Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Smith and Stauber.

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Smith and Stauber.

2.1  The order of business remained as per the agenda.

3.1  There were no declarations of interest.

4.1  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2009 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record.

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

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

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

Observations to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) regarding the submission of Reserved Matters for the International Broadcast Centre (IBC) and Main Press Centre (MPC) and Multi-Storey Car Park (MSCP) to provide details of the layout, scale, appearance, materials and access during Games mode, together with supporting information and details of telecommunications provision pursuant to conditions OD.0.18 (Reserved Matters submissions), OD.5.1 (Multi Storey Car Park) and OD.0.24 (Telecommunications) of outline planning permission reference 07/90010/OUMODA.

(Councillor Desmond arrived before the start of the item and took part in the vote).

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  Reference was made to the addendum which set out the comments from the LBH Policy Team, Transportation, Design Review Panel, CABE and the ODA.

6.2  Councillor Desmond raised concern regarding the design of the building and felt that it should be a building of architectural significance and provide a significant legacy.

6.3  The Chair wished to clarify the issue of permeability and which sections of the building would be removed in legacy mode.  The Planning Officer explained that he was still unsure on the East/West connection and had requested further information.  The Chair requested that an informative be added to express the LBH’s aspiration for greater permeability around the area.  This was AGREED.

6.4  The Chair also asked whether the application included the provision of a green roof and the Planning Officer stated that little detail had been provided on sustainability and that he had requested further information.  The Chair was keen to keep the sustainability credentials up and requested that an informative be added which listed what the Council expected in relation to BREEAM and sustainability.  This was AGREED.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

2007/0864 - Discharge of condition 4 (details of refuse storage) of planning permission 2002/1953 dated 20th February 2004.

7.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda and read out a letter of objection received from Councillor Alcock, on behalf of residents.

7.2  Mr Cutler spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Circulated a copy of photos and a ground floor plan, illustrating his concerns, to Members at the meeting.

§  The bin storage proposed was no smaller than originally proposed – 660 litres.

§  The smell generated by the bins will be offensive to residents.

§  Raised the issue of leaseholders being sold the right to use the bin store, with no documentation to support this.

§  Concerned that the bins will be used by other people in the locality.

§  Seek compliance with the original approved plans, which included the provision of a bin enclosure.

§  Waste management had confirmed that the previously approved bin store area could still be used. 

7.3  The Planning Officer explained that the recommended distance for bin collection was 10m maximum and that the original storage area was too far away to be collected.  He added that the development had commenced without the conditions being adhered to and that the previously approved bin storage area was now private land.

7.4  Members felt that a resolution could not be made on this application until the outstanding bin storage issues had been resolved.  It was therefore:

  RESOLVED that:

2008/2402 - Variation of condition 10 (hours of use) of planning permission reference 2007/0396 for the Synagogue between 09:00 hours and 23:00 hours to read between 07:00 hours and 23:00 hours on any day.

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  Reference was made to the addendum which detailed revised drawings and late representations from two local residents, traffic and transportation and also Transport for London.  The responses to these representations were also set out within the addendum.

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

Unanimously 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 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.  SCM9 - No extraneous pipe work

  SRM9

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

4.  SCH10 - Provision for cycles

  SRH10

Space shall be made available for the secure parking of 20 cycles within the site/development/ building before the use is first commenced.

5.  G1 - Restricted Hours of Use

The Synagogue hereby permitted may only be carried out between 07:00 hours and 23.00 hours on any day.

6.  G1 - Restricted Hours of Use

The Offices hereby permitted may only be carried out between 08:30 hours to 18:00 Monday to Friday.

7.  G1 - Restricted Hours of Use

The Community Use hereby permitted may only be carried out between 09.00 hours to 23.00 hours on any day.

8.  SCM6 - Materials to be approved (General)

Details, including samples, of materials to be used on the building, boundary walls and ground surfaces 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.

9.  SCM7 -Details to be approved

Detailed drawings/full particulars of the proposed development showing the matters set out below must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work is commenced. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.

  Details of Windows and Doors (Including sections)

  Details of Green Roof

  Details of Front Railings

10.  SCM11 - Modification of Plans

Drawing number SH/PLO2 Rev A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

2009/0469 - Section 73 application to vary condition 14 (alterations to roof finish) and vary condition 17 (to allow railings to be positioned at a distance of not less than 0.6 Metre from edge of building) of planning permission 2006/3061 dated 20/03/2007 for:- Construction of part 5 storey L- shaped Block containing 22 affordable residential units (4x 1 beds, 12 x 2 beds, and 1x3 beds 5 x 4 bed) and 320 square metres of B1 floor space on the ground floor together with the demolition of existing light industrial (B1) building.

NB: Members are requested to note that the matters under consideration are modifications to a previously approved planning application ref: 2006/3061, consisting of the following;

-  Removal from the proposal of a 260sqm extensive ‘Accessible Green Roof’ and its substitution with a 86sq.m ‘Sedum Roof’ and an area of ‘timber decking of 102sq.m which would be accessible ‘roof terrace amenity area’ for residents. This is contrary to the requirements of condition 14 which requested construction details of the extensive green roof.

-  Re-positioning of the railing which surrounds the accessible roof so it is between 0.6m and 1.3m from the edge of the building. This is contrary to the requirements of condition 17 which required all railings to be at least 2.0m from the edge of the building.

POST REVISION SUBMISSIONS:

Additional information has been requested and received as part of the application process to include:

·  Additional justification and clarification for the reason of the application (email dated 14 April 2009)

·  Improvements and details of the ‘roof terrace amenity area’ (timber decking) to include provision of permanent planters and seating incorporated into the design

·  Full design details of the railings, and cross-sections to aid analysis of the relationship with adjoining properties

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

9.2  Reference was made to the modifications made to the previous application, in particular the removal of the 260sqm extensive ‘Accessible Green Roof’ and its substitution with a 86sq.m ‘Sedum Roof’.  It was explained that this had been removed as the Housing Association were not aware at the time that the building could not support a fully accessible green roof. 

9.3  A question was also raised regarding the balconies and why galvanized steel was being proposed and whether glass could be used which would be less obtrusive.  The applicant explained that this had been previous considered however due to structural system issues, galvanized steel had been chosen as glass would have been too heavy.  The Chair requested that best endeavours be made for glass to be used on the balconies.  This was AGREED.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

1.  (SCB1N) ‘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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

2009/0521 - Part-demolition of existing building (with façade retention) and erection of a new part-two, part-four-storey building (plus two basement levels) to provide a two-screen cinema and associated facilities, including café, event/presentation space, office accommodation and data-storage facility (modification of planning permission ref. 2005/2637).

(Councillor Sharer arrived during the discussion of the item and therefore did not take part in the vote).

10.1  Councillors Stops and Hanson both wished to note that they recognised the architect from the labour party group but did not feel it was necessary to declare a personal interest.

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

10.3  Jasia Szerszynska and Janet Scott spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows: 

§  Felt that consultation took place too late in the process.

§  The proposed development was too bulky and in an inappropriate location.

§  The surrounding roads will also be adversely affected by the development.

§  Loss of sunlight and privacy to surrounding properties.

§  Noise pollution with the late night cinema and 24 hour air conditioning system.

§  The development will also adversely impact people that work from home in the neighbouring properties.

§  The area is not served well by public transport.

§  Extend an invitation for Members of the Sub-Committee to attend the site before making a decision on the application.

§  Increase in height in respect of the existing building, which contributes to loss of daylight, outlook and shadowing.

§  Two previous applications on the site had been refused on the grounds of bulk/mass.

10.4  Charles Moran (Shoreditch Trust) and Hugh Gorban (Architect) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The application had previously been approved in 2006 and the revised application incorporated a number of additional facilities.

§  The bulk/scale of the proposed development was unchanged from the previously approved application, which was now marginally smaller at the rear.

§  The objections received during the consultation stage had been taken into consideration.

§  The scheme formed a key element of the Shoreditch Trust Delivery Plan.

10.5  The main differences between the previously approved scheme and the new application were detailed on page 255 of the report.

10.6  In response to questions raised regarding the perceived use of the building and parking, the applicant stated that this was a commercial venture to meet the needs of local communities and that it was a car free development, as it was viewed as a local facility.

10.7  Reference was made to the issue of rainwater harvesting and the Planning Officer explained that this was covered by way of a condition.  The applicant stated that they were restricted by the size of the site and that they would make best endeavours for this to be provided.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

1.  SCB0 – Development in accordance with plans

The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

2008/2628 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a six-storey building and a part-two-, part-three-, part-four-, part-five-storey building, containing a total of twenty-seven residential units (nine one-bedroom units, eleven two-bedroom units, two three-bedroom units and five four-bedroom units), together with associated access and landscaping works.

POST-SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Rear block set back further to the west to allow wider external corridor; revisions to room sizes; increase in carbon-dioxide-emissions reduction from ten per cent to twenty per cent.

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

11.2  Niki D spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  Spends a large amount of time working from home and will be adversely affected by the noise generated by the construction works.

§  Requested that the applicants pay for double glazing at her property to reduce the amount of noise.

§  The proposed development is too excessive and represents overdevelopment.

§  The proposed development will dominate the neighbouring buildings.

§  Loss of daylight.

§  Issue regarding the party wall and whether this was being protected.

§  Requested that the development be reduced from 6 to 5 storeys high.

11.3  Alison Whalley (Agent) spoke in support of the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  The existing buildings were of industrial use and were in a poor state and unviable for future business use.  Residential use for the properties was deemed appropriate.

§  The site was an awkward shape which proved to be a design challenge.

§  The proposed design promoted permeability throughout the site and the buildings step back from the road, as a way of respecting the surrounding area.

§  There was no adverse loss of daylight to any of windows within the development and the nearest building to the rear was a sufficient distance away not to be adversely affected by loss of daylight.

§  The construction work would take place during normal working hours and the Considerate Constructor Scheme would be adhered to.  A screen would also be erected between the construction site and the local residential properties during the construction phase.

11.4  It was clarified that the party wall issue was a matter to be discussed between the resident and the developers and it was confirmed that there was an existing walkway between the resident’s property and the party wall.

11.5  The Chair raised the issue of parking and the fact that the availability of on-street disabled parking spaces for use by residents of the site could not be guaranteed. 

11.6  In response, the agent stated that this was not ideal but that the site was too constrained for off street parking to be provided and that this was the best solution possible. 

11.7  The Chair requested that a survey be undertaken by the applicant to determine whether the demand for disabled parking and whether this had been satisfied.  This was AGREED.

11.8  Councillor Webb raised concern regarding the blank brick flank wall proposed, which did not include the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

2008/0830 - Variation of condition 6 (floodlighting hours) of Planning Inspectorate's decision notice dated 27 April 2005 (ref. APP/U5360/A/04/1166320), to allow floodlights to operate until 21.00 hrs during weekdays.

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

12.2  The Chair raised the issue of maintenance and whether there was a maintenance plan in place.  The Planning Officer stated that a maintenance plan had not yet been submitted and that he would pursue this matter with the applicant.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

‘The floodlighting hereby permitted shall not be used outside the hours of 08.00 to 21.00 on Mondays to Fridays and 09.00 to 16.00 on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or Public Holidays’.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

1.  The following policy contained in the Hackney Unitary Development Plan (1995) is relevant to the approved development/use and was considered by this Council in reaching the decision to grant planning permission: EQ1 - Development Requirements.

2.  The following policy in the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) is relevant to the approved development/use and was considered by this Council in reaching the decision to grant planning permission: 3A.24 - Education facilities.

INFORMATIVES

NSI  For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant is reminded that all the other conditions of the original permission granted by the Planning Inspector under appeal reference APP/U5360/A/04/1166320 continue to apply.

2008/1753 - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 storey building with basement level to provide 327 residential units and 7,871sqm of business floorspace (class B1a, B1b and B1c) with associated car parking, access and landscaping. The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES), as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

·  The amount of proposed employment floorspace has increased from 6,521sqm to 7,871sqm

·  The proposed employment floorspace has been made more flexible through provision of goods lifts which make the floorspace suitable for the full range of B1 users (class B1a office, B1b research and B1c light industry) rather than just offices (class B1a) as originally proposed.

·  The application now formally seeks planning permission for this full range of B1 uses.

·  The residential space has been altered slightly to ensure that all of the affordable family sized units now have access to balconies.

·  The landscaping proposals have also been revised. Two of the piers which extended into the basin have been removed and more planting of native species are now proposed along the basin edge.

·   Lighting over the basin has been omitted.

13.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. Reference was made to the addendum and a correction to paragraph 2.1 of the report.  This should have stated that the site was located within the Regents Canal Conservation Area.

13.2  The addendum also stated that a further 10 objection letters had been received from local residents, which raised similar concerns to those set out in the report.  The comments received from English Heritage were also highlighted within the addendum.

13.3  Piers Heron, Mr Aiton, Kevin Root and Nick Turner spoke in objection to the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  The proposed development was too high and overbearing.

§  Loss of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties, especially business units.

§  Too bulky and requested that the height be reduced, in-line with neighbouring properties.

§  Requested that the architects be retained throughout all the development stages.

§  Some of the distances between the development and the neighbouring properties was less than the 30m guidance.

§  Adverse impact on neighbouring properties during the construction phase of the development.

§  The site was defined as an employment area within the UDP.

§  Parking issues.

13.4  Steve Marshall (Architect) and Simon Dilly (Invest in Hackney) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:

§  Providing highly flexible space, with employment opportunities.

§  Affordable housing being provided, with balconies.

§  Opening up the area around the canal.

§  Car parking will be provided in the basement.

§  Intend to be a good neighbour, which is reflected in the considerate design.  Step back technique was proposed as a way of reducing massing and loss of daylight/sunlight.

§  No existing trees would be removed and 20 new trees would be planted.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

2008/1991 - Demolition of existing three buildings and redevelopment of the site to erect a part 8, part 14 and part 17 storey building and a part 11, part 12 storey building to provide for student accommodation (661 rooms), Class C1 hotel (230 rooms), Class B1 use (6.916 sq m GEA), along with disabled car parking, access, landscaping and associated works.

14.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out within the agenda.  A model of the proposed development was displayed for Members’ information.

14.2  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum which set out additional information regarding TfL contributions, sustainability, roof plant, community policing facilities, policy comments and Invest in Hackney.

14.3  Concern was raised regarding the loss of employment space and wished to clarify whether this was a departure from the London Plan.  The Planning Officer explained that the Plan encouraged a varied mix of employment space and that the proposed development provided flexible, high quality work space, which supported local businesses.

14.4  Concern was also raised regarding the student element of the proposal, especially around the Hoxton area and also the issues surrounding sewerage and the water supply, highlighted on pages 534/535 of the agenda.  In response, the Planning Officer stated that they had consulted with Thames Water and that the issues raised were covered by condition.

14.5  In response to a query regarding the perceived rents charges for the student accommodation, it was explained that the rental side of the development would be managed by a separate provider and so the figures were unknown at present.

14.6  The Sub-Committee requested that the same architect be used throughout the scheme and that this be added as an additional clause to the S106 agreement.  This was AGREED.

14.7  The Chair asked whether rain water harvesting was included within the scheme and the applicant stated that he would be happy to work through the technical issues so that this could be provided.  The Chair requested that this be added as an additional condition.  This was AGREED.

14.8  Discussion took place regarding the issue surrounding the suggested contribution towards public realm improvements at Old Street roundabout from TfL, in which the Council did not approve of.  It was explained that the planning department were in discussions with TfL regarding the proposed improvement plans and that details had yet to be finalised.  The various options were discussed, including the suggestion to collect the contribution in trust for TfL and that terms and conditions be set out to determine what the contribution be spent on.

14.9  Following discussion, Members requested that this matter be delegated to the Head of Development, Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee, to negotiate the clause under the S106 agreement with the developer, regarding the TfL contribution.  This was AGREED.

14.10  The Planning Officer referred to the community policing facilities at the ground floor, which were being provided at a peppercorn rent for a period of 25 years.  He added that the developer had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

2007/2330 – Erection of a part 3, part 4, part 5 storey building to provide 545.5sqm of Class B1 (Office/Light Industry) and 34 residential units, comprising 9 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed, 9 x 3 bed and 4 x 4 bed units together with 7 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

NB:  Members are requested to note that this scheme was previously resolved for approval at Committee on the 16 April 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.

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

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

Unanimously 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 (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, 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.  SCM3 - Brickwork to be approved

Full details of the facing bricks to be used for the external surfaces of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work on the site is commenced. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.

5.  SCM5 – Boundary walls to be approved

  Full details, including materials, of all boundary walls and enclosures 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 – (SRM5).

6.  SCM7 – Reserved matters to be approved

  Detailed drawings/full particulars of the proposed development showing the matters set out below must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work is commenced. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved.

a.  Further detailing of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

2007/2974 - Section 17 Certificate of Alternative Appropriate Development for A1, A2, A3, B1, C1, C3, D1 and D2 uses.

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

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

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

1.  No building work shall be started until details, and where relevant these to include plans/sections and elevations showing the following details in respect of the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the relevant part of the development shall in all respects be carried out in accordance with the approved plans:

(a) Siting of the buildings  

(b) design of the buildings including floor areas, height, massing,

(c) external appearance,

(d) means of access, including car parking and servicing arrangements

(e) refuse including recycling provision

(f) landscaping

(g) Archaeological survey

REASON: In order that the Council is satisfied with the details of the proposed development and to ensure compliance with Policies EQ1, ST1 and ST2 of the Hackney Unitary Development Plan.

2.   An application for the approval of the reserved matters pursuant to condition 2 shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

3.   The development to which this permission relates shall begin not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- a)  the expiration of three years from the date of this outline planning permission; or b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates,  the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

4.   A Design Code shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of any reserved matters application. Any reserved matters applications shall demonstrate compliance with the Design Code or subsequent variation approved pursuant to this condition.

REASON: In order to ensure the highest quality redevelopment of the site based on specific urban design guidelines and to ensure compliance with Policy EQ1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5.   Suitable and sufficient historical search and site investigations to determine the presence of contaminants, including ground exhaled gases, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The Full results of the investigation and details of proposed remedial measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Council and implemented prior to the start of the development. Such details are to include an assessment of potential for the pollution of the water environment, measures to prevent the migration of contaminants, prevent pollution of ground water and surface water, including measures for monitoring, to protect future maintenance personnel.

REASON:  In order to safeguard the amenities of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

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

  Unanimously RESOLVED:-

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

  Unanimously RESOLVED:-