Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Joseph and Laudat-Scott.

1.2  Cllr Potter was running late for the meeting, as a result the Councillor would not  participate in the discussion and vote for the planning application at agenda item 5.

A Sub-Committee Member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

·  must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when or when the interest becomes apparent, and

·  may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting proceedings in person or virtually.

A Member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members Interests or the subject of a pending

notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at paragraphs 8.1 - 15.2 of Section 2 of Part 5 of the constitution and

Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

2.1  None were declared.

3.1  None.

Committee members to approve the follow meeting minutes:

·  6 July 2022

·  27 July 2022

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the previous meetings, held on 6 and 27 July 2022, were approved as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

4.1  The minutes of the previous meetings, held on 6 and 27 July 2022, were agreed as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the previous meetings, held on 6 and 27 July 2022, were agreed as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement.

5.1  PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey dwelling to form one bedroom house.

  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

 ? Revisions to the front facade removing slatted metal louvres and replacing them with brick; panels removed from windows. No further consultations were required on the amendments as the design changes were not considered to be substantial to require further reconsultation.

5.2  The Council’s Senior Planning Officer introduced the planning application as published.

5.3  The Sub-Committee first heard from two local residents speaking in objection to the application. They raised a number of concerns about the proposals including the impact on the conservation area, the removal of an existing tree, loss of light/overshadowing, loss of privacy and the height of the proposed structures.

5.4  Three Hackney Councillors spoke next in objection to the application. They had been approached by local residents with a number of concerns about the proposed development including the undermining of local plan LP47 and the impact on biodiversity, to the lack of a Basement Impact Assessment to the loss of garden space. There were also concerns expressed about a green space potentially being paved over which would not allow for the adequate drainage of surface water.

5.5  An architect and the owner of the site spoke next in support of the proposals. They acknowledged that the site under discussion was a constrained site and they highlighted that the proposals were not overbearing. On the issue of biodiversity the architect highlighted that a bio-diverse, substrate-based extensive green roof had been conditioned to aid in surface drainage. The owner gave a brief overview of the history of the site and they explained that they were keen to move forward with the development of the site.

5.6    The Sub-Committee meeting entered the discussion phase where the  following points were highlighted:

·  The Planning Service acknowledged that there had been existing high boundary treatments around the site for some time. Originally the development would align with number 3 Filey Avenue’s rear extension and it was this extension’s windows that the Planning Service had considered, because of issues around enclosure and the impact on light. It was felt that height of the proposed development was not considered to be significantly affected, therefore it was concluded that there could not be any significant impact on the adjoining properties in terms of light because the proposed development was situated due north of them. The proposed development would mostly sit within the existing height of the boundary treatments and that there would be an increase in the height with the new development but that this would be minimal in comparison to the existing fencing and would not have an adverse impact on light or outlook. A gap of one metre was concluded by the Planning Service to be not be so significant that it would result in unacceptable sense of enclosure;

·  The Council’s Drainage and Conservation, Urban Design and Sustainability (CUDS) teams were satisfied with the measure in place to mitigate against sustainable drainage and any flood resilient measures. There were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A motion to defer the application was proposed by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Young.

This motion was carried unanimously. The Sub-Committee agreed to defer the application to allow for the consideration of the matter at the next Planning Sub-Committee meeting.

6.1  PROPOSAL: Submission of details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 4 (Detailed Drawings), 5 (Construction Management Logistics Plan), 7, (Contaminated Land), 11 (Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement) 12 (Landscaping), 13 (Green Roof) & 16 (Obscure Glazing) attached to planning permission 2018/4324 dated 13/07/2020.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Revised Construction Management and Logistics Plan received revised facade drawings received.

6.2  The Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planning Officer - North Team introduced the planning application as set out in the published papers. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following amendments to the application:

  Revised Construction Management (Rev B) received 07/09/2022

Email requesting omission of Tree Protection condition (condition 11) from this application, received 07/09/2022

In connection with the omission of condition 11 (Tree Protection) from this application, revised description of proposal:

Submission of details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 4 (Detailed

Drawings), 5 (Construction Management Logistics Plan), 7, (Contaminated Land), 12 (Landscaping), 13(Green Roof) & 16 (Obscure Glazing) attached to planning permission 2018/4324 dated 13/07/2020.

Drawing Numbers: PL04 Rev A; PL05 Rev C; PL07 Rev A; Land Science

Phase I and Phase II Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Report reference

LS5267;

Construction Management Plan Rev B dated 07/09/2022

In connection with the omission of condition 11 (Tree Protection) from this application, delete paragraphs 6.1.6 and 6.1.13 and renumber retained paragraphs accordingly

6.3  The Sub-Committee first heard from a local resident speaking in objection to the application. They raised concerns about how access to other premises would be maintained during construction works. It was also unclear from the proposals how noise and disturbance from construction process would be managed.

6.4  A local Councillor spoke next in objection, speaking on behalf of local residents. They echoed the local residents' concerns about local residents' access to the private road and the wording of condition 5.

The Sub-Committee noted that no persons were registered to speak in support of the application.

6.5  The Sub-Committee meeting entered the discussion phase where the following points were highlighted:

·  Regarding access to the private road, the Senior Planning Officer stressed that ultimately it was a private matter. A revised Construction Management Plan (CMP) had been received on the day of the meeting which indicated that there would be no parking for operatives on Springdale Mews. The CMP had already stated that there would be no parking on Springdale Road which the Council did have jurisdiction over;

·  The Planning Service understood that the unloading of any equipment relating to the construction phase may lead to a  short term interruption;

·  The Sub-Committee noted that the Council’s transport team had reviewed the CMP, however as previously mentioned, that Council did not have jurisdiction over the private road because it was not part of the public highway;

·  Objectors disputed the assertion from the Planning Service that the constructors would not park on the private road. It was suggested that because of the nature of the construction involved that they would have to park on the driveway and that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RESOLVED:

Details were approved.

7.1  PROPOSAL: Submission of details pursuant to condition 3 (external materials) attached to planning permission 2016/0466 dated 15/06/2020.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Revised drawings indicating a soldier course requested.

7.2  The Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planning Officer - North Team introduced the planning application as set out in the published papers. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following amendments to the application:

Revised drawings received 30/08/2022

Drawing numbers: PR.101 Rev A; PR.102 Rev A; PR.103 Rev A

Officer comment: These drawings indicate a soldier course above the ground floor.

The Sub-Committee noted that no persons were registered to speak in objection or support of the application.

7.3  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the condition had been brought before the Sub-Committee was a standard condition. In the original submission  the accompanying drawings had just stated brick, however this could in retrospect could refer to any type of brick. For a building of this scale in the application it was necessary to specify the type of brick.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Levy, Cllr Narcross, Cllr Potter, Cllr Race, Cllr Sadek, Cllr Webb and Cllr Young.

Against:  None.

Abstention:  None.

RESOLVED:

Details were approved.

RESOLVED:

The Delegated Decisions document, subject to one minor amendment, was noted.

8.1  The decisions document from the previous meeting, held on 27 July 2022, which had incorrectly listed the ward allocations for the planning applications, would be submitted to the next meeting for noting.

8.2  The Planning Sub-Committee noted, subject to one minor amendment, the contents of the Delegated Decisions document for the meeting - one of the applications had been incorrectly listed in the Brownswood ward when it was actually in the Woodberry Down ward.

RESOLVED:

The delegated decisions document, subject to one minor amendment, was noted.

.

9.1  None.

The Planning Sub-Committee to note the following meeting dates:

2022

28 September

2 November

7 December

2023

11 January

1 February

22 February

3 April

3 May

10.1  Sub-Committee members noted the following meeting dates:

2022

28 September

19 October (Pre-Application)

2 November

7 December

2023

11 January

1 February

22 February

3 April

3 May

Sub-Committee members noted that the 19 October 2022 pre-application meeting would start at the late time of 7:00pm and would be held in the Committee Rooms at Hackney Town Hall.