Agenda item

RESOLVED: Reserved matters were approved subject to conditions and discharge of conditions.

5.1 PROPOSAL: Application for the approval of reserved matters in relationto hybrid planning permission 2018/0926 (as amended by planning permission 2019/3836) for the appearance, layout and landscaping for Plots H3/H4/H5/H6 comprising the construction of four buildings, ranging from 4 to 25 storeys in height, providing 387 residential units with private communal residential landscaped gardens, commercial space (Use Class E), as well as associated plant, cycle storage, refuse provision, other residential ancillary space and public realm improvements. This application has been submitted pursuant to conditions 30 (Energy, Sustainability and Overheating), 36 (Appearance, Layout and Landscape), 42 (Conformity statement), 43 (Sunlight and Daylight), 44 (Marketing Strategy), 45 (Wind Mitigation) and 46 (Carbon Assessment).

5.2  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: None.

5.3 The Planning Service’s Senior Planner, Major Projects, introduced the application as set out in the published papers. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the addendum and a number of amendments to the application report including the following:

·  The development description would be amended to include condition 38;

·  In the Site Context section paragraph 1.1 would replace a reference to Northfield Street with a correct reference to Northport Street;

·  In paragraph 4.7.3 (Waste Consultee response) a reference to Northpolt Street would be replaced by a reference to Northport Street;

·  In paragraph 6.6.6 the figure of 193 Sheffield Stands would be amended to read 157 cycle stands;

·  Paragraphs 6.7.1 to 6.7.5 would be deleted and replaced by paragraph 6.7.1;

·  The approved condition 46 of the outline permission would be added to the recommended conditions, now as condition 34;

·  Paragraph 6.1.2 would be amended to remove reference to condition 46 (Carbon Assessment);

·  Paragraph 8.1 would be amended to remove reference to condition 46 and include conditions 42 (conformity statement, in line with the development description and the assessment within the officer’s report) and condition 38;

·  The applicants had clarified that all necessary demolition work had taken place. As such the Construction Management Plan condition, under paragraph 8.1.6, would be amended to remove all references to demolition;

·  Following advice from the Building Control department, condition 28 would be amended so that a consultation was also carried out with the London Fire Brigade;

·  Condition 8.1.30 (Accessibility) would have its reason changed.

5.4  Two local residents spoke in objection to the application highlighting a number of concerns. These centred on how the proposals no longer reflected Hackney Council’s original objective to provide good quality housing to meet housing needs in the borough. This in turn had undermined the Council’s ability to comply with a Unilateral Undertaking to provide a minimum number of affordable residential units on site. There were also concerns raised about the amount of dust and noise that would be generated during the construction phase and also how the scale of the proposals did not fit in with the character of the area.

  5.5  Local ward Cllr Robert Chapman spoke in support of the application giving a brief overview of the scheme and its benefits to the local community.

5.6  During the discussion phase of the meeting a number of points were raised including the following:

·  The issue of scale of phase 2b had already been decided. The presumption was that the Planning Sub-Committee had accepted it previously and it would be accepting it at the February 2022 meeting;

·  On the Unilateral Undertaking, Hackney Council would at some future point have to reconsider the issue and deliver on it;

·  The application required parts of buildings H1 and H2 to be built on land currently occupied by the rear of the school playground adjacent to the site. The details of this work were agreed under the previous hybrid application in 2018;

·  On the layout issues, the proposed apartments did adhere to nationally recognised  technical housing standards. The Planning Service were of the  view that the accommodation was acceptable and of a good  quality;

·  The Council allowed for open plan kitchens in all types of housing;

·  The proposed accommodation was all designated for private sale;

·  Hackney Council’s Building Control Team were satisfied that the proposals met fire safety standards. There was also a condition in place that stated that later (stage 4) drawings would contain fire safety details;

·  The architect explained that the intention was for the scheme to always be ‘tenure blind’. The H1 and H2 buildings' internal layouts had open plan kitchens. In some of the three bedroom apartments there was a separation between the kitchen and dining areas. The Council’s commercial advisor, JAL, had recommended this type of layout;

·  The Chair of the Sub-Committee recommended that in the referral section of the application report there should be added a statement clarifying that the application was a Hackney Council scheme;

·  The Sub-Committee noted that the colour of the brickwork would be a creamy colour and would complement the buff white brick colour used on the  adjacent school. Details on the materials would return to a future Planning Sub-Committee meeting for Members’ consideration;

·  Cycle parking was agreed previously; there was no cycling storage area in the basement of the site because it was not within the parameters of the scheme and could not be fitted on site. The Sub-Committee noted that for the proposed scheme the Council had sought to mix the quantum of the cycle parking with the quality of the provision. In the previous hybrid application there had been in-flat vertical cycle stores but since then the applicant had moved away to more horizontal spacing and in the ground and mezzanine floors more Sheffield Cycle stands had been provided along with some semi-vertical cycle stands;

·  The Sub-Committee acknowledged that in terms of the cycle storage areas the Council had to work within the existing parameters of the layout of the site;

·  Cycle storage on site was a challenging issue in terms of  the quantum of the cycling provision because of those elements agreed under the previous hybrid application. The Council had reached a solution and the constraints of the site had been offset with steps to secure a contribution towards securing the quantum of the cycle storage in the wider area. The Council had also agreed with the applicant an enhanced cycle parking monitoring process to ensure that any over-utilisation was resolved quickly;

·  The Travel Plan would include an enhanced monitoring function to monitor the cycle storage areas and from that it would be determined whether Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) needed to be installed;

·  The Applicant confirmed that they would produce a cycle plan, which would include details on future residents' access to the cycle storage areas. The Council’s Senior Planner suggested that the existing cycle storage condition could possibly be amended to include the installation of CCTV. The applicant agreed to this amendment. This amendment would be  subject to approval of details. As the installation of CCTV was considered to be part of the scheme’s layout it was agreed that it could be considered a reserved matter;

·  The Sub-Committee noted that there was no change to the Pre Commencement conditions brought over from the previous 2018 application.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Garasia, Cllr Hanson, Cllr Lynch and Cllr Stops.

Against:  None.

Abstentions:  None.

RESOLVED: reserved matters approved subject to conditions and the discharge of conditions.