Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Joseph, Councillor Levy and Councillor Potter.

1.2   Councillor Krautwirt was attending as a substitute member in place of Councillor Levy.

A Member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

·  must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when or when the interest becomes apparent, and

·  may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting proceedings in person or virtually.

A Member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members Interests or the subject of a pending

notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are

defined at paragraphs 8.1 - 15.2 of Section 2 of Part 5 of the constitution and

Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

2.1  The Sub-Committee members declared an interest in relation to agenda items 5 and 7; members had received various lobbying materials in objection to the application.

2.2  It was noted that at item 7 the Chair and the ward Councillor who was registered to speak in objection were Councillors for the same ward in Hackney.

2.3  It was also noted that the Sub-Committee members all knew the Hackney Ward Councillors registered to speak at agenda items 5, 6 and 7.

3.1  There were no proposals or questions referred to the Committee from the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

No minutes available for approval at this meeting.

No minutes were submitted for approval at the meeting.

4.1   No minutes were submitted for approval at the meeting.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions, Unilateral Undertaking, no issues arising from consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, and referral to the Greater London Authority.

5.1  PROPOSALS; All works associated with site clearance of six sites and erection of five buildings of six storeys and a four storey row of ten terraced houses, to provide 189 mixed tenure residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and 593m2 of non-residential space (Use Class E); landscaping to include residential courtyards, public realm, tree planting, the provision of play space, reorganisation of existing car parking and all associated Infrastructure.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Ground floor footprint reduced on corner of Downham Road and Southgate Road;

? Internal revisions to allow amended fire strategy;

? Trees retained on Downham Road;

? Pillar removed on Hertford Road;

? Development description amended to refer to 593m2 non-residential space, following amended Design and Access statement.

These amendments are sufficiently minor that it has been considered unnecessary to carry out a further consultation on the application.

5.2   The Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planner, Major Projects, introduced the planning application as set out in the published report. During the course of the presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following amendments to the application report:

·  The Borough’s Streetscene team have requested that references to ‘road safety audit’ be replaced with ‘safety audit’. As such, paragraph 6.5.26 should be amended;

·  Accordingly, condition 44 would be amended to add further details as to what is expected by the condition;

·  The Greater London Authority had requested an additional condition.

5.3   The Committee heard from a local ward Councillor who raised objections on behalf of local residents. Local residents had raised a number of concerns including; the proposed development’s impact on the character of the area, the impact on daylight, sunlight, outlook and the sense of enclosure at neighbouring properties and the loss of green space on the corner of Southgate and Downham Roads. There were also concerns raised including the loss of existing mature trees, too little open space was proposed for the new residents, more bicycle storage should be provided for existing residents, the impact on existing residents during the construction period and the Downham Road East buildings would narrow the pavement at the corner of Downham and De Beauvoir road making them unsafe for pedestrians.

5.4  The Committee heard from a ward Councillor in support of the application. The Councillor spoke of the benefits of the proposed scheme and would provide genuine affordable housing. The Committee noted that on the De Beauvoir Estate there was a real need to provide homes for many families. The housing that was to be created was of a high quality and the public space that was proposed would be well lit for the community to use.

5.5  The Committee briefly heard from the Council’s Head of Housing Supply Programme, who concurred with the ward Councillor that the proposals would provide much needed high quality housing for local families in need. The applicant had provided at the meeting sample materials and an architectural model. The Committee members briefly examined the materials and the model.

5.6   The meeting entered the discussion phase where the following points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

6.1  PROPOSAL: Retrospective permission for the erection of rear extension at lower ground floor level and part ground floor level, the enlargement of the front lightwell and alterations to the rear elevation.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Basement was removed from the plans, the lightwell enlarged to show what previously existed on site and minor alterations to the front and rear elevations to accurately reflect the pre-existing, existing and proposed site conditions. Re-consultation was carried out in the form of letters to surrounding occupiers and objectors, erection of a site notice and publication of a press notice post submission of revised drawings.

6.2  The Planning Officer introduced the planning application as set out in the published report.

There were no persons registered to speak in objection to the application.

6.3  A local ward Councillor spoke in support of the application. They recognised that there were ongoing concerns from local residents and it was hoped these could be resolved.

6.4  The applicant also spoke briefly about the history of the scheme and how they felt that, if approved, it would bring back into use an empty property.

  The agent for the applicant declined to speak.

6.5  The Committee noted that the application was seeking retrospective permission and that the plans were reflective of other similarly approved designs in the local area.

No further questions were raised by the Sub-Committee members.

Vote

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Krautwirt, Cllr Laudat-Scott, Cllr Narcross, Cllr Sadek, Cllr Race, Cllr Webb and Cllr Young.

Against:  None.

Abstention:  None.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

RESOLVED:

Conditional planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

7.1  PROPOSAL: Temporary planning permission for the erection of an additional storey at 2nd floor level to provide 658 sqm of external seating space together with 175 sqm of internal space for flexible Class E (a) retail, (b) restaurant and (d) indoor recreation use with ancillary storage/WCs/facilities space, until 31st May 2023.

POST-SUBMISSION REVISIONS: There have been minor design amendments at roof level post-submission in order to address officer feedback. Some additional information has also been submitted in relation to transport. A reconsultation exercise has been undertaken following the submission of this additional information.

7.2  The officer from the Planning Service’s Major Applications Team introduced the planning application as set out in the published report. During the course of their presentation reference was made to the addendum in which it was noted that since the publication of the report one additional objection has been received from a local resident.

7.3  A local ward Councillor and two residents spoke in objection to the application raising concerns about the application’s potential to increase incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and noise.

7.4  The applicants spoke next giving a brief overview of the benefits of the scheme and also addressing those objections raised. They had submitted two additional images for consideration at the meeting. These were circulated to all meeting participants.

7.5  A discussion took place where a number of points were raised including the following:

·  The previously granted planning permission for Bishopsgate Goods Yard was considered useful as background information to help frame the proposals under consideration;

·  Planning officers noted that this was a finely balanced recommendation. The possibility of increased amenity impacts was noted, but this needed to be considered in the context of the surrounding environment and it was hard to determine that increased impacts from this one use would necessarily be harmful;

·  The applicants were in an ongoing dialogue with residents on Shoreditch High Street. There were 52 objections received but the applicants stressed that it was important to distinguish between complaints about the whole site and objections to their specific application. The applicants felt that they had done all they could to reduce noise breakout in response to the objections received;

·  The additional images submitted showed the proposed structure both with and without the roof. The roof would be movable and when closed would provide extra noise protection;

·  The Planning Service acknowledged that the proposals, if granted, could see an increase in footfall to the area, however, they had concluded that given the temporary nature of the proposals and subject to mitigation, it was not considered that the cumulative impact would be such that it would warrant refusal of the application;

·  The applicants confirmed that there would be  a manager on site to respond to any complaints raised by local residents;

·  Wider issues relating to licensing were not a material planning issue;

·  The applicants highlighted that they were just a small part of a much larger site with several other late night premises in the immediate vicinity.

Vote

For:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement.

8.1  PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey roof extension to provide an additional 7 classrooms at third floor level for existing students; rooftop playground and balustrade above including increase in brick wall at second floor level to allow extension of eastern core to provide access to playground; extension of central lift shaft to provide roof access; raised parapet; 15 air conditioning units on roof with enclosure; and access ramp with balustrade and stairs to provide ground floor access.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Noise Impact Assessment, Construction Logistics Plan and revised plans were received Consultation was carried out on these documents.

8.2  The Planning Service’s Major Projects Planner introduced the planning application as set out in the published report. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the published addendum and the following amendments to the application report:

·  Comments were received from two objectors outlining their previous comments following publication of the report. The comments raised have been addressed in the officer’s report;

·  Additional paragraphs were added at paragraphs 3.15 and 4.2.3;

·  An additional condition, 8.1.15 Air conditioning units, was added.

No persons were registered to speak in objection to the application.

8.3  The agent for the applicant spoke giving a brief overview of the scheme and its benefits.

8.4  A discussion took place where a number of points were raised including the following:

·  Concerns raised by local residents about excessive noise were being addressed by the Council’s Environmental Health team;

·  A condition had been included to ensure that the rooftop playground had been designed with an acoustic boundary;

·  The playground would be restricted to 60 children at any one time, Mondays to Fridays.  The playground was set down into the roof which would allow sound to travel upwards mitigating against noise breakout;

·  The application had been submitted on the assumption that there would not be an increase in the number of students on site. The inclusion of additional classrooms were to allow those students already on the school roll to have smaller class sizes.The planning application allowed Hackney Council to cap the number of students at the school’s current total number. The school was made up of a number of different buildings and that the cap only applied to the development of site under consideration at the meeting;

·  If there was a breach of condition regarding the cap the Council could use its enforcement powers;

·  The Committee noted taking away 60 children from the ground floor to use the rooftop playground would reduce the amount noise coming out of the ground floor;

·  The proposed mansard would be taller due to the rooftop playground. Overall though the Planning Service found the design  acceptable;

·  The surrounding area was varied in nature with school buildings, low terraced houses and other flat developments with different heights;

·  On the issue of amenity impacts, the buildings to the north were sufficiently set away from the main school building and would not be impacted by loss of light or overlooking. The building to the east,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

RESOLVED:

Details were approved.

9.1  PROPOSAL: Submission of details pursuant to conditions 4c and 4d (detailed drawings of cycle and refuse stores) and part of condition 8 (landscaping to the front garden) attached to planning permission 2019/2907 dated 11/11/2019.

  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: None.

9.2  The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application report as set out in the published papers.

No persons were registered to speak in objection or support of the planning application.

9.3  The Sub-Committed noted that the application had been reviewed by the Council’s Conservation and Design officers and they had concluded that the proposals were acceptable.

No further questions were raised by the Sub-Committee members.

Vote

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Krautwirt, Cllr Laudat-Scott, Cllr Narcross, Cllr Sadek, Cllr Race, Cllr Webb and Cllr Young.

Against:  None.

Abstention:  None.

RESOLVED:

Details were approved.

Document removed from pack after formatting errors identified at the 27 July 2022 meeting by committee members. Reformatted document resubmitted at the 2 November 2022 meeting.

The delegated decisions document, due to formatting issues, was not approved.

10.1  Committee members noted that there were issues with the formatting of the document. The document would be amended and resubmitted for publication.

Due to formatting issues the delegated decisions document was not approved by the Sub-Committee.

The Planning Sub-Committee to note the following meeting dates:

2022

7 September

28 September

2 November

7 December

2023

11 January

1 February

22 February

3 April

3 May

11.1  Committee members noted the following Planning Sub-Committee meeting dates:

2022

7 September

28 September

2 November

7 December

2023

11 January

1 February

22 February

3 April

3 May

12.1  The Committee wished the Planning Service’s Principal Conservation and Design Officer, Timothy Walder, all the best for the future as he was shortly to leave Hackney Council.