Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.2  Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ajay Chauhan, Councillor Humaira Garasia and Councillor Michael Levy.

2.1  There was a declaration of interest from Councillor Race; the Councillor had been acting on behalf of local residents in relation to the agenda item 6. Councillor Race would recuse himself from the meeting for the duration of agenda item 6

3.1  There were no proposals/questions referred by the Council’s Monitoring Officer to the Sub-Committee.

4.1  The minutes of the previous meeting, held on the 1 December 2021, 27 October 2021, 6 October 2021 and 7 July 2021, were agreed as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

RESOLVED, the minutes of the previous meetings held on 1 December 2021, 27 October 2021, 6 October and 7 July 2021, were agreed as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

5.1   PROPOSAL: Submission of details pursuant to conditions 4 (enlarged bin store/public w.c.facility) and 9 (Bird and Bat Boxes) of planning permission 2018/0792 dated 07/08/2018.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: None

5.2  The Senior Planner, Major Projects outlined the application as published. During the course of his presentation reference was made to the addendum, which outlined a number of amendments to the report including details of objections raised by local residents and some Hackney Councillors.

5.3  The Sub-Committee first heard from the objectors who felt the proposals did not meet the needs of the users of Gillett Square, particularly those with disabilities and young children. They hoped that any steps that could be taken by the applicant, Hackney Cooperative Development (HCD), to ensure that the security of local residents was not compromised with the installation of toilets would be welcomed. The objectors were of the view that incidents of anti-social behaviour in Gillet Square were not unique to Dalston and to not install toilets in the square because of these incidents was illogical.

The Sub-Committee noted that the representatives for the applicant would be answering questions only.

5.4  The Sub-Committee entered the discussion phase where a number of points were raised including the following:

·  The Sub-Committee expressed concern about the inclusion in the application report of categories of people who would have access to the cafe toilet.The Sub-Committee did not agree with the cafe owner having discretion over which members of the public could use the toilet

·  In the original application from 2018 the condition did not include an obligation for the applicant to provide toilets in the square

·  The applicant explained that they were providing two managed toilets; one in the cafe and one on the ground floor of their building. The cafe would work with HCD to manage use of the toilet

·  On a point of clarification, regarding persons staying in Gillet Square, one of the objectors explained that these persons were not rough sleepers

·  The Sub-Committee noted that the application before them was about the extension of the bin storage area only

·  Hackney Council’s Area Regeneration Manager stated that having unmanaged toilets in Gillet Square would compound those anti-social and crime issues already occurring there

·  The Council’s Partnership Analyst and Performance Manager explained that the situation in Gillet Square was different to the situation in, for example, Hackney Central. The last few years had seen an escalation in violence in the square leading to considerable Council investment in Closed Circuit Television (CCTV). Any unmanaged standalone toilets in Gillet Square  would likely be subject to misuse

·  The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the application was about the extension of the bin storage area but yet the application had included a detailed report from the Secure by Design Officer. The application needed to be clearer. The Chair reminded the Sub-Committee members that the decision to provide public toilets was not part of the application under consideration

·  The Sub-Committee noted that Hackney Council would be subject to challenge if the application was refused  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  PROPOSAL: Replace existing timber windows and doors with uPVC double glazed windows and doors, colour Rosewood.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: None

6.2  The Planning Officer introduced the planning application as published. During the course of his presentation reference was made to the published addendum which included details of an objection to the application.

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

6.4  On a point of clarification, the application was being considered at the meeting because of the objections received.

6.5  The Sub-Committee entered the discussion phase where a number of points were raised including the following:

·  The Senior Quantity Surveyor confirmed that the timber  would be replaced with uPVC. Appearance-wise only the panels would change

·  The focus of the application was on the building’s elevation facing west

·  Hackney Council’s Project Manager for Property and Asset Management, Neighbourhoods and Housing, explained that the Council had identified that it was not an additional requirement to provide additional fire safety measures to the panels because they were the height of the building, but they had taken the decision to upgrade them.

Vote

For:   Councillor Bell, Councillor Hanson, Councillor Joseph, Councillor Stops and Councillor Young.

Against:   None.

Abstention:  None.

RESOLVED, planning permission was agreed subject to conditions.

7.1  PROPOSAL: Erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: A tree plan was provided that showed the existing situation on site as well as the proposed species and number of trees proposed to be removed to facilitate the application. Given the tree plan simply evaluates the need for mitigation, a re-consultation exercise was not deemed necessary

2021/2436

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey rear extension at lower ground floor level including associated alterations to rear staircase and openings on rear elevation at lower and upper ground floor levels.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: A tree plan was provided that showed the existing situation on site as well as the proposed species and number of trees proposed to be removed to facilitate the application. Given the tree plan simply evaluates the need for mitigation, a re-consultation exercise was not deemed necessary.

7.2  The Council’s Planning Service’s Team Leader introduced the application 2021/2489 as published. During the course of the presentation reference was made to the addendum which included drawings that were not part of the A3 plans pack previously circulated.

7.3  No persons were registered to speak in objection to the application. Representatives for the applicant were present at the meeting and were available to answer any questions for both applications.

7.4  The Sub-Committee entered the discussion phase where a number of points were raised about application 2021/2489 including the following:

·  The application was not subject to Permitted Development Rights

·  In terms of drainage the application would include a green roof to help with the run off of rain. It would only partly cover the garden with a sufficient amount of garden space being retained

·  The Sub-Committee noted there was a prevalence for these types of outbuildings in the local area, examples of outbuildings in the wider area were shown on an aerial image.

·  There was a tree replacement condition included (8.1.4 in the report). Any replacement trees would be maintained by the Council for a period of 10 years including the replacement of any plants that die, were severely damaged, seriously diseased, or removed. If the plants did not survive then the Council would be able to take enforcement action.

2021/2489

Vote:

For:  Councillor Bell, Councillor Hanson, Councillor Joseph, Councillor Race, Councillor Stops and Councillor Young

Against:  None

Absentations: None.

RESOLVED, planning permission was agreed subject to conditions.

7.5  The Council’s Planning Service’s Team Leader introduced the application 2021/2436 as published. During the course of the presentation reference was made to the addendum which included drawings that were not part of the A3 plans pack previously circulated.

The Sub-Committee did not raise any questions in relation to application 2021/2436.

2021/2436

Vote:

For:  Councillor Bell, Councillor Hanson, Councillor Joseph, Councillor Race, Councillor Stops and Councillor Young

Against:  None

Absentation: None.

RESOLVED, planning permission was agreed subject to conditions.

8.1  The Sub-Committee noted the document.

RESOLVED, that the delegated decisions document be noted.

9.1  There were no other business items.

10.1  The Sub-Committee noted the following meeting dates:

2022

2 February, 3 March (to be confirmed), 6 April and 27 April.