Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1    Apologies were received from Councillors Joseph, Levy and Potter.

1.2  Councillor Race had reported that he was running later to the meeting. As the councillor would not be present for agenda item 5, 2019/2175 305a Kingsland Road, he would not be eligible to participate in the discussion around and voting process for this agenda item.

2.1  Councillor Stops explained that he had no formal declaration of interest.  For information, he like other member of the Planning Sub-Committee had received various lobbying material from applicants and objectors. This information had been passed to the Planning Service. The chair of the committee added that he had also been contacted via the social media platform Twitter. The tweets had been forwarded on to the planning service.

2.2  Councillor Fajana-Thomas explained that, like the chair of the committee, had also received various correspondence.

2.3.  When Councillor Race joined the meeting at agenda item 6 he made a declaration of interest that he too had received various correspondence from applicants and objectors.

None.

RESOLVED, the minutes of the previous Planning Sub-Committee meetings held on the 23^rd April and the 3rd June were AGREED as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

4.1  The Planning Sub-Committee agreed the minutes of the previous meetings held on the 23rd April 2020 and the 3rd June 2020.

RESOLVED, the minutes of the previous Planning Sub-Committee meetings held on the 23^rd April and the 3rd June were AGREED as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

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

5.1    PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and structures and erection of a part 6 and part 7 (plus basement) storey building comprising flexible workspace and co-living accommodation (sui generis); along with plant; cycle parking; refuse / recycling facilities; and associated works.

POST-SUBMISSION AMENDMENTS: Reduction in massing at site boundary; submission of additional information with regard to biodiversity, heritage, daylight/ sunlight, submission of additional information with regard to the proposed co-living element.

5.2    The Planning Service’s Planner, Major Applications Growth Team, presented the application, as set out in the report. As part of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the addendum which stated the following:

Parking details table: Disabled car parking should read “one space for co-working and one space for co-living to be located in Lee Street”.

4.5.1: 5 additional comments have been received raising the following issues not already covered in the committee report:

?   Inappropriate to proceed with a dense development such as this, in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic Officer response: “the impacts of the Covid-19 are likely to be limited to the short / medium term and are likely to be less than the lifetime of the development. Once planning permission is granted the permission can be implemented at any stage within 3 years of the date of the permission. In addition it is considered that the proposals could be a preferable environment for single people social distancing than many alternatives such as shared C3 housing. Such housing may lack the same level of shared internal space, access to external space, or possibilities for social contact in a socially distanced way”.

?  Other co-living developments are marketed for use as hotels or student  accommodation

Officer response: “It is noted that other co-living developments such as the Old Oak Common example (referenced in the committee report), and another co-living development by the Collective near Canary Wharf (36 Limeharbour, London) accommodate students, and short stay visitors. However it should be noted that the Old Oak Common planning permission permits use of 20% of bed spaces by students. In addition the planning permissions for 36 Limeharbour (London Borough of Tower Hamlets ref: PA/16/01024 and PA/18/1782) are for a hotel use (class C1), which includes a combination of short and long stay accommodation. As such these examples operate in a different manner to the application proposals. Proposed planning conditions will ensure that the application proposals would not be able to be occupied by full time students or a short stay accommodation”.

?  Communal roof terraces in nearby residential developments have recently been used for informal unauthorised parties causing noise disturbance to neighbouring properties.

Officer response: “Concerns regarding this issue are noted. However the management arrangements for a co-living / co working building, with a number of communal managed spaces managed as a single unit, on a 24hr basis by a management team will be materially different to a block of self-contained residential units, with a communal roof terrace. The communal areas of 305A will be clearly under the control and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED, planning permission was GRANTED, subject to conditions.

6.1  PROPOSAL :Erection of part three- and part four-storey building to provide office floorspace with ancillary refuse and cycle storage and landscaping.

6.2  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Revised drawings indicating changes to fenestration and elevation treatments received, which were subject to a second round of consultation

6.3  The Planning Service’s Senior Planner introduced the application as set out in the report. During their presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following:

Paragraph 4.7

Amend to read:

 Consultation letters were sent to 67 neighbouring occupiers. 30 letters of objection have been received, including from the tenants of Canalside Studios, raising the following grounds:

Add to grounds of objection:

? Proposal would overwhelm existing buildings at the site (Officer comment: Officers

are of the view that the development is appropriate in its context and would not

overwhelm existing buildings )

? Proposal would give rise to overlooking of residential units ( Officer comment: This is addressed at paragraphs 6.5.6 and 6.5.7 of the report )

? Proposal would cause loss of outlook by interrupting existing sight-lines and should

be located at least 15m away from canal-facing units (Officer comment: Officers

consider the loss of outlook would be at a level that would not be so significant as to

be harmful)

? Proposal would disrupt a local community and result in displacement of occupiers

(Officer comment: It is noted that the construction phase could have an impact on

existing occupiers, which is addressed in paragraph 6.5.5, none of the existing units

is proposed to be demolished )

? Proposal would harm local enterprises through the introduction of commercial

floorspace ( Officer comment: The provision of office floorspace in this Priority Office

Area is supported by local plan policies, as outlined in paragraphs 6.3.1 to 6.3.6 of

the report)

? Proposal would result in loss of community amenity space on the site of the

development ( Officer comment: a landowner has the right to seek permission to

develop land and this is an informal amenity space due to the under-use of the land,

and an element of open land within the wider site would be retained )

? Proposal would result in noise, vibration, smells and light pollution caused by the

proposed commercial units ( Officer comment: The proposed use is one that is

defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended,

as:

‘being a use, which can be carried out in any residential area without

detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell,

fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit’ )

Any environmental impacts beyond acceptable levels can be reported to and

investigated by the Environmental Protection team under Environmental Health

legislation. Other material impacts have been addressed in the report.

? Proposal would result in increased traffic (Officer comment: The proposal is unlikely to result in significant traffic generation)

? Proposal would place a strain on the drains (Officer comment: The proposal has

been reviewed by Thames Water who have raised no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RESOLVED, planning permission was GRANTED subject to conditions.

7.1    PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 - 4 storey dwelling (use class C3) at rear of the site following demolition of existing 2 storey dwelling.

7.2    POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Revised plans were received on 10 June; the revisions altered annotations on the resubmitted plans to clearly detail that the building mass proposed (as shown by the red line) is the building mass that was permitted under reference no. 2017/1841. No reconsultation was undertaken following the receipt of these amendments as the development has not been materially altered.

7.3    The Planning Service’s Senior Planner introduced the application as set out in the report. During the presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following:

 Amend paragraph 6.4.3 to read

The site is located in an area characterised by a predominantly mid-range mix of building heights and designs. The site is adjoined by a five storey residential block to the east, a seven storey residential block to the south, a five storey hotel to the west and a four storey Grade II listed residential block to the north, just beyond a small courtyard and a row of single storey Grade II listed workshops. The site directly adjoins the southern boundary of the South Shoreditch Conservation Area, and the Boundary Estate Conservation Area is located to the east of the site.

Amend paragraph 6.4.9 to read

Cleeve House and workshops are located on the very edge of the South Shoreditch Conservation Area where the overarching character and uniformity of the area becomes more mixed as a result of greater levels of change. The Boundary Estate, within the boundary of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, is located to the east.

 Amend paragraph 6.4.14 to read

The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact with regards to the

design and appearance of the subject site, the setting of the adjoining

conservation areas and the character and setting of the Grade II listed buildings to the north.

Amend paragraph 8.5 to read

Payment by the landowner/developer of monitoring costs and all the Council’s legal and other relevant fees, disbursements and Value Added Tax in respect of the proposed negotiations and completion of the proposed Legal Agreement.

7.4    A local resident began by objecting to the application being rushed through at the end of the meeting. The chair of the Planning Sub-Committee replied that the application would not be rushed through. The objector explained that the area under discussion was an important piece of grade two listed architecture it was not one building it was a set of workshops. It was important that the edges of the estate were preserved and respected.  There was a 2014 planning application that was on 14 Boundary Street which was refused because of its impact on the workshops on the boundary estate.  The objector cited 7.4. and 7.8 of the local plan, heritage assets, developments affecting heritage assets should conserve their significance and architecture and should be sympathetic to their architecture and detail. It was disputed that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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