You are here: Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD. View directions

Contact: Ola Adeoye 

Items
No. Item

317.

Introductions

Minutes:

Councillor Picknell welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers introduced themselves and the Chair outlined the procedures for the meeting.

318.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Khan and Donovan-Hart.

319.

Declarations of Substitute Members

Minutes:

Councillor Picknell substituted for Councillor Khan as the Chair of the meeting.

320.

Declarations of Interest

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

 

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

 

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Kay declared a personal interest in Item B23, Land to the rear of 2 Melody Lane.

Councillors Kay and Gantly did not participate during the deliberation of the item nor involved in the voting.

Councillor Gantly in his capacity as a ward councillor representing his constituents spoke against the application.

 

321.

Order of Business pdf icon PDF 54 KB

Minutes:

The order of business would be B2, B3,B4,B5 and B1.

322.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 229 KB

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

323.

210-218 OLD STREET, 70-100 CITY ROAD, 32-37 FEATHERSTONE STREET & 13-15 MALLOW STREET, LONDON EC1 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Change of use of 990sqm of office (Use Class B1(a)) floorspace at basement level beneath The White Collar Factory, and 177sqm of restaurant (Use Class A3) floorspace at ground floor level fronting Featherstone Street to create 1167sqm of Sui-Generis floorspace to provide a food and beverage based business enterprise and training company, along with the provision of 348sqm of existing office (B1(a)) floorspace at first and second floors of Building 3 of the White Collar Factory fronting City Road as affordable workspace for a period of 20 years.

 

(Planning application number: P2017/1739/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed the Committee of a typographical in the report , paragraph 4.8 which referred to 20 years of affordable workspace provision instead of 15 years.

·         The Planning Officer advised that the report erroneously read ‘Long Room’ when it should have been ‘The Long Table’ at Condition 8.

·         Planning Officer advised that with regard to the loss of office floor space and change of use, the applicant had been able to demonstrate with evidence the unsuccessful marketing of the basement space.

·         The Planning Officer indicated that benefits of the scheme such as the extensive formal training for young people and job opportunities outweigh the shortcomings of the proposed development such as loss of office space and the potential adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

·         In response to a question, the agent acknowledged that employees would be paid National Living wage rather than National Minimum wage.

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to grant planning permission.

This was seconded by Councillor Fletcher and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

 

324.

LAND TO THE REAR OF 2 MELODY LANE, LONDON, N5 2BQ pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 7 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and new 3 storey (plus basement levels) 1,419sqm self-storage building (Use Class B8), with landscaping, access and associated works.

 

(Planning application number: P2016/1344/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that application was deferred at previous meeting to enable officers assess the status of the building in the rear garden of 136 Aberdeen Park and also the distances to the houses in Aberdeen Park.

·         Members were advised that the outbuilding is an ancillary residential accommodation rather than a separate planning unit and that there were no issues regarding its impact on the daylight, sunlight, privacy or outlook of the building.

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that paragraph 10.119 on page 94 should be amended to reflect the correct distance of 13.6metres and not 14.5-16.4 metres away from the neighbouring dwellings at 6-22 Melody Lane.

·         In response to Councillor Gantly’s concerns about fire safety especially in light of the fire incident at a self-storage facility in Tottenham, the Planning Officer advised that London Fire Brigade had responded to the application and had raised no objections to the proposal.

·         With regard to concerns about the lack of an adequate turning circle for refuse vehicles in Melody Lane, the Planning Officer advised that the proposed vehicle turning arrangements would assist in providing a vehicle turning space for larger vehicles and that the proposal would result in a much better improvement on the existing arrangements.

·         The agent informed Members that the proposal would result in the redevelopment of an outdated self-storage facility and that having worked in conjunction with Planning Officers, the proposal being policy compliant would result in a financial contribution to the provision of off-site affordable housing.

Councillor Fletcher proposed a motion to grant planning permission.

This was seconded by Councillor Nicholls and carried.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

 

325.

LASER HOUSE, 132-140 GOSWELL ROAD, LONDON, EC1Y 8AE pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Partial demolition of rooftop structures and retention of the existing building along with the construction of a three-storey extension to the existing building and new three-storey infill building to the corner of Goswell Rd and Pear Tree Street resulting in a part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6-storey building including internal reconfiguration and refurbishment of the existing facades to provide for 8,465 square metres (GIA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1(a)), 84 square metres (GIA) of flexible gallery/exhibition/office floorspace (Use Class B1/D1) on the first floor of the new three-storey infill building, and 677 square metres (GIA) of flexible retail/office floorspace (Use Class A1/B1(a)) along with associated access arrangements, cycle parking, refuse storage and ancillary works.

 

(Planning application number: P2017/1103/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Committee of a correction to paragraph 7.3 on page 140 which indicated 7 letters of support instead of 23 and 3 letters of objections.

·         The Planning Officer advised Committee that the revised scheme had reduced the extent of sunlight and daylight loss especially to the north along Pear Tree street which was in excess of BRE guidelines. Members were advised that changes introduced include setting back the external loft and the infill building; the removal of the open terraces and the amendment to the roof plan.

·         Neighbouring residents were concerned with the scale of the proposal as it would impact the amenity of residents. Privacy concerns, noise pollution and the scheme being out of character of the area were also noted.

·         In response to resident’s concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy to residents along Pear Street, the Planning Officer reminded Members that overlooking from office use to residential use was not similar to a habitable room overlooking a habitable room.

·         On concerns that the proposal was inappropriate in terms of height, scale and bulk, Members were advised that the part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 storey building was not out of place, similar to others in the locality. In addition the Officer noted that the proposed extensions had been designed in a manner to complement the existing building and setback from the street frontage so as to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties.

·         In response to a question on whether the plant could be relocated from the roof to the basement, the agent advised the Committee that this was to allow the basement be used for small and medium enterprises.

·         In response to Members concern of the levels of daylight and sunlight loss to adjoining properties, the agent advised that the BRE test was more strictly applied to developments in suburbia, compared to central London locations.

·         The agent informed Members that the revised proposal had been developed in conjunction with Planning Officers, was policy compliant, providing over 500 jobs and would be making a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing.

·         Members welcomed the provision and improvement of workspaces but were concerned with the impact on adjoining properties.
 

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 325.

326.

PARK VIEW ESTATE, COLLINS ROAD, LONDON, N5 pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The construction of 40 new dwelling units comprising of 8 x 1B2P units, 3 x 2B3P units, 27 x 2B4P units and 2 x 3B5P units with associated amenity space and 41.8sqm of community use floorspace, provided in six new residential blocks ranging from 2 to 6 storeys in height, along with bicycle storage, improvements to the public realm, and the demolition of existing garages and storage units.

 

(Planning application number: P2017/2444/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer updated Members that since publication of the agenda Building Control had confirmed that it had no objections to the scheme being proposed subject to appropriate fire safety measures in line with Building Regulations.

·         Condition 6 on page 253 ‘states that there shall be 4 units built to meet M4(3) and then states 2 x 2B3P and 3 x B4P, which is 5 units’. This should state 2 x 2B4P, to make 4 units in total.

·         The Planning Officer informed the Committee of a typographical error in condition 11, which erroneously stated that the Energy Strategy was produced by Baily Garner instead of Calford Seaden in September 2017.

·         In response to objectors concern about building on existing green space, the Planning Officer advised that the scheme would provide a significant improvement to private, semi-private open space and communal garden space which would be an enhancement to the amenity of local residents.

·         In response to Members concern with the dwelling mix, the Planning Officer indicated that the proposed dwelling mix was considered acceptable given current demand for housing. 

·         The meeting was informed that the proposal had been amended to alleviate concerns about overlooking, privacy and daylight and sunlight loss. The Officer also informed Members that 9 new trees would be planted to replace the trees that are lost due to the scheme.

·         Members welcomed the scheme as it would deliver high quality residential accommodation including family-sized homes and improve the public realm.  Also importantly the development would deliver a significant increase in accordance with London Plan (Policy 3.3) and Islington Planning Policies

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and conditional upon the prior completion of a Directors’ Agreement securing the head of terms as set out in Appendix 1.

 

 

 

327.

SYCAMORE HOUSE, 5 SYCAMORE STREET, LONDON, EC1Y 0SR pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolition of existing B1 office building and erection of a replacement 7-storey (plus basement) B1 office building comprising 2,337sqm (GIA) / 1,776sqm (NIA) of office floorspace.

 

(Planning application number: P2016/4807/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised that since publication of the committee report, the council had received a further 4 letters of objections from parties who had previously objected in response to the council’s initial consultation.

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that the table following paragraph 10.92 (page 310) of the committee report erroneously identified window “Third – W1” as failing the Vertical Sky Component test, however it does in fact pass. Therefore, paragraph 10.93 should state that seven (not eight) of the 18 tested residential windows would fail VSC, and that six (not seven) of these failures are in the 0.7 to 0.79 range.

·         Members were informed that the tree referred to at paragraphs 10.25 (page 295), 10.113 (page 314) and 10.162 (page 323) is a Plane tree, not a Sycamore.

 

·         Objectors were concerned with issues of overbearing bulk and massing; loss of natural light, overlooking and loss of outlook and that the proposal would not contribute positively to the conservation area or setting of the Golden Lane Estate. Neighbouring residents were concerned that no assessment regarding impacts on rights to light had been undertaken nor had consultation with neighbouring residents been carried out before submission.

·         In response to residents concerns about the significant loss of daylight and sunlight, the Planning Officer acknowledged that there would be some losses, however these were not so great as to warrant refusal.

·         The Planning Officer acknowledged that two neighbouring residential properties would be overlooked however given the windows would be wither side of a public highway, and given the use of the proposed building this impact was not deemed sufficient to refuse planning permission.

·         The agent informed Members that the proposal would result in a higher quality, more accessible and more flexible employment space than what the existing buildings currently provides. The agent advised that the revisions had taken into consideration concerns raised by the Design Review Panel.

·         Members suggested that the developer and agent should have consulted with residents as it is important that their views are taken on board.

·         With regards to residents concerns about loss of privacy and overlooking from the scheme, Members agreed that tan additional condition was necessary and the decision to ascertain which of the windows needed to be obscure-glazed shall be delegated to Officers.

 

 

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to Officers drafting the condition with regards to which of the windows in the scheme needed to be obscure glazed. This was seconded by Councillor Ward and carried.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report plus the amendments set out within the report and the additional condition outlined above; and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 327.