Lane and Bocking Street, extending the massing of this element further down Bocking Street and establishing greater visual continuity with the maisonettes that comprise the rest of the Bocking Street element of the proposal; changes to these maisonettes, including the removal of one storey, repositioning of access staircases and entrances, changes to internal layout, window arrangements on the front elevation, and additional windows.
11.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda and added that the proposal should state the construction of a part one, part three, part six storey building.
11.2 The Planning Officer made reference to the addendum. Paragraph 1.2 of the report stated that a planning application at nos. 11-23 Westgate Street by the same architects had recently been refused, however this was not the case and the application was still under consideration by the Council.
11.3 The Architect was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.
11.4 The Urban Design and Conservation Manager was asked his opinion on the design of the proposed development and he stated that this was a difficult site, however many of the fundamental design issues had now been resolved. The Architect circulated sample materials at the meeting.
11.5 The Chair requested that the following items be included in the list of conditions:
Unanimously RESOLVED that:
Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
8.1.1 SCB0 – Development in accordance with 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 the plans hereby approved.
8.1.2 SCB1 – Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
8.1.3 SCM6 – Materials to be approved Samples of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, boundary walls and ground surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, in writing, before work on the external surfaces, boundary walls and ground surfaces commences on site, in accordance with the following specification: Brickwork:To be Terca Docklands Yellow Stock Brick (or a ... view the full minutes text for item 10. |
|
|
1 -7 Westgate Street, E8 3RL Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED that:
A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
B) That the above recommendation be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a section 106 agreement in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services.
C) That in the event of the Section 106 agreement referred to in Recommendation B not being completed by 16th December 2008, the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning be given the authority to refuse the application for the following reasons.
Minutes: Erection of a part five, part six storey building to provide 76 residential units (27 one-bedroom units; 23 two-bedroom units, 19 three-bedroom units and 7 four-bedroom units) and 1312 sqm commercial floorspace (use class B1 or B2), including 22 car parking spaces.
15.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.
15.2 The Planning Officer referred to the addendum which included further details on the balconies. He stated that originally the units facing the railway were provided with balconies, however, at pre-application stage the Council requested that these be removed due to potential noise disturbance from the rail lines. Two revised drawings were attached to the addendum, which detailed alternative locations for the balconies.
15.3 The Chair made reference to the ventilation of the basement and the Planning Officer referred to the addendum and stated that condition 4 of Recommendation B safeguarded against visual appearance of the buildings from stacks, vent pipes, flues and ductwork.
15.4 In response to a query from Councillor Desmond regarding what materials were proposed, it was explained that the majority of the building would be zinc cladded, which weathers well.
15.5 The Chair made reference to the piece of land known as the ‘Triangle’ and asked whether any of the Section 106 money could be allocated for amenity space to be provided at this site. It was AGREED that condition 8 within Recommendation B be allocated to the ‘Triangle’ and for the Architect to design it.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:
A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCB0 – Development in accordance with 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 the plans hereby approved.
2. SCB1 - Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than three years after the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
3. SMC6 – Materials to be approved (entire site) Details, including samples, of materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, boundary walls and ground surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work commences on site. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.
REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area.
4. Non Standard Condition Detailed drawings/full particulars of the proposed development showing additional balconies must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work is commenced. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved. REASON: To ensure an acceptable ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
|
Rushmore Primary School, Elderfield Road, E5 0LE Additional documents:
Decision: Minutes:
12.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.
12.2 The Chair made reference to the loss of shrubs and asked whether they could be located to another part of the site. The Planning Officer stated that it could be conditioned that the feasibility of locating shrubs to another area be looked into. This was AGREED.
12.3 There being no further questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:
Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCB0 – Development in accordance with 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 the plans hereby approved.
2. SCB1 – Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
3. SCM6 – Materials to be approved Details, including samples, of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, boundary walls and ground surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, in writing, before work on the external surfaces, boundary walls and ground surfaces commences on site. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.
REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area.
4. SCM9 – No extraneous pipework No soil stacks, soil vent pipes, flues, ductwork or any other pipework shall be fixed to the (street) elevations of the building other than as shown on the drawings hereby approved.
REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area.
5. SCH10 – Secure bicycle parking Secure, covered parking shall be provided for twelve bicycles, as shown on the plans hereby approved, before use of the development hereby permitted commences.
REASON: To ensure that a reasonable provision is made within the site for the parking of bicycles in the interests of discouraging car use, relieving congestion in surrounding streets and improving highway conditions in general.
6. NSC1 – Non-standard condition The timber proposed for exterior use on the elevations shall be pre-treated to prevent discolouration with a suitable water-repellant wood-preserving pigmented surface coating, with details of which finish/treatment has been used, a sample and full specifications of all timbers proposed for use anywhere on the building, together with a maintenance schedule, ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|
|
Mossbourne Community Academy, 100 Downs Park Road, E5 8JY Additional documents:
Decision: Minutes:
13.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.
13.2 John Burrow (Learning Trust) and Andrezej Kuszell (Architect) were in attendance to answer any questions that arose.
13.3 Councillor Desmond wished to clarify why this extension was not included in the original proposal for the MossbourneCommunity Academy. It was explained that it previously wasn’t requested and that the Academy had previously been sponsored privately and was now under the responsibility of the Council.
13.4 Discussion took place on the proposed materials and it was confirmed that some parts of the extension will mimic the existing building and will incorporate the colour red, which will compliment the existing blue and yellow.
13.5 Concern was raised over the loss of four trees and the Committee wished to know which trees would be lost. It was explained that two of the trees were already dead and that the other two were younger trees. The Planning Officer added that an additional condition had been added to avoid or minimise harm to the existing TPO trees, detailed in the addendum.
13.6 The Committee felt that 80 car parking spaces was too many and that 142 cycle spaces was inadequate. It was explained that the school was adamant that they needed the 80 car parking spaces on site.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:
Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCB0 – Development in accordance with 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 the plans hereby approved.
2. SCB1 – Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
3. SCM6 – Materials to be approved Details, including samples, of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, boundary walls and ground surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, in writing, before work on the external surfaces, boundary walls and ground surfaces commences on site. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.
REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character ... view the full minutes text for item 13. |
|
|
Decision:
The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) objects to the proposed appendices to the Urban Design and Landscaping Framework (UDLF).
Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
Minutes:
14.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda. He referred to the addendum which detailed further comments received from internal consultees.
14.2 The Chair asked that as part of the design code, the roads should be laid out to enable to creation of a 20 mph zone in the legacy. This was AGREED.
RESOLVED that:
The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) objects to the proposed appendices to the Urban Design and Landscaping Framework (UDLF):
§ The LBH objects to the legacy transformation road layout. In particular with regard to the Waterden Road replacement being a major distributor road that will create a barrier for Hackney residents trying to access the amenities in the eastern half of the park.
§ The LBH objects to the proposed new access arrangements off the A12 Lea Interchange as the transport implications on Hackney have not been assessed.
§ The LBH objects to the use of Combined Kerb and Drainage Units. The Council does not generally support the use of these drains on roads to be adopted by the Council due to maintenance issues. As levels in the Olympic Park can be changes to meet requirements, the gradient of roads should be designed such that conventional drainage can be incorporated.
Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
§ All future legacy roads earmarked for adoption by LBH should be in accordance with Hackney's Public Realm Design Guidelineswith regard to streetscape specifications and be constructed to an adoptable standard.
§ Any street lighting that will be located on future adopted roads will need to be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Council.
§ Cycling lanes should be provided for on the carriageway and segregated cycling lanes should not be provided (as shown within the submitted documentation). Instead the carriageway lane widths should be wide enough to accommodate cyclists safely.
§ Any future bridges that are intended to be adopted by London Borough of Hackney will need to be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of London Borough of Hackney's Streetscene Department. Each bridge will need to be assessed on a case by case basis by London Borough of Hackney. Any additional requirements required as a result of the assessment by London Borough of Hackney will need to be provided to ensure that the bridge will built to an adoptable standard.
§ The LBH expects materials for such structures (bridges, retaining structures and streetscape components) within the Olympic Park to be of the highest quality.
§ The LBH recommends that more information should be provided to show how the roading networks will accommodate cyclists and connect to the wider cycle network.
§ The LBH would encourage that the design of retaining structures could be configured to incorporate, where accessible, more usable ... view the full minutes text for item 14. |
|
|
Mabley Green, Lee Conservancy Road, E9 5HW Additional documents: Decision:
Planning permission be DELEGATED to the Interim Head of Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Chair and the Assistant Director Community Services, within the next ten working days, subject to conditions.
Minutes: Construction of outdoor gym including new canopy and boundary enclosures.
(Councillor Webb left the Chamber for the hearing of this item.)
10.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda.
10.2 The Interim Head of Regulatory Services informed the committee that the application site was in fact located on common land as well as metropolitan land and as such, any development on the subject site must remain unrestricted and open to public use in perpetuity. To this effect it was confirmed that no fencing or any other means of enclosure forms part of this application.
10.3 Reference was made to the addendum which stated that an objection email dated 13 October 2008 had been received from the Hackney Parks Forum and Mabley Green Users’ Group. Although they had not been formally consulted during the statutory consultation period, the objectors were informed of the proposed development through the 2012 Team and at meetings with the Head of Green Spaces. The main objections and the responses to those were detailed within the addendum.
10.4 Matt Delaney, The Great Outdoor Gym Company, was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.
10.5 The Chair wished to clarify why this particular location was chosen and Matt Delaney responded by stating that they had gone to the Council and asked them where they felt was the most suitable place for this equipment to be located.
10.6 Councillor Hanson wished to know the estimated lifespan of the equipment and it was explained that the equipment had a guarantee of five years, however it was made of galvanised steel so had the potential to last up to twenty years. The canopy was also fire retardant.
10.7 The Committee wished to clarify who was responsible for the maintenance of the site and it was explained that the site would belong to the Council, however the management arrangements would need to be finalised.
10.8 Councillor Desmond asked whether any supervision was proposed for the site. Matt Delaney stated that as the site would belong to the Council, any supervision would need to be contracted by the Leisure Department. He added that the adidas money could be match-funded in order to fund 20 hours per week supervised sessions and coaching.
10.9 Concern was raised over the advertising and how they would be perceived, as the adidas slogan would be displayed on the equipment. Matt Delaney explained that the advertising would be kept to a minimum and that this had been managed well at other sites within London.
10.10 In response to a question from the Chair asking why the area of hard standing on Mabley Green could not have been used for the new equipment, David White, 2012 Unit, explained that this area would remain as car park and part of this would be used for changing rooms for the new facility.
RESOLVED that:
Planning permission be DELEGATED to the Interim Head of Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Chair and the Assistant Director Community ... view the full minutes text for item 15. |
|
|
Delegated Decisions - August/September 2008 Decision: Minutes: |
|
|
Any other business which in the opinion of the Chair is urgent Minutes: |