Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Stauber and Kevin Moore (Hackney Society).

2.1  The order of business remained as per the agenda.

3.1  Councillor Desmond declared a prejudicial interest in Item 14 – 86 Mount Pleasant Lane, as he lived in close vicinity to the site and left the Chamber during the discussion of this item.

Conversion of existing residential premises to create 8 self contained units comprising (7x1 bedroom flats and 1x4 bedroom flat) together with excavation and the erection of a rear extension at lower ground floor below lower ground floor and ground floor levels with lower ground floor balcony: erection of rear and side dormer windows and the provision of cycle stand and bin stores to the front.

5.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda, and explained that it had come committee due to the number of objections received.

5.2  Franco Caramazza spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Loss of daylight/sunlight and the lower ground floor level will have hardly any daylight, which is the main area of concern.

§  The proposed extension is overbearing.

§  Issue of overlooking from the proposed balcony into number 76 Amhurst Road. 

§  Loss of amenity/garden space.

§  The extension covered the full width of the rear of the property.

§  Issue of town cramming – number of flats being provided in the building.

5.3  Andy Meader (Pegasus Planning Group) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  The previous scheme had been refused in 2007 due to no family unit being provided and also some issues with the rear extension.  These issues had now been resolved in the revised scheme.

§  A minor amendment to the design of the proposed dormer roof extension to the side elevation had now been submitted.

§  The ground floor extension was only 2.9m deep and therefore was in accordance with building regulations.

§  The lower ground floor level was not visible from the neighbouring property.

§  The balcony referred to by the objector was not intended to be used as a balcony.

5.4  Councillor Smith queried the materials to be used on the roof and asked whether they were providing a green roof.  The agent stated that the materials were to be approved, however, they were happy to consider providing a green roof.  The Chair asked that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

5.5  The Chair asked whether the extension to the full width of the rear of the property was in accordance with daylight/sunlight regulations. 

5.6  The Planning Officer explained that the extension was one storey in height and displayed this on the plans.  With regard to daylight/sunlight, he stated that the extension was over 30m away from the nearest property and therefore satisfied the requirement for daylight/sunlight.

RESOLVED that:-

(Councillors Buitekant and Tesler abstained from the vote).

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Erection of a multi-use games area (MUGA) on London Fields comprising of one pitch on Tarmac base enclosed by perimeter mesh fencing and 4 floodlights.

(Councillors Desmond and Sharer arrived during the discussion of this item and so did not take part in the vote).  

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  Reference was made to the addendum as line three of paragraph 6.4.1 should have stated that an example of a MUGA was the astro-turf football pitch on Mabley Green and HaggerstonPark.

6.2  Ashleigh Arrell spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  The proposed development will spoil the beautiful green area of the park.

§  Concerned with the floodlights, which was deemed a waste of electricity.

§  Feel that an alternative indoor venue could have been utilised instead.

§  The community had not been properly informed and felt that signs should have been located around the park giving local residents the opportunity to have their say on the location of the MUGA.

6.3  Kim Wright (Corporate Director, Community Services), Mike Martin (London Fields User Group) and Jordon Hamer (local teenager) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are as follows:

§  Mike Martin had been the Chair of the London Fields User Group for a number of years and had been involved in the London Lido project.

§  Feel that it is located in the right place and would make the park better for everyone.

§  A large number of youngsters want and would use this facility, as opposed to playing in disused car parks.

6.4  Discussion took place surrounding the proposed location of the MUGA as a number of Members felt that it was inappropriate to locate it in the centre of the park and that the area of hard standing was often used for community events.  Kim Wright responded by stating that the proposed site was located in a dilapidated area of the park and that if approved more greenery would be introduced to this area. She added that 80% of the hard standing area would be returned back to the park and that the MUGA would constitute the other 20%.  The existing fencing would also be taken down.

6.5  In response to a query from the Chair, the Corporate Director explained that the area next the Lido had been rejected as a potential site due to the location of the existing depot and it was felt that it would increase congestion around the area in the summer months when the Lido was heavily used.

6.6  Councillor Webb made reference to the angle and location of some of the benches surrounding the MUGA and the Corporate Director confirmed that they would look at locating the benches in a more appropriate place.  Reference was also made to the number of cycle stands being provided as Councillor Webb felt that two stands was not sufficient.  The Corporate Director stated that she was happy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

(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.

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a part-four-, part-five-storey building containing nineteen residential units and two parking spaces, together with associated outdoor amenity space, storage access and landscaping.

NOTE TO MEMBERS: This planning application was initially presented to members of the Planning Sub-Committee on 7 January 2009. At that meeting, members deferred a decision on the determination for the following reasons:

a) concern over the loss of a part of the Parkside Estate’s communal green space to make way for the proposed development’s two disabled parking spaces, plus questions over the ownership of this space;

b) insufficient replacement bin storage for an existing Parkside Estate refuse storage facility, which is part of the application site;

c) officers’ failure to consult the residents association and Hackney Homes regarding the planning application.

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the report.  He explained that this application had previously been presented to the Planning Sub-Committee on 7 January 2009.  At that meeting, members deferred the decision for the reasons set out in the report.

8.2  Pamela Watson spoke in support of the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  The consultation undertaken after the deferral of the application had been very positive and constructive.

§  A number of changes had now been agreed regarding the amenity space and bin storage.

§  The applicants had been very accommodating and additional money had been put towards the relandscaping of the Parkside Estate communal area to the rear of the application site.

§  Herself and the other local residents now support the scheme.

RESOLVED that:

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.  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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolition of existing park ranger's facility and replacement with single-storey building containing sports changing room facilities, park ranger's accommodation, multi-purpose community room, public toilets and sports equipment storage; resurfacing of existing tarmac basketball area and erection of fenced multi-use games area (MUGA), to include floodlighting; addition of further two tennis courts adjacent to existing tennis courts, to include floodlighting.

9.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He informed the Sub-Committee that the people that had objected to the 3 previously refused applications had not been consulted this time round.  However they had consulted residents within a 650m radius.

9.2  The Planning Officer stated that in response to the Chair’s query regarding fencing, the applicant confirmed that the MUGA shall be endorsed by welded wire fencing to a general height of three metres, increasing to four metres for the areas behind the goal face, in accordance with Sports England guidelines.  The fencing would be finished in a green coating and the tennis courts would feature chain link fencing to a general height of 2.75 metres, also finished in a green coating.

9.3  The Principal Solicitor stated that this was not considered to be an issue and the Planning Officer confirmed that their issues had now been resolved.

9.4  Alan Maddox and Daniel Gordon spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  Generally in favour of the scheme and the enhancement of education facilities in the area and recognise the work that has been undertaken in submitting the application.

§  The main issue is concerning the consultation process.

§  Local residents wish to be informed of management, maintenance and budget issues.

§  The consultation that was promised for the summer did not happen and the other consultation session finished early.

§  Believe that there are a number of inconsistencies in the report.

§  Request that the application be deferred to allow for better consultation.

§  Concern was raised over the two additional tennis courts, when the existing ones were perfectly adequate.

§  Loss of green space.

§  Wish to know how many children will be using the tennis courts.

9.5  Nicola Baker (Assistant Director Community Services) and Rob Martell spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  A number of significant changes had been made as a result of the consultation process, including the provision of public toilets.

§  She issued an apology as the consultation closed early due to staff sickness on that day.

§  This was a partnership between Hackney Council and the Learning Trust, with funding provided by a lottery grant.

§  A total of 3 new tennis courts are proposed, in order to encourage tennis coaching, especially as they would be located within an Olympic borough.

§  The design is sympathetic to the area and also sustainable.

§  The courts will primarily be used by schools, with public use outside of school hours and during holiday periods.

9.6  Councillor Buitekant raised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Observations to the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) regarding the submission of details regarding the Greenway for the discharge of condition under the Facilities and their Legacy Transformation (OLF) Planning Permission (07/90010/OUMODA) granted on 28 September 2007.

10.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the report.  He referred to the addendum which set out further comments from Streetscene and the officer’s comment.

10.2  There being no questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.

RESOLVED that:

INFORMATIVE

1.  The LBH would like to emphasize the importance of providing a high quality link from Victoria Park to the Greenaway.  This link will be vital in ensuring that Hackney is connected to the Greenway and beyond.  It is understood that this link is being dealt with in accordance with Schedule 12 of the Olympic Park outline planning permission and that a feasibility study on the link has been commissioned by the ODA Transport Team.  The LBH would like some assurances that this link will indeed be provided and will be designed as a permanent scheme to give a lasting legacy benefit.

2.  The LBH considers the management of cyclists’ speed along the Greenway paramount to promoting the safe and continued usage of the Greenway, especially as the Greenway will essentially be used by both pedestrians and cyclists in a shared manner.  Further information is requested to fully understand what measures, whether they be managed or physical, are proposed, both during Games Mode and Legacy Mode, to control the speed of cyclists using the Greenway.

Observations to the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) regarding the Parkland and Public Realm applications for the following regions:

·  08/90310/FULODA (North Central Parkland) 08/90311/FULODA (South Central Parkland);

·  08/90312/FULODA (Basketball Landscape);

·  08/90313/FULODA (Handball Landscape);

·  08/90314/FULODA (PDZ4 [Part] Landscape);

·  08/90315/AODODA (PDZ1);

·  08/90316/AODODA (PDZ5 [Part] and PDZ6 part); and

·  08/90317/AODODA (StadiumIsland).

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

11.2  There being no questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.

RESOLVED that:

The LBH raises the following observations with regard to the proposal:

1.  A South-East to North-West link will significantly decrease journey times to the media centre from Stratford International Station and should be considered and incorporated into the Legacy scheme.;

2.  In Legacy the road circuit from the Velodrome is still depicted crossing the river Lea and despite what the text says (indicative only) this layout will restrict free movement from the legacy parkland to the river's edge;

3.  More information is required regarding a movement strategy relating to the main public realms/squares and in particular those surrounding the Handball Arena and Veledrome.  Details regarding route hierarchy for visitors and locals needs to be appropriately addressed.

Section 17 Certificate of Alternative Development for A1, A2, A3, B1, C1, C3, D1 and D2 uses.

RESOLVED that:

Demolition of existing building and erection of a six storey building (plus basement) to provide 152 residential units (46 units to comprise extra care accommodation and 25 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 19 x 3 bed and 12 x 4 bed) with ancillary car parking and landscaping.

14.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda, and gave an overview of the history of the site.

14.2  Mrs Meisels spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  Very little time to prepare her objection as she and some of her neighbours did not receive a letter notifying her of the revised application.

§  The proposal was out of proportion with the neighbouring properties and created overlooking to the properties in close vicinity.

§  Loss of daylight and privacy.

§  The number of dwellings was out of context with the space.

§  Insufficient number of car parking spaces for the size of the scheme.

§  Increased noise and traffic in the surrounding area.

§  No recreational areas for children provided.

§  She would suggest only 3 / 4 storeys and more family units and facilities.

14.3  Neil Rowley (Savills) and John Moore (Formation Architects) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The building is currently vacant and in a dilapidated state.

§  They have been in consultation with Planning Officers for the past 12 months, which had resulted in a better scheme being submitted.

§  A public exhibition was held in 2008, displaying the plans for the scheme.

§  The height of the revised scheme is no greater than the previous proposal.

§  The scheme meets with housing needs and provides a number of extra care units.

§  The new scheme was slightly longer, although it had now been split into 3 blocks.

§  1/3 of the units are wheelchair accessible.

§  There will be limited access to the site and private parking to the front of the building.

§  The proposed materials were displayed for Members’ information.

14.4  In response to a query from the Chair regarding consultation, the Planning Officer stated that the consultation had commenced in April 2008 and she was satisfied that a full consultation exercise had been carried out and that responses to the objections received were detailed within the report.

14.5  Reference was made to the comments made by the Design and Conservation team and the Planning Officer explained that responses to these comments were set out in page 263 of the report.

14.6  Concern was raised over the open plan living areas and bedrooms being located off this in a number of units.  In response, the Planning Officer explained that condition 5 of the recommendation addressed this issue by stating that access to bedrooms separated from living areas with open plan kitchens, as the provision of a bedroom coming off open plan living spaces was not considered conducive.  The applicant added that this only concerned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Demolition of existing sheltered accommodation and redevelopment to provide a part 4, part 5-storey care home (40 units) consisting of 13 units for learning disabilities and 27 units for elderly with communal facilities, 2 car parking spaces, 1 ambulance bay and cycle spaces.

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

14.2  Members wished to clarify the number of car parking spaces being provided and the Planning Officer confirmed that there was a total of six places (including 2 accessible spaces) will be provided on site.

14.3  There being no questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:

1.  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.  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.

Design & Appearance

3.  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.  Facing bricks to be approved

  Full details of the facing brick(s) to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work on the site is commenced. 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.

5.  Ground surface treatment

  Full details of all ground surface treatment to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work on the site is commenced. 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 visual amenity of the area.

6.  Boundary walls to be approved

  Full details, including materials, of all boundary walls, screening, gates and enclosures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work commences on site. The development shall not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.