Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  There were no apologies for absence received.

2.1  The order of business remained as per the agenda.

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

4.1  The Chair took the opportunity to thank Sue Foster (Assistant Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration), on behalf of the Sub-Committee, for all of her hard work during her six years at Hackney, as she would shortly be leaving the Council.  During that time she had made a number of significant improvements to the Planning Service and also the Planning Sub-Committee, including the establishment of the Hackney Design Awards and Design Panels.

4.2  RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2008 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record, subject to the following amendment:

§  Paragraph 3.1 should read – Members that had met Matthew Evans, agent, on previous Members’ Site Tours, declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in Item 6 – St Mary’s Old Church.

Conversion of a single dwelling house to create 4 self-contained flats (comprising 1 x 4 bed flat and 3 x 2 bed flats) together with external alterations including installation of new double doors onto the rear roof terrace at mezzanine floor level and rooflights to ground floor extension and creation of new front door steps.

Post-Submission Revisions: Slight amendments to the submitted drawings were received on 7 November 2008.  These drawings illustrate minor alterations to the proposed front elevation and proposed floor plans which amended internal floor levels (the addition of 3 internal steps).

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

5.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the addendum which detailed the amended plans and also advised the Sub-Committee that the drawing numbers shown on page 65 of the agenda should be replaced with the following amended drawing numbers:

§  191eve/1/01 Rev B

§  191eve/1/02 Rev A

§  191eve/2/01 Rev C

§  191eve/2/02 Rev B

§  191eve/2/03 Rev A

5.2  Bob Wilson spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  16 residents had signed a petition objecting to the scheme.

§  Referred to page 70 of the agenda, as he was still not satisfied with the responses given to their representations.

§  The plans were still not accurate.

§  Believe that the applicant will still use the roof space for a balcony.

§  There was originally a garage in the basement, which is now replaced with 4 windows, which is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding properties with the majority having 3 windows.

§  The existing long extension to the rear of the property had been erected without planning permission and caused a problem with overlooking, due to it being used as a roof terrace.

§  Issue of stacking, as the kitchen was in between a bedroom above and below. 

§  Impaired mobility, as a result of additional stairs being added, due to the ground floor being raised.  The property originally had level access.

5.3  Jay Patel spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  The resident at 193 Evering Road is not in objection to the scheme and feels that the materials proposed are in keeping with neighbouring properties.  The only objection made was that they believed there should be one less bedroom on the ground floor.

§  The only inaccuracies in the drawings related to the bay window which had now been rectified.

§  The single storey rear extension and roof terrace have been in situ for over 10 years, therefore the works are within permitted development.  The roof terrace had also been reduced in order to reduce the amount of overlooking to the neighbouring property.

§  It is not possible to make the property fully accessible on ground floor, due to the difference in ground level between the front and back of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Erection of a four storey building to accommodate 1 x two bedroom house, 1 x three bedroom house, 1 x one bedroom flat and a 1 two bedroom flat, together with roof terraces at first, second and third floors, associated landscaping and provision for refuse storage and bicycle parking.

Amendments: Privacy screening to terraces and additional bicycle storage provided.

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

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

6.2  Paul Treloar spoke in objection to the scheme and his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Lived in his property for over 10 years.

§  Since the small business had departed the site had become derelict.  He was keen to see the area developed but was concerned with the development proposed.

§  A number of applications had already been refused on the site, due to height, scale and bulk of the development.

§  The proposed development is too oppressive and overbearing and there will be overlooking to neighbouring properties.

§  The property is too high, at 4 storeys.

§  He and other residents had not had any contact with the contractors.

6.3  David Mikhail spoke in support of the scheme and his comments are summarised as follows:

§  The site was currently a problem and the proposed development would significantly improve this area of Church Walk.

§  They had taken into consideration feedback from previous refusals and incorporated these into the new proposal.

§  The property was only 4 storeys at one corner of the building.

§  The ground level has been stepped down by 2m, which has improved the level of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties.

§  Highly ecological site – highly insulated, rain water harvesting, green roof where available and the whole building was recyclable.

§  Intention to build something of quality.

6.4  The Chair referred to the application submitted in 2001 which originally had 2 storeys and wished to know why four storeys was now deemed appropriate.  The Planning Officer stated that the 2 storey section of the building was located nearest Clissold Road and that the 4 storey section was located furthest away from the nearest properties.  He added that the existing 3m high wall had now been reduced to 2m, which will also have a positive impact on the daylight/sunlight for neighbouring properties.

6.5  In response to a question regarding daylight/sunlight, it was confirmed that a daylight/sunlight report had been submitted which specifically considered the potential impact upon the ground floor Flat 2, No.8 Clissold Road and Flat 3, 6-12 Clissold Road.  This report confirmed that the level of daylight/sunlight was well within BRE guidelines.

6.6  Councillor Smith queried whether the development was too small to request a Section 106 contribution for items such as CCTV and better lighting, as there were concerns with anti-social behaviour in the area.  The Interim Head of Regulatory Services stated that this development was on the margin and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Proposal (A):  Removal of rear extension and erection of part one, part two storey rear extension (full planning permission).

Proposal (B):  Removal of rear extension and erection of part one, part two storey rear extension together with internal alterations comprising lowering of attic ceiling to create a shower room and internal alterations to create a bathroom at ground floor level.

7.1  The Chair wished to clarify whether any of the members knew Tim Sylvester (Assistant Director Finance), as he was the applicant.  The planning Members confirmed that they did not know Tim Sylvester and had not had previous dealings with him.

7.2  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  The Chair asked the Urban Design & Conservation Manager to clarify the issue surrounding English Heritage and whether they should had been consulted, especially due to the fact that the applicant is a Council employee.

7.3  The Urban Design & Conservation Manager clarified the guidance for notifications of applications to English Heritage relating to Grade II listed buildings, relevant to the application:-

§  Applications for planning permission involving demolition (in whole or part) or material alteration of any listed building.

§  Applications which affect the character or appearance of a conservation area exceeding 1000sqm or higher than 20m.

7.4  The Urban Design & Conservation Manager stated that in his opinion the proposal did not fall within the guidance, as the works proposed did not involve the demolition of a principal external wall or a substantial part of the interior and therefore English Heritage did not need to be consulted.

7.5  David Smith spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Circulated copies of photos to Members, illustrating his argument.

§  Huge issue with the planning process, as information was not readily available.  Felt to be even more of an issue as the applicant was a Council employee.

§  Architectural drawings are inaccurate and misleading.

§  Proposed development would dramatically alter the historic character of the De Beauvoir area.

§  Properties 37-63 Northchurch Road are listed buildings and form a group of properties.  English Heritage states that this group of buildings must remain in character with each other.

§  Wished to know why English Heritage had not been consulted and having contacted English Heritage personally had been informed that they were unaware of this application.

§  Been informed that the CAAC had been requested to withdraw their objection to the proposal.

§  Appears that the application was fast-tracked, with last minute amendments and no visit from the Conservation Team.

7.6  The Chair expressed his disappointment at the poor quality of the drawings provided, considering the importance of the building and wished to clarify with the Planning Officer that they were satisfied the drawings accurately reflected the proposal and that a member of the Conservation Team had previously visited the site.

7.7  The Planning Officer stated that they were satisfied that the drawings were clear and accurately reflected the proposal and confirmed that a member of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Section 73 application for the variation of the wording of conditions 3 (ground surface treatment), 4 (boundary walls), 5 (details to be approved), 6 (lighting & balcony details), 7 (soft and hard landscaping  public realm design details), 10 (highway boundary details), 19 (details of public realm hard and soft landscaping), 20 (detail of non public realm hard and soft landscaping), 21 (landscape management plan), 24 (cycle storage), 29 (artefact details), 30 (safe by design), 37 (phasing plan), 39 (contaminated land study) of planning permission 2007/1803 dated 27/02/2008: Section 73 application for the variation of condition 3 (ground surface treatment), 4 (boundary walls), 5 (details to be approved), 6(modifications), 7 (signage), 12 (roof plant enclosures), 17 (shop fronts), 18 (landscaping public realm), 19 (landscaping excluding public realm), 20 (landscape management plan), 21 (waste, recycling enclosures), 23 (cycle stands), 28 (artefact details), 29 (certificate of compliance to safe by design) and 35 (restricted delivery hours) of planning permission dated 9/11/2006 (ref: 2006/0886 for Town and  Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No.293): Environmental Statement accompanying a planning application for the redevelopment of the site through the erection of two blocks being part 8, part 10 and part 19 storey buildings for the purposes of a mixed use development comprising a total of 244 residential units (81x1bed, 82 x 2 bed, 59 x 3 bed, 16 x 4 bed and 6 x 6 bed); 1711sqm of class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional services), A3 (Restaurant/Café), A4 (Drinking Establishments) floor space; 424sqm of B1/D1 floor space (workshop, studio, community); 3168sqm of D1 floor space (Library and Archive); 4900sqm public open space; 65 car parking spaces, 62 cycle spaces for public use; new site access points, relocation to taxi stands from Roseberry Place to Dalston Lane; The proposal includes the demolition of all existing building on the subject site (amended description).

NOTE TO MEMBERS:The application was granted conditional planning permission subject to the signing of a S106 Legal Agreement at Planning Sub-Committee in August 2008.

This resolution followed the prior approval of application reference 2007/1803 to vary application 2006/0886 for which the discharge of a number of conditions had been sort, as reported to Members in August.  The Council having the freehold of the site, are required to seek Cabinet consent to enter the Section 106; this was considered by Cabinet towards the end of October.  In the meantime, conditions to the 2007 application have been discharged.  The purpose of this note is to update members in relation to the progress of the development in consideration of the details that have been dealt with under condition and that consequently no longer require submission for discharge but rather to be included within the schedule of approved drawings and documents attached to a new consent.

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda. The Planning Officer ran through each of the conditions in-turn, detailed on pages 146-149 of the agenda.

8.2  There being no questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

2008/1973 – Restoration of Grade II Listed Villa to bring all areas into beneficial use as a café, Function Rooms, retail and ancillary park facilities (W.C, Ranger Point) the work includes repairs & alterations to external walls, re-roofing, internal alterations creating new layout; provision of new passenger lift, kitchen/servery, W.C facilities.

2008/1975 – Renovations to park environment including: Demolition and removal of the following: 2 No. existing toilet blocks; Aviary; 2 No. small sheds; 5 No. entrance gates.  Refurbishment of: Sluice House with change of use to A1 (refreshment kiosk 25 sqm in area); and Bowling Pavilion including re-instatement of WCs.  Erection of: New Aviary; new butterfly dome; 5 No. entrance gates; storage shed; 2 No. new pedestrian bridges; Extension of the “New River” water body; development of a new sports and play area including skate park.  Relocation of waste storage areas to existing depot accessed from Greenway Close.

9.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the addendum and stated that section 1.4 on page 163 of the agenda should be deleted from the report. The addendum also provided a clarification of enclosures to the New River and Lakes within Clissold Park.

9.2  Sally Prothero (LDA), Hyder Ajmi (Project Manager, Hackney Council) and Shane Jenson (Project Manager, Hackney Council) were in attendance to answer any questions that arose.

9.3  In response to a query regarding the relocation of the Hackney Tennis Club, the Planning Officer explained that the tennis club currently occupies part of the ground floor of Clissold House and that the proposal was to open up the house to the public, which would include the area they currently occupy.

9.4  Councillor Smith raised two questions concerning the extension to the water body and the health and safety implications and also why the interpretation centre was included within the proposal.

9.5  Sally Prothero explained that the extension to the New River was an important feature in the park, identified at stage 1 of the project.  The extension was not as extensive as originally proposed and a low fence will be installed around it for health and safety reasons.  In relation to the interpretation centre, Sally Prothero stated that it was viewed as a way pf getting new people to use the park.  It was also an opportunity to gain new volunteers and would also be used by local schools.  The centre also makes good use of the derelict bowling pavilion.

9.6  The Chair asked a number of questions, firstly regarding the York Stone and what was to take its place as English Heritage were not happy with this proposal.  The Urban Design & Conservation Manager explained that this was an important refurbishment and that the Council had worked closely with English Heritage and that further discussion would need to take place on the proposed materials.

9.7  The Chair also wished to clarify what railings were proposed for the water bodies and also why the gates to the park were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Section 73 application to vary condition 2 (Minor alterations to building) and vary condition 9 (by removing the requirement of marking of 1 parking bay for people with disability) of planning permission 2006/2589 dated 15.05.2007 (for the construction of a five-storey building consisting of 18 units (4 x 1 bed, 9 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed) together with the provision of 353m2 of retail (Class A1) floorspace at ground floor level.

10.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  The addendum circulated to Members at the meeting included a copy of a previous report to the Sub-Committee on this application.

10.2  Rob Grantham (Contractor) was in attendance and the Chair asked him to clarify how the drawings had changed since the previous application was approved.

10.3  Rob Grantham explained that the changes to the drawings were mainly as a result of determining that the site had unsupportive foundations and therefore a lightweight building had to be built instead.  This was considered a minor change and the main change was a loss of a disabled parking space.  He was also asked by the applicant for a variation of the TMO within the S106 agreement, to propose a bond of £3,000 to cover the costs of the TMO.

10.4  In response to a question from the Chair asking why the building was now 1 metre than the scheme that was previously agreed, Rob Grantham explained that they had consulted the planning department and it was not viewed as a major issue when the drawings were submitted.  It was confirmed that the new drawings were submitted in November 2007.  It was also identified that a different architect had been brought in since the scheme had been approved.

10.5  The Chair asked the Planning Officer to clarify all the changes to the scheme previously approved.  The Planning Officer identified these as follows:-

§  Loss of the disabled parking bay, due to the change to the loading bay entrance.

§  Internal wall and ramp been added to the ground floor retail outlet.

§  The 18 residential units to remain.  Re-arrangement of the sizing of the residential units, some smaller/larger, which all still conform to building regulations.

§  The overall height of the building is 58m higher than previously agreed.

§  Some of the windows re-aligned.

10.6  Members wished to clarify whether the changes identified were sufficient enough to object to.  The Interim Head of Regulatory Services stated that the changes were felt to be of a marginal nature and that in his opinion any move to get the building demolished would be highly unsuccessful at appeal.  He added that it was not unusual for a final building to not be identical to he agreed plans and for a different architect to be brought in at a later stage.  It was a case of judgement and for the Sub-Committee to consider how significant the amendments were to the approved plans.

10.7  Councillor Desmond asked the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.1  The Report was NOTED.

12.1  None.