Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Joseph, Potter and Sadek.

2.1  Cllr Desmond declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 5; the declaration was made on the basis that his doctors surgery was next to the site and they were also a member of the patients committee.

2.2  The Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 6; the interest was declared on the basis that the Chair knew one of the representatives for the applicant.

3.1  None.

That the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 3 April 2023, be agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

4.1  The Planning Sub-Committee agreed the minutes of their previous meeting held on 3 April 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 3 April 2023 be agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and completion of a Legal Agreement.

5.1  PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 1, part 2, part 5, and part 6 storey building to accommodate Use Class E employment floorspace at ground and first floor levels and 48 residential dwellings at second to fifth floor levels, with associated external rear deck access, communal amenity terrace, landscaping, bicycle parking and waste / recycling storage facilities.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Revisions to the proposal include:

o Changes to the detailed design of the building

o Provision of affordable housing

A 14 day reconsultation has been undertaken in respect of the amended and additional information.

5.2  A member of Hackney Council’s Planning Service’s Major Applications Team introduced the application report as published. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to published addendum and the following points:

In paragraph 6.5.13 reference is made to a financial contribution of £167,525 to health infrastructure in the area that was requested by the NHS. Since the report was written the applicant has had a chance to respond to this request and they say that paying the contribution would mean a reduction in affordable housing provision. Given what we know about the viability of the scheme the applicant’s claim seems reasonable. In this instance the provision of affordable housing is considered to be a greater priority than the health infrastructure contribution, especially as the scheme would deliver 48 new homes, below the threshold of 50 new homes set out in the Planning Obligations SPD. There is no suggestion that the scheme has been manipulated to be below the threshold.

The wording for Condition 8.1.21 Commercial use was revised.

A number of proposed conditions were included relating to Sustainability measures, these conditions included:

·  8.1.22 Energy Statement 1

·  8.1.23 Energy Statement 2

·  8.1.24 Emission reporting

·  8.1.25 Whole Life and Embodied carbon

·  8.1.26 Whole life and Embodied carbon 2

·  8.1.27 Whole life carbon reporting

·  8.1.28 Circular Economy 1

·  8.1.29 Circular economy 2

·  8.1.30 Overheating 1

·  8.1.31 Overheating 2

·  8.1.33 Air permeability

·  8.1.34 Heat pump and highly efficient boilers - Hybrid heating

·  8.1.35 Active cooling

·  8.1.36 PV panels

·  8.1.37 BREEAM 1

·  8.1.38 BREAM 2

 5.3  The Planning Sub-Committee heard from one person speaking on behalf of several local residents in objection to the application. They raised a number of concerns including the impact of the proposals on car parking in the area, long term management of the development and relationship to the neighbouring Bellevalia Court e.g. the impact on daylight/sunlight, a perceive lack of consultation with local residents on the application and concerns about the impact of the proposals on the future of the neighbouring doctors surgery.

5.4  The Planning Sub-Committee heard from a representative for the applicant who began by giving a brief overview of the benefits of the scheme and how it would provide an asset to the local area. They stressed that the scheme was a car-free scheme and located in Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).  They highlighted that the site was within reasonable walking distance of Clapton railway station  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement in relation to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

6.1  PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing office building and construction of a new ten storey office building (Use Class E(g)(i)) with flexible retail (Use Class E(a)) and restaurant (Use Class E(b)) at ground floor, terraces and other associated works.

  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Removal of Green Walls and amended Urban Greening Factor document

? Submission of suite of Energy and Sustainability documents

? Submission of Transport note

? Submission of TVHIA addendum

? Submission of amended Drainage documents

Planning Sub-Committee – 3 May 2023

? Submission of revised Fire Statement

? Submission of amended Air Quality assessment.

6.2  The Planning Service’s Deputy Team Leader, Major Projects introduced the application report as published. During the course of their presentation reference was made to the published addendum and the following points relating to the application report:

  Air Quality Assessment

  During the course of the application, the applicants had produced an Air Quality Assessment. The wording of paragraph 4.84 of the published application report would be amended to reflect this development.

The two recommended conditions were already within the report. The recommended 7 condition under paragraph 8.1.20, requiring an Air Quality Assessment to be submitted, would be deleted.

Wesley’s Chapel

Following discussions with the Borough’s Heritage Officer in relation to the

impacts on Wesley’s Chapel, the Planning Service noted that the proposed development was marginally visible in View 2 of the TVIA addendum and that, rather than ‘neutral’ the impact in View 4 should be considered at the “low end of less than substantial’ harm. As such, the wording of paragraph 6.4.22 would be amended

Conclusions to the Urban Design, Conservation and Heritage Impacts Section

An erroneous line in the last paragraph (6.4.32) of the Urban Design, Conservation and Heritage Impacts conclusions should be removed. It referred to “the public benefit of its reuse and restoration”. The 6.4.32 paragraph would be amended.

Biodiversity Net Gain

As written, the report did not refer to an area of the existing site with planters providing some existing biodiversity. As such, paragraph 6.5.1 would be amended.

Blue Badge Parking Spaces

The number of required blue badge car parking spaces in the conclusion to the Transport assessment should be one, in line with the assessment in the paragraphs above. As such paragraph 6.5.2 would be amended.

Kiffen Street

Following a query by the applicant and a clarification from the Highways team, one of the Heads of Terms to the legal agreement should be amended to remove reference to ‘cyclists and pedestrians’. This is a private road and the purpose of the Heads of Terms (and the condition) is to make sure that the servicing bay to the rear is always available, not to provide a public through route.

Odour (Restaurant Use)

Since the ground floor use could include a restaurant, an assessment would be added to the amenity section; 6.5.33 Odour, 6.5.34.

There would be two proposed conditions; 8.1.42 Mechanical Ventilation Equipment and 8.1.43 Mechanical Ventilation Equipment maintenance.

Fire Statement

Since the report was written the applicants have amended the submitted Fire Statement to Revision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement.

7.1  PROPOSAL:

Conversion of ground floor community flat meeting rooms (class F2 (b)) to a residential unit (class C3) and provision of cycle store.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

None

7.2  The Hackney Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planning Officer introduced the application report as published.

No persons were registered to speak in objection to the application.

Representatives for the applicant were present to answer questions from the Planning Sub-Committee.

7.3  During a discussion on the proposals the following points were raised:

·  The representative for the applicant explained that that proposed residential unit would be refurbished;

·  In terms of energy efficiency for the residential unit, the representative for the applicant explained that aspect would be part of a wider scheme rather than individual unit;

·  The property was last occupied as a community meeting room for tenants and residents association (TRA) in 2019. There have been no requests since then to use the site for a TRA. There were community halls near to the site, Forrester Community Hall and Herbert Butler Community Hall, which were both fully accessible and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant,  and were situated 0.5 and 0.6 miles, respectively, from the proposed site. There are also other larger more accessible facilities in the area which are not operated by the Council;

·  The proposed cycle storage was to be made out of galvanised steel.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Steve Race (Chair), Cllr Jessica Webb (Vice-Chair), Cllr Michael  Desmond, Cllr Michael Levy, Cllr Jon Narcross, Cllr Lee Laudat-Scott, and Cllr Sarah Young.

Against:  None.

Abstained: None.

RESOLVED:

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

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement.

8.1  PROPOSAL:

Change of use of ground floor community flat meeting rooms (Class F2) to a 1x 1-bedroom self-contained residential unit (Class C3) with the provision of cycle storage.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

None

8.2  The Planning Officer introduced the application report as published. During the course of their presentation reference was made to the published addendum and the following amendments to the published report:

·  The wording of paragraph 5.4.4 was amended.

·  Paragraph 5.8.5 was deleted and replaced with the following wording:

“In terms of accessibility, step-free access is provided at the front entrance which is in accordance with guidance.“

No persons were registered to speak in objection to the application.

Representatives for the applicant were present at the meeting to answer questions.

8.3During the course of a discussion the following points were raised:

·  The Planning Service assured Committee members that the one bedroom self-contained residential unit would be up to current building standards. The representative for the applicant added that the unit would also be subject to building regulations as part of the refurbishment;

·  The property was last occupied as a community flat by the resident’s association and used for residents association meetings and local ward councillor surgeries and had been closed for the past three years;

·  The nearest community hall to the site was the Lea View Community Hall which was fully accessible and DDA compliant. It was situated 182 metres from the community flat. There were also other larger more accessible facilities in the area which were not operated by the Council.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Steve Race (Chair), Cllr Jessica Webb (Vice-Chair), Cllr Michael Desmond, Cllr Michael Levy, Cllr Jon Narcross, Cllr Lee Laudat- Scott, and Cllr Sarah Young.

Against:   None. 

Abstained: None.

RESOLVED:

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

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement.

9.1  PROPOSAL:

Conversion of ground floor community meeting room (class F2 (b) to a

residential unit (class C3) and provision of cycle store to front elevation at ground floor level.

  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

None

9.2  Hackney Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planning Officer introduced the application report as published.

No persons were registered to speak in objection to the application.

Representatives for the applicant were present at the meeting to answer questions from the Sub-Committee.

9.3.1  During a discussion on the application the following points were raised:

·  The floorspace for the proposed unit was 31 square metres (sqm). Sub-Committee members noted that although there is a 6 sqm short fall, this would be acceptable in the circumstances given that it was previously used as a flat and is laid out as such;

·  Some of the Committee members were concerned about a wider trend about the loss of TRA community centres, however, it was noted that the community meeting room had not been used since March 2020. The Council would assist the TRA in looking at an alternative community space. Currently there were 60 active TRAs in the borough, 41 of whom did not have their own community space.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Steve Race (Chair), Cllr Jessica Webb (Vice-Chair), Cllr Michael Desmond, Cllr Michael Levy, Cllr Jon Narcross, Cllr Lee Laudat-Scott, and Cllr Sarah Young.

Against:   None. 

Abstained: None.

RESOLVED:

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

The Planning Sub-Committee noted the delegated decisions document.

10.1  The Planning Sub-Committee noted the delegated decisions document.

RESOLVED:

The Planning Sub-Committee noted the delegated decisions document.

11.1  None.