Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1. There was an apology for absence from Councillor Joseph.

2.1 All the Planning Sub-Committee members had received a number of emails relating to Thoresby House planning application.

RESOLVED, the minutes of the 2^nd July 2020 Planning Sub-Committee meeting were AGREED.

3.1  The minutes of the meeting, held on the 1st July 2020, were agreed as an accurate record of those meeting’s proceedings.

RESOLVED, the minutes of the 2^nd July 2020 Planning Sub-Committee meeting were AGREED.

4.1 There were no proposals/questions referred for consideration.

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

5.1  PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of a new 12 storey building for use as student housing (sui generis) including cycle parking, refuse storage and landscaping.

5.2   POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: The following revisions were provided during the course of the assessment and re-consultation took place from 10/08/20 to 27/08/20:

? Transport Assessment addendum

? Updated basement and ground floor plans

? Updated Energy Statement

? Fire Risk Statement

? Updated Operational Management Plan

? Urban Greening Factor details

5.3   The Planning Service’s Planner, Major Applications Growth Team, introduced the application as set out in the report. During the course of their presentation they made reference made to the addendum and the following:

1.1: This paragraph should read “Royal Chest Hospital” rather than “London Chest Hospital”.

4.2: This paragraph should read “A total of 55 Objection responses have now been received to both the original and second consultation periods and following publication of the committee report.

In addition a petition from the Wenlock Barn Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) with 33signatures has also been submitted. The following new concerns not already listed in the committee report have also been raised:

? The planning application intermittently refers to the site in question as the former site

of the Royal Chest Hospital and the London Chest Hospital – these were distinct institutions, with different histories/attributes. The assessment presented in the application is rendered unusable by this unfortunate confusion. Officer response: The history of the site as part of the Royal Chest Hospital, as well as the existence of other chest hospitals in London is noted in the officer report. Officers consider that sufficiently accurate information on heritage assets has been submitted

to adequately assess the application.

? Historic England declined to give Thoresby House listed status earlier this year. In conversation with HE officials, and in HE's formal decision letter, it was made explicitly clear that this decision did not mean that the building was without historic merit. It simply meant that it fell short of the narrow nationwide listing standards currently set for HE by the government.

  Officer response: The officer report notes that the site is not statutorily  listed but is on the council’s local list and as such is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The heritage impacts of the proposals have been assessed in accordance with development plan policies and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance,

as set out in the officer report.

? The proposals could be used as holiday let accommodation, and there is already a

lot of hotels in the surrounding area The application is for student accommodation.

Permanent use as a hotel or short stay visitor accommodation would require a further

application for planning permission.

? Residents in the surrounding area are spending more time at home in the current

covid-19 pandemic. Therefore environmental impacts from the development, such as

noise and dust during construction will have a greater impact on living conditions.

Officer response: Environmental impacts during the construction period are addressed

in the officers report.

? The surrounding area is predominantly 4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED, planning permission was GRANTED subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement.

6.1 PROPOSAL: Two storey roof extension to the existing building to provide 7 additional

residential units including increased height to stair core; reconfiguration of the ground

floor to include additional bin and cycle storage; and installation of new escape stair

6.2 POST-SUBMISSION AMENDMENTS:

? Reduction in size of scheme from 9 to 7 units

? Reduction of scale of proposed extensions and alterations to rear walkway to

sit above the existing building

? A Construction Management Plan was provided.

? Revised Daylight and Sunlight, Energy and Transport Statements were

submitted

The revised scheme was subject to reconsultation.

An air quality assessment was produced which was not subject to consultation as this

did not materially change the proposal, but added further information.Juliet balconies

were removed and waste storage relocated after reconsultation but the minor nature

of the changes did not warrant further consultation.

6.3 The Planning Service’s Senior Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the published meeting papers. During the course of their presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following:

The section Drawing Numbers on Page 1 should be amended to include: Planning statement prepared by Maddox Planning dated March 2020

An additional paragraph 4.6.4 as follows

4.6.4 Following notification of the committee agenda two additional responses were submitted in objection to the proposal from two previous objectors including one signed by the residents and occupants of the building similar to the previous objections received. The comments raised the same issues that have been outlined above and the following new comment:

- Significant loss of daylight

Officer’s response: This has been addressed in the section 7.6

Paragraph 4.7.3 should be amended as follows Thames Water: No response received. No objection with regard to waste water network and sewage treatment works infrastructure capacity. No objection in relation to water network and water treatment infrastructure capacity. Informative regarding water pressure to be added regarding minimum pressure.

Paragraph 7.13.3 should be amended as follows

The applicant has submitted Noise Impact Assessment (prepared by ALN acoustic design dated 25 March 2020). The Council’s pollution noise team has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objection. Conditions relating to internal ambient noise within the proposed residential units and an assessment of expected noise levels arising from noise associated with plant/equipment will be included. Any issues relating to noise will be dealt with under Building Regulations rather than  through the planning process.

Condition 9.1.3 should be amended as follows:

9.1.3 Details to be approved

Full details (manufacturer’s details and samples if appropriate) of all external materials (including windows, doors, lights, plant enclosure, corrugated metal, corner seams, sills, capping, planters, window reveal finish and balustrades and glazed balconies including structure) and balustrades and 1:20 elevation and section plans to illustrate finish of both west and east facades showing detail of all joins of different materials, sills and thresholds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the relevant parts of the development. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The committee noted the delegated decisions document.