Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies were received from Councillors Bell and Joseph.

2.1  Councillor Race stated that application 2029/2458 New Era Estate (item 5) was in his ward.  He added that he had been in contact with the applicant, Dolphin Living, about it previously. He had also been to an exhibition as part of their consultation and he had in his capacity as a local ward councillor canvassed local residents about the plans and had enquired over email about the delayed timelines. The councillor had consulted with the planning legal officers was of the view that he had not pre judged the application and on this basis, with the agreement of the legal officer he was going to participate in agenda item 5.

The legal officer gave a visual indication of agreement of this statement.

2.2  It was noted that all Committee members had been emailed before the meeting with a briefing document from the Chief Executive of Dolphin Living. This email had been forwarded on to the planning service by governance services.

2.3   It was also noted that all Committee members had been emailed additional information, via governance services, from one of the objectors to application 2018/4441 Finn House (item 7). The planning service had had prior sight of the additional information before being circulated to the committee members.

None.

DEFERRED, the 23^rd April 2020 Planning Sub-Committee meeting minutes would be approved at the next meeting.

4.1  Committee members would email the Chair of the committee with their amendments to the 23^rd April 2020 Planning Sub-Committee meeting minutes. The minutes would be approved at the next meeting.

DEFERRED, the 23^rd April 2020 Planning Sub-Committee meeting minutes would be approved at the next meeting.

RESOLVED, planning permission was GRANTED subject to completion of a S106 agreement.

5.1 PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the New Era Estate to provide 199 residential units and 344 square metres (sqm) of flexible retail floorspace, provided across buildings ranging from 3 – 14 storeys, together with associated landscaped communal amenity space, secure cycle parking spaces and refuse storage facilities.

5.2 POST-SUBMISSION AMENDMENTS: N/A

5.3 The planning service’s Planner, Major Applications Growth Team, introduced his report, as set in the meeting papers. During his presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following:

A written statement has been submitted by Cllr Kam Adams, Cllr for Hoxton East and Shoreditch and Speaker of Hackney:

“Having been a councillor for Hoxton East & Shoreditch Ward since May 2014 and having lived on the Colville Estate for over 30 years I am very familiar with the New Era Estate. Having visited the estate and residents living on the estate many times, I can confirm it was home to a number of large family groups, the caretaker manager never advertised vacant flats to the general public any new lettings were advertised through word of mouth so the estate was full of the children that were born and grew up on the estate, relatives and friends. The estate was affordable as the landlord held rent at about 50% of the market rate. However, the residents were responsible for repairs, installing their own kitchens and bathrooms in return for cheap rents. Rents were paid in envelopes through the post box of the caretaker’s office. In 2014, shortly after being elected as ward councillor, I became aware of the concerns that the residents on the estate had about their new landlord, Private Equity firm Westbrook who bought the estate from Robert Lever. They announced their intention to increase rents by 10%, which the residents said they couldn’t afford and faced the prospect of being made homeless within months. Since Dolphin acquired the New Era estate in 2014 they have worked with residents to secure the future of the estate. From August 2017, when they first raised with residents, the possibility of rebuilding the estate, Dolphin have kept me informed of their plans. They have invited me to the 4 resident drop-in sessions and shared resident newsletters with me. I raised the following matters with Dolphin: Affordable rent on the estate, which they responded by introducing personalised rent whereby households would pay according to their income with the majority of increases at CPI 1% and put a cap on rent increases at CPI plus 4.5%. During this time the feedback I have received from residents of the estate has been positive and residents were generally happy and said that the new rent arrangement has worked well for the estate. I have also been contacted by other constituents about their build regarding what would happen to their rent and to the resident while the estate is demolished. They also raised the issue of the cost of moving. I raised these matters with Dolphin and they listened and addressed these concerns by promising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED, conditional planning permission was APPROVED subject to a legal agreement.

6.1 PROPOSAL:

Demolition of the existing office building and redevelopment of the site by the erection of a building 23 storeys in height plus double basement, the building to accommodate offices (within the B1 Use Class - 4,564m2) at lower ground level, ground floor level, mezzanine level and levels 01 to 04, and a hotel (within the C1 Use Class - 210 keys and 6,537m2) at ground floor and levels 5 to 20, with ancillary office and hotel accommodation at basement level, lower ground level, ground floor, roof (plant) level, and roof level, with associated public realm works.

6.2 POST-SUBMISSION AMENDMENTS:

Amendments have been made to the design of the building comprising a reduction in height of 15m (approximately four storeys) with corresponding decreases in floor area and some minor changes to facade design. A re-consultation exercise has been undertaken.

6.3 The Planning Service’s Senior Planning Office introduced the application. As part of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following:

Approved Plans

The following document should be added to the approved plans:

- Area Schedule dated 19/06/2020

4.6 Neighbours

4 additional consultation responses have been received from nearby residents.

The issues raised can be summarised as follows:

- Daylight/sunlight impacts of the development

- Inappropriate height in this location

- Pedestrian and highways impacts of the development

- Privacy impacts

- Will prevent servicing of commercial building to north from Silbury Street.

(OFFICER NOTE: There is currently no servicing allowed from Silbury St so

restriction of vehicular access on this street should not impact servicing of

nearby commercial units).

- Wind impacts 10

- Impact on local parkin- Impact on the views from nearby residential buildings (OFFICER NOTE: This is not a material planning consideration).

- Amenity Impacts of hotel use.

- Environmental impacts of another large construction project in the area.

The issues raised above are considered to have been addressed in the officer

report unless otherwise noted above.

4.7 Local Groups / Other Consultees

The following additional consultation response has been received:

Shoreditch Conservation Area Advisory Committee Objection. Although the site is outside the conservation area, it is close enough(two streets away from the Underwood CA) for concern that the overbearing

scale, height and massing of this project will have a detrimental impact on the

area. Although there are towers close to the Old Street roundabout, this

proposal extends the cluster further up East Road, creating a strip of tall

buildings, with a wind tunnel effect. Context for the proposal should take into

account the low brick buildings in the block immediately adjacent to the East.

OFFICER NOTE: The issues raised above are considered to have been

addressed in the report.

Amendments

*All amendments shown in italics*

The following amendments should be made to section 6:

6.1 The Principle of the Use

At 6.1.1 the word ‘net’ should be added after the reference to the GLA hotel

targets. The full sentence should read as follows:

The GLA’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The planning application was NOT APPROVED.

7.1 PROPOSAL: Erection of roof extension at main roof level for the provision of 8 residential flats (Class C3) with associated refuse/recycling and cycle parking at ground floor level.

7.2 POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: The number of family units has been increased and the layout of accommodation revised. This has been facilitated by a reduction in the number of units proposed by 1. Alterations have also been made to relocate the refuse and recycling to the rear of the site. Two units were reduced by one bed space each. More detail was sought on townscape impacts, landscaping, stacking and refuse storage

7.3 The planning officer introduced the application report as set out in the meeting papers and during the course of their presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following:

- Additional information from an objector was sent to Governance Services for circulation to members. The objection is as follows

- Previous planning permissions have restricted to four storeys on Bevenden Road

- Play space is not provided (Officer’s note: Child yield for the development using the GLA’s calculator is about 1.5 children. Developments under 10 children are not required to provide play space)

- Accessibility - a lift hasn't been provided

- Waste collection - bins to the rear

- Private amenity space is undersized

- Affordable housing isn't provided

- Noise transmission issues

- Landscaping and biodiversity issues due to loss of trees

Waste management company has changed (Officer’s note: Details of the refuse management strategy are reserved by condition)

- Daylight impacts on ground floor flats have not been addressed (Officer’s note:

Details of the bin store will be reserved by condition. The bin stores, by reason of their proximity to the residential windows, are not considered to adversely affect the daylight and sunlight of the residential occupiers. It should also be noted there is an existing hedge located between the closest affected windows and refuse area that will be retained.

- Heritage report states that the height will have a minimal impact on street scene

- The development is contrary to policy on design and guidance on quality

Officer’s note: The issues raised above have been addressed in the officer’s report unless otherwise noted.  

6. Recommendations

6.1.11 Waste/Recycling collection

Remove text of condition 6.1.11 and replace with the following:

Notwithstanding the details in Planning Addendum V2 dated June 2020 and Letter from

Pier Management Limited to Jamie Milne dated 16 October 2019 ref.

DH/FINNHSE01-33, details of a refuse management plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the development. The plan shall cover the following:

• Cleaning and waste removal including arrangements for refuse to be presented to the kerbside for collection and returned to the site the same day;

• The organisation that will be contracted;

• Contact details for any complaints;

• Monitoring and review of operations.

The refuse management plan shall be implemented, and the site shall be managed in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The planning application was WITHDRAWN from the meeting agenda.

8.1  The application was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the agent, as they wished to submit further revised details.

The planning application was WITHDRAWN from the meeting agenda.

RESOLVED, the submission of details to discharge conditions 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 and associated with planning permission 2016/1963 dated 7/12/2018 were APPROVED.

9.1 PROPOSAL: Submission of details to discharge conditions 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 28 associated with planning permission 2016/1963 dated 7/12/2018.

9.2 POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Revised details received. Consultation for approval of details not required.

9.3 The planning officer presented the application as set out in the meeting report.

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

9.4 The agent for the applicant began by thanking the committee and planning service for asking for a one to one mock up. It had generated some excitement in the community and it was a tangible way of understanding of what was proposed. The agent recommended that in the future the conditions were worded slightly differently, he added that he was aware that other major applications have one to one mock-ups for approval and that this was a) normally dealt with under delegated powers and b) it was pre-demolition requirement pre-commencement. It was felt that it would make it much easier to procure the one to one samples and make it part of the building contract, however when the time frame is uncertain it was difficult to get a contract in place without exposing the applicant to great risk from time delays in the case of this application the applicant was a charity and the agent submitted the application in November 2019 and even a better idea was to require a one to one mock-up to be approved before any development because above ground. Finally the agent thanked all the council officers for all their help during these strange times the lines of communication had been open at all times and the agent was very grateful for this and also they thanked the planning committee for running the meeting virtually and late into the night.

9.5 The chair of the committee explained that the reason the committee had made this request was because the materials and cladding that the applicant was introducing was quite unique.

9.6 One of the committee members of the committee queried whether there would be any confusion caused by putting a larger number 45 on the front of a building whose address was actually number 33? It was acknowledged that the 45 was reference to 45th street in New York but it was doubtful that many people would get the reference. It was suggested that this was not a planning matter.

Vote:

For: Unanimous*

*Except Councillor Fajana-Thomas who had left the meeting at the end of agenda item 6.

A full list of the conditions can be accessed via the following link to the Hackney Council website:

http://mginternet.hackney.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=125&MId=4949 26

RESOLVED, the submission of details to discharge conditions 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 and associated with planning permission 2016/1963 dated 7/12/2018 were APPROVED.

RESOLVED, the Planning Sub-Committee NOTED the delegated decisions document.

10.1  The committee members noted the contents of the delegated decisions document.

RESOLVED, the Planning Sub-Committee NOTED the delegated decisions document.