Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  An apology for absence was received from Councillor Buitekant, with Councillor Bell in attendance as a substitute.

1.2  An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Hanson.

1.3  Councillor Sharer gave his apologies as he needed to leave the meeting early.

2.1  Item 13 – 2-4 Sharon Gardens was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the Planning Officer.  

3.1  There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

4.1  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting on 5 November 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record.

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).

5.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  She added that the previous application did not include the provision of affordable housing and that the new scheme had been designed in-line with conservation design officers.

5.2  Councillor Sharer referred to the S106 agreement and the contribution of £13,250 towards healthcare and the Planning Officer explained that this figure was supported by the PCT and that this type of contribution would be seen more regularly in the future.

5.3  Nick Makasis (architect) was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.

5.4  Members wished to clarify the materials to be used and the architect confirmed that the scheme would comprise pigment render, blue zinc panelling at the central unit, with timber panels at ground floor level.

5.5  In response to a question from the Chair regarding the perceived effectiveness of the sonar panels, it was explained that there would be 14 panels which were tremendously efficient and an alternative to a bio-mass boiler system.

5.6  The Chair referred to the streetlamps and whether these could be placed on the proposed building, in order to help de-clutter the area.  The applicant welcomed this proposal, in principle.  The Chair requested that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

(Councillors Hanson and Smith did not take part in the vote, as they arrived during the discussion of the item).

RESOLVED that:-

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Erection of a part 4 storey, part 5 storey building plus basement to provide Class B1 and/or Class A1 (retail gallery on the basement and ground floor), Class B1 on part of the first and second floors and 8 residential units on the remainder of the upper floors.

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  A model of the scheme was displayed at the meeting for Members’ information and the Planning Officer explained that the application had been slightly altered since the model had been reduced, details of which were identified within the presentation.

6.2  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum which identified that South Shoreditch Conservation Area Advisory Committee had since made representations against the proposal, as they felt that by nature of its scale and mass, the proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the setting and character of the conservation area.  The addendum also detailed additional comments received on behalf of a neighbouring resident in Hoxton Square, with comments by the Planning Officer.

6.3  The Planning Officer also referred to the addendum, in which the following should be added to Section 5.2 of the report:

1.  PPS1 – Sustainable Development and Climate Change;

2.  PPS3 – Housing;

3.  PPG4 – Industrial/Commercial;

4.  PPS10 – Waste Management;

5.  PPS12 – Local Spatial Planning;

6.  PPG13 – Transport;

7.  PPG15 – Historic Environment;

8.  PPG16 – Archaeology;

9.  PPS22 – Renewable Energy; and

10.  PPG24 – Noise.

6.4  Steve Rankin and Dillon Lin spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The design has slightly changed from the original scheme submitted.

§  Building designed in consultation with Planning Officers.

§  The building is designed as a prism to ensure the required daylight/sunlight for the neighbouring properties and also been in contact with the Planning Officer regarding this issue.

§  Fresh approach which adheres to planning guidelines.

§  Disappointed with the comments made by English Heritage, as they have recognised the varied nature of the buildings located in Hoxton Square.

6.5  The Chair asked for the view of the Urban Design and Conservation Manager, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Respect the views of English Heritage and he would not disagree if he was considering Shoreditch as a whole, however due to the nature of Hoxton Square and the buildings located there he took a different view.

§  Each side of Hoxton Square is unique due to the varying nature of the buildings located there.

§  Of the opinion that the proposed scheme follows the nature of the existing buildings and that Hoxton Square is the only place where this type of development could be built.

§  The building responds well at street level and it is an opportunity to make a positive contribution to the area.

6.5  Kevin Moore stated that he felt people would have different views on this development, however he was of the opinion that if you were building next  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Demolition of existing building and erection of 6-storey building to provide 7713sqm B1 (business), 75sqm A1 (shop) and 270sqm A3 (restaurant) plus 2 internal courtyards with ancillary car parking for 3 vehicles, cycle and refuse storage.

Conservation area consent for demolition of existing buildings.

7.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda and informed Members that the demolition of the existing building was not included within the application.

7.2  Anthony Thistleton (architect) was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.

7.3  Councillor Desmond referred to the level of car parking and asked why the number of parking spaces had been reduced from 30 to 5 spaces.  The architect stated that the development was located within a highly accessible area with good public transport links and that it had also achieved the low parking criteria.  The internal courtyard was also large enough for vehicles to turn and load.

7.4  Councillor Smith asked how the Planning Officer intended to stop people parking on the courtyard and the Planning Officer referred to the addendum where an additional condition had been added to ensure that parking shall only occur in the spaces shown on the plans, which was backed up in the section 106 agreement.

7.5  The Chair referred to the streetlamps and whether these could be placed on the proposed building, in order to help de-clutter the area.  The applicant agreed, in principle, for best endeavours to be made for the streetlamps to be placed on the building.  The Chair requested that this be added as part of the section 106 agreement.  This was AGREED.

6.7  The Chair asked whether rain water harvesting was being provided and the architect agreed, in principle, for best endeavours to be made to provide rain water harvesting.  The Chair requested that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

6.8  The Chair also asked whether the development included a green roof and the architect agreed, in principle.  The Chair requested that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

1.  SCB0 – Development 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.  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.

3.  SMC6 – Materials to be approved (entire site)

Details, including samples, of 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, in writing, before any work commences  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Redevelopment of southern site at Hackney Hospital to provide a primary care resource centre located in a part 2, 3 and 4 storey building to contain 2 GP practices, a community dental facility and primary care function (2239 sqm), plus residential accommodation providing 48 flats (25 x 1b, 23 x 2b) in a 5 storey building with penthouse level, parking provision for 18 cars and 111 cycle spaces with associated amenity area.

(Councillor Hanson informed the Sub-Committee that she lived in the vicinity of the proposed development but did not have a personal or prejudicial interest in the application).

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He explained that the design of the proposal had evolved over the course of the application and revisions had been made to address concerns regarding the design of the PCT building.  Further revisions had been made to the courtyard layout to address concerns regarding the legibility of pedestrian access to the residential building.  Minor revisions had also been made to the residential entrance and cycle store layout.  The cycle storage provided would now be 16 spaces for the PCT building and 63 spaces for the residential building.

8.2  The Principal Solicitor explained that this was a linked site, as 14-16 Kenworthy Road to the north of the site had previously been approved by the Sub-Committee.  A Section 106 agreement would be required for each of the sites as the developments were intrinsically linked as part of a wider development scheme for the PCT, as detailed within the addendum.

8.3  Steve Gilven and Paul Brand spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  Presented at Full Council last June regarding GP services.

§  Diagnostic services being provided for the south east of Hackney.

§  The development will allow the Lee Surgery to be brought to the area.

§  The GP elements of this service will be available to local residents.

8.4  Councillor Smith expressed concern that the majority of affordable housing units were one bedroom, as there was a need for larger family units.

8.5  The Planning Officer explained that there were a number of constraints that had restricted the number of larger units that could be located on the site, the main ones being that it was located adjacent to the mental health unit so there was a need for separation between the two sites and also the size of the plot was also unsuitable for larger family units.  He added that the previously approved site at 14-16 Kenworthy Road does have family units.

8.6  Members raised concerns about the location of the proposed development as it may not be suitable for children and the lack of larger family units, as they felt it did not benefit the community or the patients.

8.7  The Interim Head of Regulatory Services explained that this site offered a mix of tenure and that the wall to the rear of the site was not a solid  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new part 3, part 8 storey building to provide 36 residential units (6 x 1 bed flats, 18 x 2 bed flats, 2 x 3 bed flats, 6 x 3 bed houses, 1 x 4 bed flat and 3 x 4 bed houses), along with 4 disabled car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

9.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.

9.2  Martin Sugarman and Leslie Mapp spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are as follows:

§  Recognise the need for more affordable housing in the area but strongly oppose the tower block.

§  Located on the edge of the conservation area, feels the design is unsuitable and out of character with the surrounding area. 

§  Only given 3 working days notice of the meeting.

§  Previously submitted a petition which had not been taken into consideration.

§  Happy with the rest of the development but would like to see the tower block reduced to 3-4 floors.

§  The tower block would create considerable overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

§  The report only mentioned Shakespeare House and concern was raised that at least 2 neighbouring properties had been ignored.

9.3  Justin Kelly and Colin Archer spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are as follows:

§  There was a need for affordable housing in the area and the development addresses this need and provides a more appropriate residential mix, with no single aspect units.

§  They had already invested heavily in the adjoining buildings.

§  A number of local exhibitions were held to inform residents of the proposals and they had also been involved in pre-application discussions with planning officers since 2007.

§  The surrounding buildings are already between 6 and 10 storeys high.

§  The number of units had already been reduced from 41 to 36 and the height of the lower units had also been reduced.

9.4  Kevin Moore felt that the design of the proposed development was disappointing and of a high enough standard for the surrounding area.  In response, the Urban Design and Conservation Manager stated that given the setting he was of the opinion that the area could cope with the 8 storey tower proposed and that the outstanding issues from the previously withdrawn application had now been resolved.

9.5  Reference was made to the petition and the Planning Officer stated that the petition had been received for the previous application.

9.6  The Planning Officer referred Members’ attention to the addendum which identified that the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment submitted also assessed the impact of the development on Pilgrims Lodge (55 Lyme Grove).  It was considered that the tower portion of the development was sufficient distance from surrounding properties, including being at least 14 metres from the narrow front elevation of Pilgrims Lodge.

9.7  The Chair asked about the materials proposed and the Urban Design and Conservation Manager stated that the conservation team agreed with the materials,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three to six storey building comprising 41 affordable flats (8 x 1 bed, 19 x 2 bed, 7 x 3 bed, 7 x 4 bed) and the provision of a new 265m2 community hall (Class D1) on ground floor, with car parking, refuse provision and landscaping.

10.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He confirmed that the site of the Jack Dunning Community Hall was owned by the Council.

10.2  Karl Homerstone (applicant) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Worked in consultation with Planning Officers on the design of the development and the design benefits are detailed within the report.

§  The Jack Dunning Community Hall formed part of the proposal and the scheme is 100% affordable.

§  The RSL had just submitted an alternative S106 agreement to Planning Officers, looking at the affordable contribution and the cost of providing the community hall.

10.3  The Principal Solicitor wished to clarify who owned what areas of land and it was determined that the land and community hall were leased back to the Council and that the Council was the freeholder.  She added that the Council cannot enter into a S106 agreement with itself.

10.4  The Planning Officer referred to the issue surrounding the S106 agreement and stated that the figures would need to be brought back to the Sub-Committee if any alterations were required, which was subject to a viability report.  This was AGREED.

10.5  In response to a query from Councillor Desmond regarding graffiti, the applicant stated that the white rendered walls were set back from the street area with railings in front.

10.5  The Sub-Committee requested that the following conditions be added to the recommendation:-

§  Best endeavours for street lamps to be placed on the building.  This was AGREED.

§  1 car parking space to be allocated as a Car Share scheme.  This was AGREED.

§  The internal corridors to be a minimum of 1.45m.  This was AGREED.

§  Parking only to be permitted on the areas shown on the plans.  This was AGREED.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  Development 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.  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.  Materials to be approved (entire site)

Details, including samples, of 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Erection of a five-storey building to provide twenty-two flats (ten one-bedroom units, four two-bedroom units, six three-bedroom units and two four-bedroom units), 285.9 sqm commercial; floorspace (use class B1 or B2) and disabled car parking.

11.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the addendum, which set out an additional representation received on 1 December 2008 from the head of the Ann Taylor Children’s Centre and the Planning Officer’s response to this.

11.2  Jonathan Hurd spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  There is already a parking issue in the area and the new development will only add to this problem.  Feels it is unrealistic to believe that the new residents will not have cars.

§  The existing site is a car park which is heavily used by surrounding businesses.

§  The development will adversely impact Broadway Market due to the lack of parking and loading facilities.

§  There is no provision for loading bays for the new commercial units.

§  Strangely shaped units being proposed.

§  Feels that it doesn’t meet the minimum living space required.

§  Issue with noise pollution with the railway line.

11.3  Nick Makasis (architect) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  This will be a car free development so residents will not be able to apply for a permit to park on the street.  However, there is parking available in the surrounding area.

§  Due to the unusual shape of the site it was not possible to incorporate loading bays for the commercial units, however there is a loading facility at the triangle piece of land opposite the site.

§  The sound report submitted has dealt with the issue of noise generated by the railway line.

§  The units will be dual aspect, with all 22 of the units having balconies. 17 of the units will also have 2 rooms accessing the balcony.

11.4  In response to a question from Councillor Desmond, the architect stated that it was his understanding that the flats would be marketed for sale.

11.5  In response to a request from the Chair the architect gave a brief explanation of the Westgate Road elevation at ground floor level and explained that the previous applications had been refused due to issues surrounding parking, which had now been resolved.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  SCB0 – Development 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.  SCB1 – 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

(A)  Full Planning Application (Ref: 2008/2525):

Refurbishment of existing grade II listed building together with the erection of a two storey extension above the existing battery room and to the rear of the library with a glazed link to provide a meeting room, plant room and staff office, and the installation of new glazed automatic entrance doors, we roof light and solar panels to the roof.

(B)  Listed Building Consent Application (Ref: 2008/2527):

Internal and external works comprising of the demolition of part of the rear single storey pitched roof and erection of a two storey extension above the existing battery room and rear of the library with a glazed link; the installation of new glazed automatic sliding entrance doors, entrance lobby with ramp, repair of existing rooflights to the rear, installation of a glazed screen in place of roller shutters and internal glazed door to lift area and the removal of a partition wall.

12.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out within the agenda.

12.2  Nicola Baker (Assistant Director Community Services) spoke in support of the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:-

§  This was included within the strategy for the development of libraries 2005.

§  Opportunity to regain the integrity of the building.

§  The Council had worked in consultation with the Clissold Library User Group and the scheme was also fully supported by the Cabinet Member for Community Services.

12.3  Steven Pidwell (architect) also spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Seek to re-establish the Edwardian simplicity of the building and all of the works will be complimentary to the existing building.

§  The suspended ceilings will be removed in order to bring back the glazed roof and also a revealing slot for ventilation.

§  The partitions will also be removed on the first floor to open up the space. 

§  The battery room will be retained and a glazed plane will take the place of the existing roller shutter.

§  The new section of the building will provide sonar hot water panels and rain water harvesting.

12.4  In response to questions from Councillor Desmond, it was explained that there would be a large illuminated sign above the door to inform people of its location and that due to the size limitations there would not be a dedicated coffee shop located within the building.  It was also confirmed that there was a courtyard to the rear of the building to accommodate bins.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  SCB1N – Commencement within 3 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 the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2.  SCB0 – Development only in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to provide 2 x 3 bed flats, 2 x 2 bed flats and 4 x 1 bed flats.

RESOLVED that:-