Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1   Apologies were received from Councillor Joseph. The committee wished to pass on their congratulations to her on the news of the birth of her child.

1.2  Councillor Fajana-Thomas reported that she was running late to the

meeting

2.1   The Chair of the Planning Sub-Committee (PSC) reported that he had

an allotment plot near to Leaside Road (see agenda item 6). He added

that he had no financial interest in the allotment plot.

None.

None.

RESOLVED, that planning permission was GRANTED subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement in relation to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Councillor Fajana-Thomas joined the meeting after this agenda item had begun (see agenda item 1). According to the procedure rules, as set out in Hackney Council’s Constitution, the councillor did not participate in the discussion and the vote for agenda item 5 only.

5.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of two single storey buildings at the rear of the

site and demolition of substation to front of building, works of

refurbishment, alteration and extension to two existing buildings on the

Hertford Road frontage in association with their use as light or general

industrial (B1/B2 Use Class) at basement to second floor levels, erection

of a three-storey terrace of six 3-bed houses at the rear of the site,

erection of a three storey commercial (B1/B2 Use Class) building around

a courtyard, provision of B8 storage a basement alongside associated

landscaping and cycle parking. Listed Building Consent: Works to

curtilage listed boundary wall with properties of De Beauvoir Square

[works in relation to planning application 2009/2842].

5.2 POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

This application has undergone numerous revisions since initially being

made valid in December 2009. Notwithstanding this, the following

(headline) revisions have been secured since the proposal was

presented to Members of Planning sub-committee in September 2010,

where conditional planning permission was granted, subject to

completion of the legal agreement:

? Removal of 9 car parking spaces and landscaping of central

courtyard;

? Reduction from 9 (6x3b, 3x4b) residential units to 6 (6x3b);

Page 74

Wednesday, 3rd June, 2020

? Increase of 762sqm B1/B2 use employment floorspace

5.3 The Planning Service’s Senior Planner, Major Projects, presented the

application report. During his presentation reference was made to the

addendum and the following changes:

The application before the PSC had two numbers listed; 2009/2842

(Planning application) AND 2020/0684 (Listed building consent):

The final paragraph of section 4.5.2 should be amended to read:

One additional objection has been received in response to the latest reconsultation

from 2019. It is made on the following grounds:

? Impact of proposal on conservation area, townscape, listed buildings

of De Beauvoir Square;

? Lack of detail in the drawings, lack of townscape Computer Generated

Images (CGIs);

? The scheme has changed so much that the documents originally

submitted, such as the Heritage Statement have become out of date.

Another correspondent has commented that no additional overlooking

should be allowed towards the properties of Hertford Road and that the

applicant should pay for Buddleia damage to a party wall.

Officer’s Response to additional objection and comment:

The impact of the proposal in respect of local character, conservation

and amenity has been considered in the committee report. The

submitted documents are considered to be sufficient (and sufficiently

detailed) to allow consideration of the merits of the scheme and of the

necessity for conditions requiring further details to be submitted at the

next stage. Overlooking is considered in the main body of the report.

Damage to a party wall is a civil matter, though it is noted that the

purpose of this application is to bring into repair the heritage buildings of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED, that conditional planning permission was GRANTED subject to a Legal Agreement.

6.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing car park (sui generis) to

provide a seven-storey building comprising 22 residential units

(use class C3) and commercial floorspace (use class B1) at

ground, first, and part second floors.

6.2 POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Provision of 100% affordable workspace at 60% of market rent.

? Moving the position of the balcony for flat 10 and alterations to

the shape and size of the balconies for flats 5 and 15.

? Alterations to cycle storage to provide separate cycle parking

facilities for residential and commercial users, as well as the

inclusion of showers and lockers for the B1 space

Page 79

Wednesday, 3rd June, 2020

? Alterations to refuse storage to provide separate refuse stores

for the residential and commercial space. The changes are

minor in nature and do not materially change the appearance,

character, scale or scope of the proposal as originally consulted

on so re-consultation was not considered necessary.

6.3 The Planning Service’s Planning Officer (Major Applications)

introduced the planning application as set out in the report. During

the course of the presentation reference was made to the

addendum and the following amendments:

Para 8.1.30 should be amended to read:

8.1.30 Installation of plant, and machinery and telecommunications

equipment

No plant or machinery or telecommunications equipment shall be

installed on the external surfaces of the building without the submission

toand agreement by the local planning authority.

REASON: In order to safeguard the appearance of building and the

amenity of future and surrounding occupiers.

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

6.4 The Planning Sub-Committee briefly heard from the architect and

the applicant. They spoke of how the scheme was being built on

left over land and would be a mixed used scheme. The scheme

was aimed at predominantly the Orthodox Jewish community and

the workspace to be provided would be at no more than 60% of

the local market rate. The applicant added that during the preapplication

process they had worked closely with the Planning

Service to produce a positive report with the first of its kind

development in Stamford Hill. The proposals were likely to raise

the bar for design in the locality and would introduce a building of

landmark character to the site. The brick work used would be

honey tone in texture.

6.5 The Chair invited committee members to ask questions. The

following points were raised:

? The Planning Service’s Senior Urban Design Officer

explained that Officers are content with the proposed height

of the scheme as it was on a slight hill so the step up in

height is appropriate to its hillside context. It would match the

changing topography of the immediate landscape. The officer

added that it was also felt that the development sat

comfortably amongst the emerging residential area

? The Planning Service had received a submission from the

Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) Designing out Crime

officer highlighting the types of crime in the area and also

Page 80

Wednesday, 3rd June, 2020

suggesting a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The planning application was DEFERRED and withdrawn from the meeting agenda.

The planning application was deferred and withdrawn from the meeting agenda.

RESOLVED, that the Planning Sub-Committee NOTED the contents of the Delegated Decisions document.

Noted.