Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 502 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA. View directions
Contact: Emma Perry
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: 1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hanson, Stauber and Tesler.
1.2 An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Desmond. |
|
|
Members to agree the order of business Minutes: 2.1 Item 6 – 191 Evering Road was withdrawn from the agenda.
2.2 Item 10 – 50 Wenlock Street was withdrawn from the agenda.
2.3 Item 11 – Olympics and Paralympics Site was moved to the end of the agenda. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: 3.1 There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting. |
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting Decision:
The Chair informed the Committee that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 October 2008, attached to the agenda, were in fact a draft version, due to a system error. Therefore, a revised version of the minutes was circulated to Members at the meeting, which would be agreed at the next meeting to allow Members adequate time to consider them. Minutes: 4.1 The Chair informed the Committee that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 October 2008, attached to the agenda, were in fact a draft version, due to a system error. Therefore, a revised version of the minutes was circulated to Members at the meeting, which would be agreed at the next meeting to allow Members adequate time to consider them. |
|
|
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED that:-
Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
Minutes: Erection of a pair of semi-detached, two-storey over basement two bedroom houses.
(Councillor Sharer arrived during the discussion of the item and therefore did not take part in the vote.)
5.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. He referred to the drawing numbers detailed on the front of the report, which should have stated Drawing Numbers 242-01, Rev J, 242-02.
5.2 Ken Rorrison spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:
§ Representing 70 local residents. § This was the third application, as the other two had been refused and feels that this scheme was still not satisfactory. § Concerned with the siting of the proposed development, as the siting of the previous applications was deemed unsatisfactory. § All of the previous applications had historically taken place predominately along the west side of Church Walk and not along the backland sites. § Issue of loss of sunlight/daylight. § The ceiling heights were inadequate. § Identified twelve items where the planning guidance and regulations had been breached. § Loss of amenity, due to shadowing. § Sets a precedent for future developments. § Adversely impact on the amenity of the area. § Gross over-development of the area. The proposed development was to dense for the area. § The development would not benefit the area as a whole.
5.3 Jaimie Shorten (Barker Shorten Architects) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:
§ The drawings were accurate. § Existing garages were derelict, so felt the proposed development was a positive use of the site. § The property would be built to a high standard.
5.4 Councillor Smith referred to the issue of loss of sunlight/daylight, as it stated within the report that the Planning Officer was minded to support the daylight/sunlight, subject to the information submitted by the applicant. The Planning Officer circulated an additional plan at the meeting which showed the 25 degree angle between the ground floor window of the existing property and the roof of the proposed development, which he deemed to be acceptable.
5.5 In response to a question from Councillor Buitekant regarding what other buildings were located along the same side of the road, the Planning Officer confirmed that this was a pedestrianised section with residential gardens, a one storey studio and derelict garages, as detailed in the application.
5.6 Reference was made to the concern raised by the objector that this application could set a precedent for future development in the area and have an adverse impact on the amenity of Church Walk. The Planning Officer reiterated that this side of the road was predominantly gardens and so would be very difficult to develop.
5.7 The architect confirmed that the building would be produced using stock brick, the same as other buildings along the road and dark copper cladding above, which was the same used by the modern house opposite the site.
5.8 Councillor Webb stated that it would have been useful to ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
|
Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED that:-
This item be DEFERRED as submitted plans were inaccurate and the application cannot be considered or determined in light of this issue until revised plans are received.
Minutes: Conversion of a single dwelling house to create 4 self-contained flats (comprising 1 x 4 bed flat and 3 x 2 bed flats) together with external alterations including installation of new double doors onto the rear roof terrace at mezzanine floor level and rooflights to ground floor extension and creation of new front door steps.
RESOLVED that:-
This item be DEFERRED as submitted plans were inaccurate and the application cannot be considered or determined in light of this issue until revised plans are received.
|
|
|
70A Mountgrove Road Additional documents: Decision:
RESOLVED that:-
Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
Minutes: Demolition of existing single storey workshop building and erection of a pair of three-storey plus basement semi-detached houses (comprising 1 x 4 bed house and 1 x 3 bedroom house) with provision of rear garden space.
7.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.
7.2 David Warrilow and Clive Rush spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:
§ Pleased to see that revisions had been made to the original application, including the removal of the parking. § Do not object to the warehouse being developed, they just had a couple of objections. § There was still some overlooking into the bedroom window of the neighbouring property. § The amount of sunlight had been reduced due to the height of the proposed building. § They want the party wall to remain in situ. § Issue over the right of entry to the private road which had been previously given to number 70 but not 70A. This would need to be resolved.
7.3 The applicant spoke in support of the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:
§ Assured the Committee that she was in possession of all the deeds regarding the right of entry issue. § Seven revisions had been made to the original plans, including the inclusion of the party wall. § Complex site and done their best to build the development to a very high standard. § The height of the proposed development was in line with the neighbouring properties.
7.4 The Chair wished to clarify the issue of overlooking into the objector’s property and the Planning Officer believed that the development would not have a negative impact on the property.
7.5 Reference was made to the party wall and the applicant confirmed that the party wall would remain as a structured wall. The Planning Officer added that condition 7 of the recommendation referred to the retention of the party wall.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:-
Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to imposition of the following conditions:-
1. SCBN1 –Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. SCB0 – Development only in accordance with submitted plans The Development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans hereby approved and any subsequent approval of details.
REASON: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is carried out in full accordance with the plans hereby approved.
3. SCM2 - Materials to be approved Full details, including samples, of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, including glazing, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work commences on site. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
|
14-16 Kenworthy Road Additional documents: Decision:
RESOLVED that:-
A) Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
B) That the above recommendation be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Regeneration and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services.
C) That in the event of the Section 106 agreement referred to in Recommendation B not being completed by 14 March 2008, the Interim Head of Regulatory Services be given the authority to refuse the application.
Minutes: Demolition of the existing 2 residential buildings for medical staff, comprising 358 studio flats and 360 sqm nursery and the erection of a part two, part four & part 6 storey building to provide 119 residential flats (30 x 1 bed, 54 x 2, 25 x 3 bed, 8 x 4 bed and 2 x 5 bed) and 423 sqm nursery.
(NB: This application was granted conditional planning permission subject to the signing of a S106 Legal Agreement by Members at Planning Sub-Committee on 16th April 2008.
On 4th August 2008 members authorised the inclusion of an additional Section 106 head of term and three additional conditions on the basis that TfL had considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the Transport for London Road Network provided that certain conditions were met.
When the application was originally presented to Members at Planning Sub-Committee on 16th April 2008 it was reported that the proposed mix of residential accommodation comprised of 32x1 bed, 50x2 bed, 27x3 bed, 8x4 bed and 2x5 bed as set out in the applicant’s planning application form.
The application is being brought back to Members to correct the residential mix of accommodation that was considered by Officers as a result of resubmitted drawings. The residential mix of accommodation should be 30x1 bed, 54x2 bed, 25x3 bed, 8x4 bed and 2x5 bed.
The correction does not alter the number of overall residential units (119) that are being provided by the scheme. Furthermore, the assessment of Officers with regard to residential mix in the Report to Members on 16th April 2008 (paragraphs 7.16 ~ 7.18) was based on the corrected residential mix.
Moreover, the corrected residential mix does not alter the levels of affordable housing or tenure mix as per the drawings submitted with the application and described in paragraph 7.16 of the Officer’s Report to Members on 16th April, which is 7x1 bed, 24x2 bed, 18x3bed, 8x4-bed and 2x5 bed flats.
Members are requested to correct residential mix of accommodation subject to the conditions and s106 Agreement previously approved.
8.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. He added that the previous report was attached to the addendum, circulated to Members at the meeting, and not to the report, as stated.
8.2 There being no questions from Members the Chair moved to the vote.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:-
A) Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:-
1. SCB1 - Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than three years after the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. SCM6 - Materials to be approved (entire site) Details, including samples, of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, boundary walls and ground surfaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
|
Senate House, Tyssen Street Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED that:-
A) Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
B) That the above recommendation be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Regeneration and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services.
Minutes: Demolition of existing building on the site and erection of a four storey building and a five storey building to facilitate a mixed use development consisting of 28 residential units (18 x two bed, 4 x three bed and 6 x four bed) and 1173 sq metres of commercial floor space (use class B1) and associated landscaping.
NB: Members are requested to note that this scheme was previously resolved for approval at Committee on the 3rd September 2008, subject to the signing of a S106 agreement. This report seeks to make amendments to the wording within Recommendation B resolved at that time.
(Councillor Desmond arrived during the discussion of the item and therefore did not take part in the vote.)
9.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. He referred Members to paragraph 2.4 of the report and the proposed amended wording to Recommendation B.
9.2 Reference was made to the addendum which provided clarification on the Intermediate Housing Products. It was stated that the RSL involved in this development (Family Mosaic) had requested that rather than be required to provide social rented units and shared ownership units that the wording for the S106 head of term be flexible and require social rented units and intermediate housing.
9.3 The actual number of affordable housing units remained the same but allowed the RSL flexibility when providing the intermediate type of affordable housing.
9.4 There being no questions from Members the Chair moved to the vote.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:-
A) Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. SCBO – In accordance with plans The Development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in accordance with the submitted plans hereby approved and any subsequent approval of details.
REASON: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is carried out in full accordance with the plans hereby approved.
2. SCB1N - Commencement within three years The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than three years after the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
3. SCM2 - Materials to be approved Details, including samples, of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building and boundary walls shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work commences on site. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.
REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory and does not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area.
4. SCN1 – Soundproofing Full particulars and details of provisions for soundproofing between the B1/B1 use and residential units shall be submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before the commencement of works on site, and subsequently installed in the building in a satisfactory manner, before the development ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|
|
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED that:-
This item be DEFERRED at the request of the applicant, to enable further discussion on the Heads of Agreement within S106 Legal Agreement.
Minutes: Demolition of existing building and the erection of a 6 storey building to comprise of 22 residential units with associated car parking (2 disabled spaces) and landscaping.
(NB: Members are requested to note a previously refused application (Council reference 2007/2732) was subsequently appealed. Though the appeal was dismissed, there were specific aspects of the previous proposal that the inspector found to be acceptable and thus will form the basis of this planning analysis. The appeal matters have been discussed below under ‘Part 3 History’ of this report).
RESOLVED that:-
This item be DEFERRED at the request of the applicant, to enable further discussion on the Heads of Agreement within S106 Legal Agreement.
|
|
|
Velodrome - Olympics Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED that:-
The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) supports the Games Mode operation of the Velodrome and Velo Park.
The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) raise the following objections with regard to the proposal:
· The LBH objects to the crossing of the River Lea by the BMX and road circuit cycle tracks in Legacy Mode. In doing so there will be compromises and detriment to the amenity value of the parkland on the west side of the Lea by restricting access to both the river's edge and adjacent parts of the parkland;
· The LBH objects to the Legacy location of the BMX track as it would further occupy parts of the west bank of the River Lea and effectively sterilise an even greater area of parkland and restrict movement between both west and east, as well as north and south;
· The LBH objects to the high number of car parking spaces proposed in the Legacy formation of the Velo Park (150 spaces). The LBH would like to see only essential car parking provided (disabled and operational only).
· The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) raise the following observations with regard to the proposed proposal:
· Direct physical and visual access to the river Lea are central to the character and amenity value of the adjacent parkland;
· The western portion of the site is likely to be parkland that the London Borough of Hackney will own and is an important part of the green corridor along the Lea Valley;
· The road track will demand physical security fixtures/measures, including fencing and lighting that will harm the wider amenity value of the parkland. Details of such have not been provided;
· The road circuit's lighting would benefit only the cyclists on the track, would detract from the adjacent parkland and would have a negative impact on the surrounding habitats' wildlife value;
· Sectional drawings show how manipulation of the land form could reduce the visual impact of the road circuit but it will (by definition) restrict direct physical access from the west and can't hide the track and necessary fencing in its entirety;
· The road circuit and the mountain bike zone should not occupy both sides of the river which would allow spectators to view events from the other side of the river Lea;
· There is concern about the usage of the public space in the Velodrome site during Games Mode as the Main Stadium and most of the Olympic Park entrances are located in the south of the park. Therefore, accessible and active public open space around the Velodrome venue is very important to attract people to go to the northern part of the park. There is however no public realm strategy and movement analysis within the design and access statement;
· The public open spaces around the west entrance of the venue should become a movement node, connecting the riverside space and providing various activities to attract people to the northern portion of the site;
· East-west linkages around the Velodrome in Legacy Mode are not clearly ... view the full decision text for item 11. Minutes: Observations to the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) regarding:
§ Planning permission for Velodrome and BMX venue and associated works; § Outline planning permission for temporary BMX spectator stand and starting gate; § Legacy transformation mode for Velodrome and BMX venue and venue for cycling with associated works.
11.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. He referred to the addendum which detailed further comments received from Streetscene concerning car parking and pedestrian and cycle routes.
11.2 Councillor Buitekant referred to the addendum and proposed the following changes to the wording of the recommendation:-
§ First bullet point – …… In doing so there will be compromise and detriment to the amenity value of the parkland on the west side of the Lea by restricting access to both the river’s edge and adjacent parts of the parkland. § Second bullet point – The LBH objects to the Legacy location of the BMX track as it would further occupy parts of the west bank of the River Lea and effectively sterilise aneven greater area of parkland and restrict movement between both west and east, as well as north and south. This was AGREED.
(Councillor Smith abstained from the vote.)
RESOLVED that:-
The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) supports the Games Mode operation of the Velodrome and VeloPark.
The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) raise the following objections with regard to the proposal:
· The LBH objects to the crossing of the River Lea by the BMX and road circuit cycle tracks in Legacy Mode. In doing so there will be compromises and detriment to the amenity value of the parkland on the west side of the Lea by restricting access to both the river's edge and adjacent parts of the parkland;
· The LBH objects to the Legacy location of the BMX track as it would further occupy parts of the west bank of the River Lea and effectively sterilise an even greater area of parkland and restrict movement between both west and east, as well as north and south;
· The LBH objects to the high number of car parking spaces proposed in the Legacy formation of the Velo Park (150 spaces). The LBH would like to see only essential car parking provided (disabled and operational only).
· The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) raise the following observations with regard to the proposed proposal:
· Direct physical and visual access to the river Lea are central to the character and amenity value of the adjacent parkland;
· The western portion of the site is likely to be parkland that the London Borough of Hackney will own and is an important part of the green corridor along the Lea Valley;
· The road track will demand physical security fixtures/measures, including fencing and lighting that will harm the wider amenity value of the parkland. Details of such have not been provided;
· The road circuit's lighting would benefit only the cyclists on the track, would detract from the adjacent parkland and would have ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
|
357-359 Kingsland Road Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED that:-
A) Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
B) Conservation area consent be GRANTED, subject to conditions.
C) That the above recommendation be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 206 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services
Minutes: Redevelopment of site to comprise the erection of a part six, part seven storey building containing a 290-room hotel (including restaurant, bar and conference space), with a car park for thirteen vehicles and theatre workshop space (use class D1) on the lower ground floor.
NB: Increase in size of theatre workshop space from 188 square metres to 211 square metres; increase in height of theatre workshop space to five metres; reduction in number of car parking spaces from thirty-six to thirteen; increase in number of cycle parking spaces from twenty to fifty six.
12.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.
12.2 Anja Beinroth spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:
§ Representing a number of residents from the Georgian Terrace opposite the site. § In accordance with English Heritage, the height of the development should be no more than four storeys. § The previous application was deemed too high. § The proposed development would completely overshadow the Georgian Terrace. § Felt that the Planning Officer had not identified the loss of sunlight to the properties along Kingsland Road. § This section of the conservation area was predominantly residential and very few commercial properties. § Felt there was not a need for a hotel in the area. § Lack of response from Thames Water, as the properties surrounding the site had suffered from flooding previously.
12.3 Mandip Sahota (Nicholas Taylor & Associates) was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.
12.4 Councillor Sharer raised concern over the height of the building and the Planning Officer stated that the Urban Design and Conservation Team had looked at the application and also referred Members’ attention to page 200 of the report which stated that the height of the proposed building was considered sensitive to adjacent buildings and well articulated.
12.5 Councillor Desmond referred to the level of parking being provided and asked the agent whether he felt the reduced number of parking spaces would lead to congestion in the area.
12.6 The agent stated that they had consulted with TfL in order to find more sustainable forms of transport. This had resulted in more cycle spaces and a coach drop of point being incorporated into the proposal.
12.7 Councillor Webb made reference to the Quicksilver Theatre and asked whether they were aware that this application was going to committee, as she was unsure why they were not in attendance.
12.8 The Planning Officer confirmed that the Quicksilver Theatre had been sent notification of the application and the Sub-Committee and that a number of amendments had now been made to the proposal including a disabled access being provided, and the internal ceiling height as requested.
12.9 In response to a query about why the colour red had been chosen, the agent stated that this had been chosen to mirror the red brick of the Metropolitan Business Centre.
12.10 The Chair also asked whether the Kingsland Conservation Area Advisory Committee had been consulted ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|
|
Homerton Travellers Site Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED that:-
The application to vary condition 14 (restriction of size and number of caravans) attached to planning permission 2007/1408 be allowed and that the condition be varied to read as follows:
14 Other than the permanent amenity blocks, the individual pitches hereby approved (regarded for the purposes of this condition as including the parking strip adjacent to each unit), shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 6.1 x 3.1 metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars) and up to two vehicles.
In respect of Pitch H1, in addition to its associated amenity block, this pitch shall be occupied by no more than one twin static unit not exceeding 11.9 x 6.7m (excluding tow bars) and up to two vehicles. The occupation of pitch H1 shall be limited to the use of the Maughan family and their resident dependents. When Pitch H1 ceases to be occupied by those named above, the twin static unit shall be removed from the site within 6 months of that time and its occupation shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 6.1 x 3.1metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars).
In respect of Pitch H2, in addition to its associated amenity block, this pitch shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 8.6 x 3.1 metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars) and up to two vehicles. The occupation of pitch H2 shall be limited to the use of the Maughan family and their resident dependents. When Pitch H2 ceases to be occupied by those named above, the larger unit shall be removed from the site within 6 months of that time and its occupation shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 6.1 x 3.1metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars).
REASON: To protect the visual amenity of the area and prevent harm to the adjoining MOL.
Minutes: Section 73 application for variation to Condition 14 of planning permission reference 2007/1408.
13.1 The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.
13.2 The agent was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.
13.3 In response to a number of queries from Members as to why this application had come to committee, the Principal Solicitor explained that this committee had previously approved the conditions and therefore any variation to those conditions needed to come back to committee for approval.
13.4 Concern was raised over paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the report which contain personal details and circumstances of the applicant and their family which Members felt was not relevant to the application and should not have been included in the report.
13.5 The Planning Officers took this point on board and stated that this should be avoided in future.
Unanimously RESOLVED that:-
The application to vary condition 14 (restriction of size and number of caravans) attached to planning permission 2007/1408 be allowed and that the condition be varied to read as follows:
14) Other than the permanent amenity blocks, the individual pitches hereby approved (regarded for the purposes of this condition as including the parking strip adjacent to each unit), shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 6.1 x 3.1 metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars) and up to two vehicles.
In respect of Pitch H1, in addition to its associated amenity block, this pitch shall be occupied by no more than one twin static unit not exceeding 11.9 x 6.7m (excluding tow bars) and up to two vehicles. The occupation of pitch H1 shall be limited to the use of the Maughan family and their resident dependents. When Pitch H1 ceases to be occupied by those named above, the twin static unit shall be removed from the site within 6 months of that time and its occupation shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 6.1 x 3.1metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars).
In respect of Pitch H2, in addition to its associated amenity block, this pitch shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 8.6 x 3.1 metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars) and up to two vehicles. The occupation of pitch H2 shall be limited to the use of the Maughan family and their resident dependents. When Pitch H2 ceases to be occupied by those named above, the larger unit shall be removed from the site within 6 months of that time and its occupation shall be occupied by no more than two caravans one not exceeding 6.1 x 3.1metres and one not exceeding 10.7m x 3.7m (excluding tow bars).
REASON: To protect the visual amenity of the area and prevent harm to the adjoining MOL.
|
|
|
Appeal Schedule - April/May/June/July/August 2008 Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVE- that
The report was NOTED. Minutes: 14.1 Councillor Desmond referred to page 271 of the Appeal Schedule – Site Address: Land at Wilmer Business Park, Wilmer Place, London, N16 0LW. He wished to clarify in what way the notices had been defectively served resulting in prejudice to the interests of the owners of the premises.
14.2 The Planning Officer stated that they would investigate this case and issue a written note to the Member.
14.3 The report was NOTED. |
|
|
Any other business which in the opinion of the Chair is urgent Decision: 15.1 The Sub- Committee agreed to a Special Planning Sub-Committee taking place on 19 November 2008.
15.2 The Section 106 report requested by the Chair would be going to the next meeting, being held on 19 November.
15.3 The planning leaflet ‘How to have your say at the Planning Sub-Committee’ had now been revised and printed. Minutes: 15.1 The Sub- Committee agreed to a Special Planning Sub-Committee taking place on 19 November 2008.
15.2 The Section 106 report requested by the Chair would be going to the next meeting, being held on 19 November.
15.3 The planning leaflet ‘How to have your say at the Planning Sub-Committee’ had now been revised and printed. |