Agenda item

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a Legal Agreement.

7.1  PROPOSAL: Erection of part two, part three, part four  storey building facing Princess May Road and a five storey building facing  Stoke Newington Road [following demolition of lower-ground and ground floor office floor space (Use Class E) and car park] to provide 15 self-contained residential units and a flexible use at ground floor level (Class E); external alterations to existing Alexandra Court block to include remodelled front entrances; associated landscaping to include replacement trees, a communal courtyard to the rear of Alexandra Court, cycle and bin storage.

7.2  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Minor layout revisions, clarity on the positioning of a roof terrace, amendments to the remodelled entrance to the Alexandra  Court tower, amendments to the ground floor of Block B. These changes were of minor impact and it was therefore  considered unnecessary to reconsult the scheme.

7.3  The Planning Service’s Senior Planner, Major Projects introduced the planning application as published. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the published addendum and the following amendments to the application report:

·  Paragraph 6.1.7 would be amended;

·  Paragraph 8.1.35 Accessible Dwellings M4 (3) would be amended;

·  Paragraph 6.1.12 referred to ‘First Homes’ and was considered unnecessary and would be removed;

·  In paragraph 6.3.2 the number of units proposed should read 15 (rather than 30)

·  and would be amended;

·  In paragraph 6.4.3, it was not fully made clear that the Blue Badge space to be provided on-street prior to the occupation of the development would be within 50m of the proposed entrance to the wheelchair accessible dwelling. As such, the paragraph should be amended;

·  The bicycle parking condition would be amended to ensure that 4 Sheffield Stand spaces were provided.

7.4  The Planning Sub-Committee heard from a local resident speaking in objection to the  application. A number of concerns were raised centring on the impact on the visual character of the local area, the construction phase in relation to the residents of Princess May Road, in relation to dust, noise and the foundations of some of the neighbouring properties. Similarly there were concerns about the impact of the proposals on schoolchildren during the construction period.

Representatives for the applicant were present at the meeting to answer questions from the Sub-Committee.

7.5  The meeting entered the discussion phase where the following points were raised:

·  Committee members were reminded that Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) were secured through a section 106 agreement and were commonly used across London. There was precedent for using them but the Planning Service could not speak as to their legality;

·  The existing building was currently being used as a homeless shelter. The applicant  was working with the current occupants to relocate them;

·  The proposed tenures were 100% London Affordable Rent. Recent figures had shown that this  was genuinely affordable but it was recognised that it was slightly higher than Social Rent accommodation. It was noted that the  London Plan and Local Plan considered London Affordable Rent and Social Rent to be genuinely affordable housing;

·  In terms of the proposed number of family units, Hackney Council was able to make exceptions to the standard preferred dwelling  mix of one, two and three bedroom units. The Council could make a variation if the circumstances allowed. The applicant would also come up with a tenure that would work for them which, in the case of the application before the Sub-Committee, was 100% London Affordable Rent;

·  Sub-Committee members were reminded that they needed to consider the proposals in line with the Development Plan, the London Plan and the Local Plan;

·  It was unclear from the figures provided in the application  whether the proposals were under the Homes for Londoners 2016-2023 programme or the programme that came after it;

·  Transport for London (TfL) had the final say on what types of trees would replace those being removed on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN);

·  The Sub-Committee noted that the development had stepped up from two to four floors facing the Tower Block. It was recognised that there  would be some loss of light and the applicant had hired a daylight/sunlight consultant who had concluded, like the Council’s Planning Service,  that the proposals were acceptable;

·  Issues around dust,  noise and overshadowing would be included as part of the next stage of the planning process through submission of  a Construction Management Plan (CMP). The applicant confirmed that there would be engagement with local residents both before and during the construction phase to ensure that there was no impact on their homes;

·  Regarding condition 4.7.7 of the application report, the Sub-Committee noted that the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating related to non-residential buildings. Residential buildings were measured against another set of standards different to BREEAM;

·  Part of the proposals included the submission of an energy report. The applicant confirmed that currently Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs)  were proposed but if the application was agreed then they could look at a different approach. The Committee noted that the 15 proposed ASHPs would be located on the roof of the development. Their installation would be reviewed by condition (condition 8.1.29);

·  On the issue of the overshadowing of the property at number 2 Princess May Road, the proposed adjacent building did not extend beyond that property. Also the daylight/sunlight report had outlined the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) impact of the proposals. The separate Building Control regime was in place to ensure that no damage was caused to neighbouring buildings during the construction phase;

·  The Sub-Committee noted from the addendum that on-street blue badge parking bays would be within 50 metres of the site entrance;

·  The applicant was allowed discretion over  the internal layout  of the proposed units;

·  For the block B development, the flat on the same level as the roof would have access to the adjacent roof. The green roof and air source heat pump section of the top roof, however, was for maintenance access only. For the block A development, the roof was not for residential use and was for maintenance access only;

·  Design of the cycle storage area was based on Secure by Design guidance. It would be accessible through the internal courtyard of the proposed development. This was the first stage of access with the next stage being entry to the storage area through a security fob system. The Sub-Committee noted that every effort had been made to include as much single tier cycle storage on site.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Joseph, Cllr Levy, Cllr Narcross, Cllr Potter,  Cllr Race (Chair), Cllr Laudat-Scott, Cllr Webb (Vice-Chair) and Cllr  Young.

Against:  None.

Abstention:  None.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a Legal Agreement.

At the  conclusion of agenda item 7 Councillor Young left the Council Chamber and did not participate in the discussion and vote for the planning application at item 8.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a Legal Agreement.