Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hanson, Smith, Stauber and Tesler, and Kevin Moore (Hackney Society). 

1.2  An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Desmond.

2.1  Item 6 (Phase 1 of Haggerston West Estate – E8 and Kingsland Estate) was taken after Item 12, as the Sub-Committee was inquorate.

2.2  Item 9 (Unit L, East Cross Centre, Waterden Road) was withdrawn from the agenda.

2.3  Item 11 (194 Pitfield Street) was withdrawn from the agenda.  

3.1  Councillor Buitekant declared a prejudicial interest in Item 6 – Phase 1 of Haggerston West Estate – E8 and Kingsland Estate, as he had previously sat on the Estate Management Committee and left the Chamber during the discussion of this item.

4.1  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting on 7 January 2009 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record.

5.1  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting on 7 January 2009 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendments:-

§  Item 9, paragraph 9.4 – fourth bullet point should state ‘A total of 2 new tennis courts are proposed ….’

§  Item 9, paragraph 9.5 should state ‘….whether there was a need for the 2 additional tennis courts ….’

§  Item 9, paragraph 9.8 – ‘The Chair asked the Leisure Department to develop a Management Plan and that this be reported back to the Sub-Committee for approval.  This was AGREED.

Approval of Reserved Matters (design, external appearance and landscaping) submitted pursuant to condition (4) of permission Ref. 2007/2889 relating todemolition of 486 dwellings and redevelopment of the sites with a total of 761dwellings (248 rented, 170 intermediate and 343 private for sale), comprising 1-bed, 2-bed and 3-bed flats, 3-bed, 4-bed and 5-bed houses and 4-bed maisonettes; new community centre, including community multi-purpose hall, community offices and meeting room, youth club, classes, IT room, nursery (approximate total area of 1,374 sq. m – Use Class D1), 10No. retail / commercial units: (approximate total area of 548 m2 – within Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5/B1/D1); structural landscaping, provision of public open space and creation of new vehicular, cycle and pedestrian routes within the estate (55% affordable housing units); and car parking proposed on new roads (approximately 48); undercroft (approximately 213).

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

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda and explained that material samples were available at the meeting.

6.2  Graham Girling (Applicant) and Lorna Mead (EDMC) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Strived for the highest quality construction and materials.

§  They had kept the promises made to residents, following the previous consultations.

§  The phasing was resident lead and the majority of properties being built in Phase 1 would be social housing.

§  The scheme had been looked at by the Design Review Panel, which had deemed the undercroft parking acceptable. They were also focused on crime prevention and working with the police, with CCTV being installed within the car park.

§  The EDMC had worked with the Housing Association and Architects throughout the development.

§  The existing housing is of a poor standard, which contributed to the low moral of residents.

§  The EDMC supports Phase 1 of the development and feel that the previous parking issues had now been resolved.

§  The proposed development will provide improved amenity space, community facilities, shops and improved housing.

6.3  The Chair referred to the issue of undercroft and asked the Applicant whether any other alternative parking arrangements had been considered and also how this would be managed.

6.4  The applicant stated that they had looked at other alternatives and that undercroft parking had been chosen because they wanted to increase the amount of parking available for returning residents.  Approximately 83 residents had vehicles.  He added that it would be secured by design and they sought to gain Park Mark accreditation.  They would provide the necessary lighting and ventilation and provide a commitment for the management of this area.  He added that this would not be a large public car park and that residents would pay to use it.

6.5  The applicant explained that residents had been invited to view a similar scheme in Greenwich Millennium Village, where undercroft parking had worked well.  The landscape architect added that he had designed a podium  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

  Erection of a two-storey, 2 bedroom single dwelling house.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Alterations to the front façade to include a separation gap, omission of screening on top of the proposed front boundary wall, and reposition of the refuse store behind the front boundary. 

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

7.2  Councillor Karen Alcock spoke in objection to the scheme, on behalf of residents.  Her comments are summarised as follows:-

§  The report failed to respond to the concerns of residents regarding privacy.

§  A similar scheme for a private dwelling in her ward had previously been refused.

§  Previously been in objection to the scheme, submitted in 2005.

§  Believed it was the wrong type of development for the site.

7.3  Dirk Lampe also spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Presented a petition to the Planning Officer and circulated a number of photos for Members’ information.

§  The proposed building is 7m away from the terrace and the guidance states that there should be a separation on 21m.

§  Boundary walls are only 3m high, so there was an issue of overlooking.

§  No strategic need for this type of housing.

§  The development would take a large majority of neighbours gardens.

§  The development was out of keeping with the surrounding area  and there was an issue of overdevelopment.

§  The issue of overlooking was made worse by the removal of the basement level since the 2005 application.

§  The rooms were now smaller than originally proposed and there was a loss of daylight to neighbouring properties.

7.4  The Chair wished to clarify whether the level of overlooking for this proposal was the same as for the previous application.  The Planning Officer stated that there was a distance of 9.5m between the development and the neighbouring property and that there was no significant problem with overlooking.  He explained that the development had the same footprint and so the previous daylight/sunlight report still stands.

7.5  He added that the boundary wall could be conditioned to ensure that it is made more substantial (solid).  This was AGREED.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

  Boundary Wall …..

1.  Commencement within 3 years (SCBN1)

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.  Landscaping Scheme to be approved (SCT1)

A landscaping scheme illustrated on detailed drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in writing, before any work commences on site, for the planting of trees and shrubs showing species, type of stock, numbers of trees and shrubs to be included and showing areas to be grass seeded or turfed; all landscaping in accordance with the scheme, when approved, shall be carried out within a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Change of use of ground floor from warehouse (Class B8) to Art Gallery (Class D1) and New Window to ground floor.

POST SUBMISSION REVISION - New window at ground floor.

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

8.2  Laura Newby spoke in objection of the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

§  Speaking on behalf of residents, she is the owner of the property.

§  Lack of clarify regarding the procedural process and the consultation of neighbours in Tower Hamlets.

§  Wished to receive clarification that the development would not be used for their own purposes, in order to enhance the marketability of the site.

§  Wanted to know the benefits for the community and opening hours.

§  Primarily a residential area.

§  Issue of noise and traffic safety, as a result of the narrow road.

8.3  Mark Jackson spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Non-profit art gallery that wishes to locate to larger premises, following the achievement of various awards and a grant.

§  They are a community organisation and they previously conducted surveys in Broadway Market to gauge interest in the proposal, which had received a positive response.

§  The opening hours are until 11pm Monday – Saturday and until 10pm on a Sunday.  This allows them to carry out talks in the evening on an infrequent basis, as undertaken at their previous location.

§  The addition of a window to the front of the property was deemed acceptable, as there had been one there in the past.

§  An enclosed foyer was being incorporated into the design, in order to reduce the level of noise generated.

8.4  Councillor Buitekant wished to clarify whether the neighbouring residents in Tower Hamlets had been consulted.  The Planning Officer confirmed that these residents had been consulted and were also notified of the meeting.  The main issue raised was regarding the potential impact on the Regents Canal Conservation Area. 

8.5  The Chair raised the issue of potential use for the premises and the Planning Officer confirmed that it was restricted to Class D1 use.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

  Boundary Wall …..

1.  SCB0 - Development only in accordance with submitted plansSRB0

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 3 years

SRB1

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.

3.  SCM1 - Materials to Match

  SRM1

All new external finishes in respect of all works hereby approved (and any other incidental works  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Section 17 Certificate of Alternative Development for A1, A2, A3, B1, C1, C3, D1 and D2 uses.

RESOLVED that:-

Clearance of the site and the construction of a part 5, part 14 storey building for a mixed use development to provide 83 square metres of A1, B1 and/or D1 use and 97 affordable residential units (Social Rented - 11 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 23 x 3-bed, and 14 x 4-bed. Intermediate – 23 x 1-bed, 11 x 2-bed and 10 x 3-bed) with associated car parking, refuse and landscaping.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

·  Disabled car-park numbers on Berger Road reduced from 5 to 3 to reduce vehicle crossovers and improve courtyard space.

·  Glazing of shopfront increased to angled wall.

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

10.2  The Chair made reference to the parking arrangements and requested that a car share scheme be included in the scheme.  The applicant confirmed that a car share scheme was provided within the proposal.

10.3  The Chair also raised concern about the size of the windows after looking at the plans.  The applicant explained that they had worked with a daylight/sunlight consultant in designing the building and confirmed that they always provided large windows and that the size of the windows included in the scheme were above average.

 Unanimously 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.

Design & Appearance

3.  Materials to be approved (entire site)

  Details, including samples, of materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, boundary walls, gates 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.  Further details of be Submitted and Approved

  Detailed drawings/full particulars showing the following matters set out below must be submitted to and approved by the Council before any work is commenced on site. This part of the development shall be completed only in accordance with the modifications thus approved:-

a)  Details of adequate screening to the child playspace area

b)  Details of the lighting facilities, canopies, and entrance/waiting spaces to the residential entrance.

  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 and, to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Demolition of existing building and construction of a part six, part seven storey building to provide 96sqm of commercial  (A1, A2, B1 and D1) floorspace on the ground floor and 16 residential flats (5 x 1-bed, 8 x 2-bed, 3 x 3-bed) above, with 1 disabled car parking space, 16 cycle parking spaces and associated facilities

POST REVISION SUBMISSIONS:

A minor revision to the external appearance of the scheme was sought and agreed by the applicant. This included:

·  Metal balustrades being added to the windows to the east and south elevation to increase visual interest.

·  Widening of the residential entrance way and hall (from 1.2m to 2.3m) to improve its relationship to the street.

RESOLVED that:

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 37 flats (5x1 bed/19 x 2 bed/12 x 3bed/1 x 4 bed) in a 5 storey building with penthouse level together with parking provision for 18 cars and 80 cycle spaces.

(Councillor Desmond arrived during the discussion of this item and so did not take part in the vote).

12.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He explained that planning application 2008/2014, which related to the same site, had been presented to the Sub-Committee on 3 December 2008 where it was deferred by Members to allow the applicant to go back and look at the mix of units.  The application was subsequently withdrawn to allow the residential element of the proposal to be revised.

12.2  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum which detailed a further objection from a resident, following the closure of the consultation period on 3 March 2009 and his response.  He added that a set of revised conditions for Recommendation A were detailed within the addendum, which dealt with the phasing issue.  The applicants confirmed that they were happy with the phasing plans suggested.

12.3  Steve Gilvin (Primary Care Trust), Jo McCafferty (Architects) and Paul Brand (Agent) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Consultation was undertaken in 2007.

§  The centre will provide expert diagnostic services, with approximately 300-350 being dealt with a week.  The new centre will cover a wider catchment area, with public transport routes available for people living in these areas. People that normally use an ambulance service will still be offered this service.

§  The main change from the previous application is the family units now have more amenity space, with the provision of large terraces and balconies.

12.4  Councillor Webb raised the issue of street lamps and whether these could be placed on the building and it was confirmed that this was included with the Section 106 agreement.

12.5  In response to a question from the Chair regarding staff, the applicant confirmed that there would be approximately 40-50 staff based permanently on-site.

12.6  Discussion took place on the issue surrounding the ambulance parking bay and the Chair wished to clarify whether this affected the residual footway width.  The applicant stated that it was a TfL road and that the bay was within the curtailage of the site.  He added that it was a complex site within a red route and that the location was chosen as it provided a drop off point at the entrance of the building, with level access.  There was also limited parking within the yard.  The Chair requested that best endeavours be made for an alternative location to be found for the ambulance bay and drop off point, within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(1) Resubmission of planning application 2008/2221 for demolition of existing building and erection of a new part 5, part 6 storey mixed use building (plus basement) to provide 7713sqm of Class B1 office accommodation and 345sqm of class A1/A3 retail/restaurant/café accommodation together with 5 off street car parking spaces (3 of which would be for disabled persons) and cycle parking, landscaping areas and a courtyard.

(2) Conservation area consent for demolition of existing buildings.

13.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He informed Members that this application, previously approved by the Sub-Committee on 3 December 2008, was being re-submitted because Recommendation C required that the s106 be completed by 24 December 2008 and in the event that it was not completed by this date the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning be given the authority to refuse the application.  Subsequently, the applicant failed to complete the s106 agreement by 24 December 2008 and the application was refused.

13.2  The Planning Officer confirmed that the present application remained unchanged from the application previously approved by committee.

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

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 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.  Non standard condition

Details of the thermal labyrinth and combined heat and power (CHP) system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation or commencement of operations and the systems shall be installed in accordance with such approved details.

REASON: To ensure that the development makes a contribution to the energy and resource efficiency priorities and other sustainability objectives which are embodied in the London Plan, Hackney UDP and emerging Core Strategy

5.  Non standard condition

A landscaping scheme illustrated on detailed drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Observations to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) regarding the planning application for the construction of temporary buildings for use for sports, leisure and entertainment purposes within class D2 (Basketball, Handball, Wheelchair Rugby and Wheelchair Basketball) during the Olympic and Paralympic Games; and associated back of house accommodation.

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

14.2  The Planning Officer referred to the addendum and explained that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) Decisions Team had included an additional condition, to be placed on any approval to ensure all temporary buildings on site are removed within a specific timeframe.

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

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

BALT.1 – All development hereby permitted including all plant, temporary buildings, bridges, fencing and other construction equipment shall be removed from the site prior to 31 December 2013 unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, and the site laid out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON:  In the interests of amenity and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.2 of permission ref.07/90010/0UMODA.

INFORMATIVE

The LBH would like to emphasize the importance of the Legacy Phase of the Olympic Park development and the speed at which, after the Games Phase, the Legacy vision can be implemented.  As the basketball Arena site has been demarcated as a development site, the timing of developing this land is crucial to ensure the Park remains active.  Should the site not be developed within a short timeframe after the Games Phase, the LBH would like the building retained until the site is to be developed and provide uses and activities within this portion of the Olympic Park during this transitional period.

Demolition of existing building and erection of a six storey building (plus basement) to provide 152 residential units (46 units to comprise extra care accommodation and 25 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 19 x 3 bed and 12 x 4 bed) with ancillary car parking and landscaping.

POST REVISION SUMMARY:  

Ground floor stair adjustments to main entrance areas.

Room widths to number single bedrooms amended to accord with SPG1 standards.

Bridge to some maisonettes amended to provide access to side of living areas.

15.1  The Planning Officer informed the Sub-Committee that this application had been reported to Members at the meeting held on 4 February 2009, where Members did not vote in favour of the officer’s recommendation, for the reasons listed within the report. 

15.2  She explained that officer’s had been given legal advice that this application was not determined and that it had to be brought back to Members for their determination with the same recommendation.  However, in light of previous concerns raised, a number of additional points were listed within the report, for clarification.

15.3  Reference was made to the addendum which detailed additional comments from the Sustainability, Design and Conservation Manager; which dealt primarily with the external design and internal layout.  In addition, Members were advised that two drawings had been submitted by the applicant to illustrate layouts as would be covered by SCM11a (5943-D3100B and D3199B), and that two additional drawings were attached to the addendum displaying corridor length and accessibility and internal layouts of typical units.

15.4  Mrs Meisels and Mr Hoddes spoke in objection to the scheme, their concerns are summarised as follows:-

§  Mrs Meisels had also objected at the previous meeting.

§  None of the neighbouring residents had received notification of the application coming to committee.

§  There was an issue of constant crime surrounding in the area.

§  The scheme was too dense and out of character with the surrounding area.

§  Loss of green amenity space.

§  The development should be no larger than 3/4 storeys in height.

15.5  Mary Power (Savills), John Moore (Formation Architects) and Robert Barton (Countryside, Applicant) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:-

§  The existing building is currently derelict and located within a prominent, attractive area.  Need to improve the area and building will not take place on the London Square.

§  Referred to the 2007 planning appeal where the regeneration of the area was supported.

§  Hand delivered letters to neighbouring residents.

§  They had submitted further drawings of proposals for the internal layout of the building, at the request of the Planning Officer.

§  Previously won design awards.

§  There was a maximum of 9m from the front door to the lift/stairs, which met with the guidance.

§  1/3 of the units are dual aspect.

15.6  Discussion took place on the issue of density and reference was made to the Inspector’s report from the previous appeal, as detailed within the addendum.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

RESOLVED:-