Back to top arrow icon Back to top

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA. View directions

Contact: Emma Perry 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stops and Tesler.

2.

Members to agree the order of business

Minutes:

2.1  The order of business remained as per the agenda.

3.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

3.1  Councillor Smith declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 6 – 1-29 Lyme Grove House, Lyme Grove, Loddiges Road, as she has a personal relationship with one of the objectors and left the Chamber during the discussion of this item.

 

4.

Minutes of the previous Special Meeting - 19 November 2008 pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED – that

 

the minutes of the Special Meeting held on 19 November 2008 be APPROVED

as a true and accurate record. 

Minutes:

4.1  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the Special Meeting held on 19 November 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record.  

5.

Minutes of the previous meeting - 3 December 2008 pdf icon PDF 286 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendments:

 

§  That paragraph 8.6 be replaced with the following:

 

‘Councillor Smith felt that the Council’s normal rules on mix should apply, regardless of proximity to the mental health unit.  She and families would like living next to the mental health unit whatever the mix and whether the development was agreed or not.  This was supported by Councillor Webb.

Minutes:

5.1  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendments:

 

§  That paragraph 8.6 be replaced with the following:

 

‘Councillor Smith felt that the Council’s normal rules on mix should apply, regardless of proximity to the mental health unit.  She and families would like living next to the mental health unit whatever the mix and whether the development was agreed or not.  This was supported by Councillor Webb.

6.

1-29 Lyme Grove House, Lyme Grove, Loddiges Road, London pdf icon PDF 58 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

A.  Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.

 

B.  That the above recommendation be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a section 106 agreement in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services.

 

Minutes:

(Councillor Smith left the Chamber during the discussion of this item).

 

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, 18 x 2 bed, 8 x 3 bed, 4 x 4 bed) along with 4 disabled car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

 

NB: The application was reported to members of the Planning Sub-Committee on 3 December 2008. At this meeting, members DEFERRED the application to allow them to carry out a visit to the site and similar schemes built by the developer.  The site visit was carried out on 19 December 2008.

 

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  The applicants circulated samples of the proposed materials, for Members’ information.

 

6.2  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum and informed the Sub-Committee that following the previous meeting, where an addendum had outlined changes to the mix of affordable housing to reduce the intermediate units from 24 units to 9 units, the applicant had submitted, that for ease of management, 10 intermediate units would provide the optimal arrangement.  This was an increase from the 9 that had been considered the minimum number of intermediate units, and as such, the Council’s Housing Officer considered this to be acceptable.

 

6.3  Councillor Akehurst spoke in objection to the scheme, on behalf of residents, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  Received many representations from local residents expressing their strong opinions of objection to this application. This was only the second time in his seven years as a Councillor he had attended a Planning Sub-Committee meeting to speak in objection to a scheme.

§  The local residents were not in objection to additional housing in the area but were purely in objection to the 8 storey tower.

§  Felt that the meaningfulness of the consultation seemed to have been lost and wanted to ensure that the concerns raised throughout the consultation period were considered.

§  Felt that the Council should look at ways for section 106 money to be used locally, as a result of loss of amenity for residents.

§  A good relationship between the neighbours and developers was needed.

 

6.4  Martin Sugarman spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  Fully aware that the 8 storey tower was in-line with guidance, however it did not promote quality of life for residents.

§  Felt that the views of residents were being ignored and expressed his objection to the 8 storey tower and residents were especially disappointed as they were a housing association.

§  The tower will create lack of privacy and overshadowing.

§  Lack of communication between the housing association and residents.

§  ISHA should come back with an alternative plan with the tower reduced.

 

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

 

§  This was not just a re-submission of the previous scheme, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

2-4 Sharon Gardens, London, E9 7RX pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Erection of a 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.

 

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

 

7.2  The applicant was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.

 

7.3  There being no questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.

 

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

 

Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

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 Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

 

3.  SCM6 Materials to be approved

Details, including samples, of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the buildings, boundary walls and ground surfaces of this development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work commences on implementing this planning permission. 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.  SCM9 No extraneous pipework

No soil stacks, soil vent pipes, flues, ductwork or any other pipework shall be fixed to the (street) elevations of the building other than as shown on the drawings hereby 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.

 

5.  SCI3 – No roof plant

No roof plant (including all external enclosures, machinery and other installations) shall be placed upon or attached to the roof or other external surfaces of the building.

 

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.

 

6.  SCD1 – Provision of level access

A level access shall be provided to all ground floor units of this development hereby permitted before the use is first commenced.

 

REASON: In order to ensure that people with disabilities are able to gain proper access to the development.

 

7.  SCR4 – Wheelchair-accessible homes

The housing units proposed to be located on the ground floor must be designed to wheelchair standards and be in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON: In the interests of providing satisfactory and convenient housing accommodation for persons with disabilities.

 

8.  SCH10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Berkeley Homes Ltd - Old School Site, Woodberry Grove, N4 pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

The affordable housing for Blocks E, F and G be AGREED to comprise 116 social rented and 70 intermediate tenure dwellings, as at item (i) of the main Report.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Planning Application Number 2007/1841:  Woodberry Down Kick Start Phase 1, Site 1 (Old School Site): Redevelopment to provide a mixed use scheme comprising 456 residential units (Class C3), 1128 sqm Priority Community Facility with associated retail (Class D1/A1), 906 sqm of flexible accommodation to include retail, restaurant, business and other uses (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, D1, D2), ground and basement car parking (212 spaces).  Development to comprise seven blocks of four to twenty five storeys in height, new access road and junction to Woodberry Grove, new public open space and new Local Area for Play (detailed application).

 

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the addendum and stated that a total of 186 affordable dwellings had been approved for the Old School site (Woodberry Down Kick Start site 1) by Committee in March 2008 (155 social housing and 31 intermediate tenure units).  The agenda report sets out the request from Berkeley Homes to change 39 of these 155 social rented units to intermediate tenure. 

 

8.2  The addendum also detailed the planning contributions - education provision.  It was stated that Officers were satisfied that the potential delay in contributions, due to the building of affordable housing initially at the Old School development reflecting the stated lack of current demand for private dwellings, would not have serious repercussions on the other Planning Obligations arising from the development.

 

8.3  Councillor Middleton expressed concerns regarding the scheme, on behalf of residents, her comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  It was about time that the Borough was getting some decent homes.

§  Lack of consultation between the developers and local residents.

§  Businesses and shopkeepers had not been consulted since June 2008.

§  The narrowing of Seven Sisters Road was not identified in the report and the majority of residents were in objection to this proposal.

§  The site was located in Brownswood ward and not New River, as listed in the report.

 

8.4  In response to the issue raised regarding Seven Sisters Road, the Principal Solicitor clarified that the roads within the site were the responsibility of the Council’s highways department, however Seven Sisters Road was owned by TfL and was therefore their responsibility.

 

8.5  Peter Naughton spoke in support of the scheme with objections, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  Delighted that the Council had completed the section 106 agreement with Berkeley Homes, however he was concerned that it was now not the case that the money would be retained within the scheme. He requested clarification on the s106 agreement.

§  The mix of units was previously not seen as a concern ………….

 

8.6  In response to the query regarding the s106 agreement, the Planning Officer explained that all s106 monies would be allocated to the scheme and retained within the development area.

 

8.7  Robin Smith (Hackney Homes) and Shaun Tickle (Agent) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  It was proposed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Olympics and Paralympics Site - Hackney and adjoining Boroughs: Land between River Lea Navigation, A12 East Cross Route, River Lea and Silverlink railway line, Homerton, London, E9 pdf icon PDF 133 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) supports the proposed Handball Arena in Olympic Mode and the proposed multi-sport venue in Legacy Mode.  However raises the following observations with regard to the proposal.

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

  Observations to the Olympic Development Authority (ODA) regarding:

§  Planning permission for the Olympic Mode and Legacy Mode Handball Stadium/Arena.

 

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

 

9.2  There being no questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.

 

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

 

The London Borough of Hackney (LBH) supports the proposed Handball Arena in Olympic Mode and the proposed multi-sport venue in Legacy Mode.  However raises the following observations with regard to the proposal:

 

§  The LBH raise concerns as to external arrangement of the site in Legacy Mode.  ‘Illustrative’ parking arrangements surrounding the venue that isolate the stadium from the wider parkland and little landscaping detail do not aid in understanding how the venue will link into the wider Olympic Park environment.  Further detail will need to be submitted to ensure proper integration in the wider park environment is achieved and an acceptable number of car parking spaces is provided for as currently the illustrative number is considered excessive;

§  Further detail regarding the potential development sites and accessibility between Hackney Wick and the Olympic Park will need to be provided.  This portion of PDZ 5 and in particular any new bridges connecting the site to Hackney Wick will have a huge impact on LBH and circulation to, from and around the Olympic Park;

§  Legacy Cycle parking details need to be developed;

§  Further information is required regarding the predicted trip generation of the arena in Legacy mode.  In addition, the impacts of the increased trip generation need to be assessed and adequate mitigation measures introduced to offset any adverse affects;

§  Further detail is required of the impact on Hackney Wick station when major events are held at this venue in Legacy including additional assessment of these impacts and what measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse impacts on the station and routes to the venue;

§  The Handball Arena site is situated within close proximity to Hackney Wick Station. Detail needs to be provided of how it will be ensured that good connections will exist to this station to enable and encourage patrons to travel via rail to the Legacy venue. What plans are being developed to manage travel during major events at the Legacy venue and what measures will be put in place to protect Hackney during these major events;

§  A travel plan should be produced in consultation with LBH.  The travel plan should be developed in conjunction with the host boroughs and TfL.

§  The Arena’s Isolation from the community, at least initially before communities emerge in the park, will be accentuated if the media centre does not go ahead as planned.

§  There is a need for closer car parking, at least initially,  than the proposed multi-storey car park use to help address potential isolation.

§  This isolation from an existing community for at least the first decade of legacy life means it will have a wide regional draw, (far more than the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

St Joseph's Convent, Mare Street, E8 4SA pdf icon PDF 137 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

Permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.

 

 

Minutes:

Demolition of existing “Norfolk Wing” of St Joseph’s Hospice and the erection of a new purpose built three storey convent building in place of the Norfolk Wing accommodating 25 individual bedrooms including bedrooms including ensuites, two flats at ground level with ancillary communal areas, kitchens and landscaping.

 

NB:  Members are requested to note that a previous scheme for a four storey building was approved at committee in August 2008.  The current scheme looks to reduce the overall development by approximately 300 sqm by removing the top (fourth) floor of the previously approved scheme.

 

10.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. He referred to the addendum and it was noted that one letter of objection had been received after the report was published.

 

10.2  There being no questions from Members, the Chair moved to the vote.

 

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

 

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.  NSC - Ecological roofs

  Full details of a biodiverse, substrate-based (75mm minimum depth) extensive 'brown/green’ roof shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved. 

 

  REASON: To enhance the character and ecology of the development and the river corridor, to provide undisturbed refuges for wildlife, to promote sustainable urban drainage and to enhance the performance and efficiency of the proposed building.

 

5.  NSC - Renewable Energy and Sustainability

Full details of renewable energy provisions, including evidence of at least compliance with BREEAM’s ‘Very Good’ rating for Multi-Residential proposals with best endeavours to achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building works commence. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.

 

REASON: To ensure that the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

Skinners Academy, Woodberry Grove, Finsbury Park, London, N4 1SN pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

Notwithstanding boundary treatment, planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Erection of a three storey sixth form entry academy with associated landscaping, to include a sports hall, two multi-use games areas and forty two parking spaces.

 

POST-SUBMISSION REVISIONS:  Changes to elevational design of all parts of the proposal, including main entrance; changes to proposed landscaping in front of all three entrances; change to location of disabled parking spaces; change to position of boundary by New River; change of perimeter fence design and position to ‘indicative’; minor changes to footprint of the building (in particular the north-eastern elevation).

 

11.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the addendum and informed the Sub-Committee that in relation to paragraph 4.6.1, Thames Water had sent a further response stating that the existing water supply infrastructure had insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development.  An additional condition was recommended to address this issue.  He added that the comments previously submitted by the Urban Design and Conservation Team had also been amended, which were detailed within the addendum.

 

11.2  Councillor Middleton expressed concerns regarding the scheme, on behalf of residents, her comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  Not opposed to the scheme.

§  Felt that the report did not reflect the noise and disturbance generated during the construction of the development and also the increased traffic generated down Woodberry Grove.

§  Felt that some type of compensation should be given to local residents for the disturbance caused and that this should be given in writing.

 

11.3  Peter Naughton spoke in support of the scheme with concerns, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  The scheme is welcomed by local residents as many of them have to go outside of the borough for school.

§  Concerned with the increased level of traffic especially towards the end of Woodberry Grove, which is already subject to heavy construction traffic with the substation.

§  Need for proper supervision between Green Lanes and the site during construction of the development.

 

11.4  In response to comments raised the applicant explained that a traffic management plan had been produced and that no construction vehicles would be permitted along the elevation of the development between Green Lanes and the end of Woodberry Grove.  The level of noise generated would also be monitored on a regular basis.

 

11.5  The Principal Solicitor clarified the point raised by Councillor Middleton regarding compensation.  She explained that the issue of compensation was not under the remit of the Sub-Committee and that the issue surrounding construction and the management plan was for consideration by the Sub-Committee.

 

11.6  Councillor Hanson referred to the cycle parking as she believed that 141 spaces was not enough for the size of the development.  In response, the agent explained that they expected the majority of students to walk to the school and that the number of spaces had been decided in consultation with the school and education authority.

 

11.7  In response to questions from the Chair the architect confirmed the ecological elements of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Former Redruth Library site, corner of Redruth Road and Victoria Park Road, London, E9 7JS pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

The application be DEFERRED to allow planning officers to carefully consider objections received regarding potential loss of community space and the issue surrounding the bin storage.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a part four, part five storey building containing nineteen residential units and two parking spaces, together with associated outdoor amenity space, storage access and landscaping.

 

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

 

12.2  Steven Alexander and Pamela Watson spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  The major concerns were regarding the height of the proposed development, overlooking and loss of amenity space which is well used by residents.

§  The development was 1 storey higher than the adjacent property and 2 storeys higher than the properties directly opposite.

§  Felt that it introduced a further barrier between the neighbouring properties.

§  Requested that further discussions take place on the design of the development before any permission was granted.

§  Recognise the need for more affordable housing in the area and welcome this.

§  Lack of consultation with local residents.

§  Issue surrounding where the bin storage will be located, as this is heavily used by residents.

 

12.3  A letter of objection from Steven Alexander was included within the addendum, along with responses from the Planning Officer.

 

12.4  The Chair wished to know which residents had been consulted and the Planning Officer confirmed that residents within a 30m radius of the site had been consulted and that a site notice had also been erected.

 

12.5  A representative from Savills (Agent) spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  Attended pre-application meetings with the planning department.

§  3 planning applications had previously been submitted, with the main reasons for objection being bulk, tenure and housing mix.

§  The proposed development is in keeping with the surrounding area, with no adverse affects on neighbouring properties.

§  Meets with the daylight/sunlight guidelines.

 

12.6  Discussion took place on the land ownership issue and also the member’s enquiry regarding communal land received by Councillor Kemp, as detailed within the addendum.  Members also raised the issue of existing bin storage and where this was to be located within the new development.  It was recognised that there was an issue with the ownership of the bin storage, as it was used by different residential blocks.

 

12.7  The Planning Officer stated that the applicant had confirmed that they owned the land and he believed that the appropriate notices had been correctly served.

 

12.8  The applicant stated that he had been assured by the architect that the issues surrounding bin storage and loss of communal space had been addressed and that the bin storage had been located within the site, with no interference to the adjacent properties.

 

12.9  Councillor Hanson proposed that the application be DEFERRED to allow planning officers to carefully consider objections received regarding potential loss of community space and the issue surrounding the bin storage.  She also asked that a representative from Hackney Homes be in attendance at a future meeting to answer these concerns.  This was seconded by Councillor Smith.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

Sounds Good Multimedia, 21-23 Sedgwick Street, London, E9 6HH pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

Planning permission be GRANTED for a period of six months, subject to conditions.

 

 

Minutes:

Use for the purposes of live performances, music tuition, theatre, cinema, music museum, computer classes, broadcasting, place of worship, music, dance, sound engineering and indoor sports (sui generis).  Opening hours 24 hours (broadcasting), 10am – 3am Sunday to Thursday and 10am – 6am Thursday to Saturday (live performance, theatre and cinema), 9am – 3am Sunday to Thursday amd 9am – 6pm Thursday to Saturday (indoor sports) and 9am – 9pm (music tuition, music museum and computer classes).

 

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

 

13.2  Verdi Yahooda, Helen Goldman and Shellan Barbour spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  Verdi represented a group of artists located along Digby Road.

§  Commend the work and commitment that has gone into the centre.

§  Excessive hours proposed.

§  Issue of noise pollution to surrounding residents and businesses, as the soundproofing provided was felt to be inadequate. 

§  The noise pollution team were not following up complaints made, as the report suggested that no complaints had been received.

§  Issue surrounding parking, as there is no parking provision.  There are often cars double parked along the surrounding roads.

§  Recognised that they had been invited to attend one of the management meetings to try and resolve these issues.

 

13.3  The applicants spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  The building had been fully soundproofed.  Shutters have also been installed which keep the noise contained within the building.

§  Their main age group is between 40-60 year olds.

§  The majority of attendees travel by public transport so feel that there is not a problem with parking.

§  They have never had any visits from the pollution team or the police regarding disturbance.

§  Willing to work with the local residents to try and resolve the noise nuisance issues.

 

13.4  Members wished to establish how often residents were affected by the noise generated by the centre.  The objectors stated that they suffer from noise nuisance throughout the night on a regular basis, especially at weekends.

 

13.5  The applicants stated that the building was soundproofed before the limiter was installed.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the sound limiter was installed at the end of November 2008.  The Planning Officer added that the Pollution Team did not raise any objections to the soundproofing of the building and the hours proposed.

 

13.6  Members were advised that this application had previously been submitted to the Licensing Sub-Committee and that it was now subject to planning permission.  With regard to the hours of use, the Chair asked whether the applicants would be willing to voluntarily reduce the amount of hours being requested.

 

13.7  The applicants stated that they would not be willing to voluntarily reduce the amount of hours requested due to cultural reasons, as the majority of their customers did not go out until around 2am.

 

13.8  Councillor Webb raised concerns about the Sub-Committee granting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

Land adjacent to and Flat 8 Londesborough House, Londesborough Road, London, N16 8RN pdf icon PDF 121 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:-

 

The application be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

The proposed development would result in land that currently forms part of the amenity space for Londesborough House being lost to private garden land.  It is therefore considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the current level of amenity enjoyed by residents of Londesborough House.  As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies EQ1, HO3 of the Hackney Unitary Development Plan 1995 and Policy 4B1 of the London Plan 2008.

 

 

Minutes:

Erection of a three storey plus basement house, together with installation of new timber gates and entrance to flat 8 Londesborough House.

 

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

 

14.2  Andy Beckett, David Larkin and Keith Magnum spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

 

§  David Larkin wished to clarify that his objection was not related to his duties on the Hackney Homes Board.

§  Felt that the information given in paragraph 6.4.3 of the report was inaccurate and that the list of objections was incomplete.

§  The ground floor gardens were intended for the use of residents and not for re-development.

§  44 of a total number of 82 residents had signed a petition objecting to the proposal.

§  The proposed development would dwarf no 8 Londesborough House and block its daylight.

§  Felt that it would set a precedent for selling off estate land.

§  Local Tenants Residents Association had not been consulted.

§  Loss of open space and views.

§  The proposed development would alter the symmetry of the existing site and was at least 1/3 larger than neighbouring properties.

§  Design was out of keeping with the surrounding area.

§  Land previously sold by the Council as freehold by mistake, which had generated this problem.

 

14.3  The Principal Solicitor clarified the situation regarding land use stating that it was possible to apply for planning permission on land that the applicant does not own, as long as the relevant notices had been served correctly.  She added that the land had not been defined in the UDP as public open space and so the application was not against policy.

 

14.4  The Planning Officer also confirmed that if permission was granted, the piece of land would need to be purchased before any work could take place and that the Council had previously indicated that they were not intending to sell this piece of land.

 

14.5Councillor Smith expressed strong concerns regarding the land use and loss of amenity space for other residents on the estate and proposed that the application be REFUSED on those grounds.  This was seconded by Councillor Hanson.

 

(Councillor Webb abstained from the vote).

 

 

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

The application be REFUSED for the following reason:

 

 

The proposed development would result in land that currently forms part of the amenity space for Londesborough House being lost to private garden land.  It is therefore considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the current level of amenity enjoyed by residents of Londesborough House.  As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies EQ1, HO3 of the Hackney Unitary Development Plan 1995 and Policy 4B1 of the London Plan 2008.