Agenda and minutes

Councillor Khan welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers introduced themselves.

Apologies were received from Councillors Ward and Nicholls.

Councillors Gill and Williamson substituted for Councillors Ward and Nicholls.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be B2 and B1.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Demolition of the former Richard Cloudesley School, City of London Community Education Centre; garages and substation; erection of a 3 storey building with rooftop play area (Class D1) (2300.5 sqm GEA) and a single storey school sports hall ( Class D1) (431 sqm GEA) to provide a two form entry primary school; erection of a 14 storey building (plus basement) building to provide 66 social rented units (Class C3) (6135sqm GEA), and affordable workspace (Class B1a) (244sqm GEA), landscaping and associated works.

(Planning application number: P2017/2961/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that since the publication of the agenda a second despatch paper had been published on the Council website which addresses objectors concerns especially regarding the noise levels from the playground. Members were advised of the response from the Acoustics officer that the levels of noise were deemed acceptable and expected.  However, he has suggested a condition which would restrict the hours of playground use only and not applicable to the MUGA (Multi Use Ground Use) as 7.30am – 6.30pm, Monday to Friday to account for out of school hours. In addition the Planning Officer advised that the uploaded updated report included issues relating to highways, transportation and fire safety as well as a formatting error on paragraph 11.280 of the Committee report which is now correctly presented.

·         Since the publication of the updates 2 further objections had been received, one objector raised no new issues while the other objector mentioned the prevalence of bats living in the school building and has requested surveys be undertaken. Although the prevalence of bats was not observed as part of the ecological survey carried out by the applicant’s consultant.

·         The Planning Officer highlighted a number of corrections in the report. On page 11.124 of page 126, reference to the size of the MUGA has been incorrectly given as 420 sqm instead of 482sqm (the MUGA and the area around it).  At page 56 paragraph 10.1 the last sentence which states the ‘relevant development plans…’ to be deleted. The Planning Officer also noted that the updated servicing condition would be secured by way of condition and not by section 106 and a condition requiring obscure glazing of the southern elevation over floors 1-4.

·         In response to concerns about a single staircase, the Planning Officer advised that no objections were submitted by the Fire authority but had suggested a few things such as installation of sprinklers. Members were advised that the applicant had submitted a fire strategy (condition 45 of the report) and on the issue of a single staircase, the Planning Officer advised that this was a scheme different from the Grenfell Tower in London.

·         Neighbouring residents questioned the need for a two form entry school as school places were available at a nearby primary school. Objections also raised concerns about the height and massing of the scheme, substantial loss of daylight and sunlight, impact on the amenity of the residential amenity, impact on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 374.

Demolition of 12 (twelve) existing garage units and removal of adjacent car parking facilities to facilitate construction of a three storey (plus basement), 11-bedroom (plus staff sleep-in unit) building to accommodate a supported living scheme (use Class C2). The proposal also includes communal kitchen/living/dining facilities, staff offices, laundry, plant room, and accessible bathroom facility. Associated landscaping including courtyard garden areas, refuse and cycle storage provision for both residents and staff, is also proposed.

(Planning application number: P2017/3493/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer highlighted a number of typographical errors in the report. Members were informed that the report (paragraphs 6.6 and 24.4) incorrectly refers to the removal of 6 trees and 2 trees respectively instead of the removal and replacement of 4 trees and 1 tree stump. Members were advised that the removed trees would be replaced as part of the landscape strategy submitted by the applicant. Also throughout the report, the number of PV panels is referred to as being reduced from 73 to 40; the number has actually reduced from 73 to 55. The Planning Officer also informed Members that the report erroneously describes 13 Windsor street in paragraph 20.19 as commercial instead of residential but that the BRE assessment remained accurate and did not need to be corrected.

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that since the publication of the agenda, 4 new objections had been received and 4 further objections had been made. In addition, a further 15 new letters of support for the scheme had been received.

·         With regard to the objectors concerns of possible contamination, the Planning Officer informed Members advised that this could be addressed by way of a condition which will ensure an investigation survey for any possible residue is undertaken before any works commences.

·         In response to a resident’s concern that the loss of a tree was a subject of a Tree Preservation Order, the Planning Officer advised that although Packington Street lies within a conservation area, and as such the tree would be afforded some level of protection as a result of this, Council records did not indicate that the tree in question had a TPO attached to it.

·         Members were advised that the loss of the off street car parking and garages due to the proposed scheme was welcomed as Islington Council promotes schemes that deters car movement and car ownership in the borough and aligns with council policy on parking.

·         Objections raised included loss of light, light pollution, noise & disturbance and quality of accommodation. Concern was raised that the scheme would not result in a satisfactory level of accommodation for future occupiers of the building. Members were advised by neighbouring residents that the design of the buildings would not be suitable for residents as it represents a form of institution which was not ideal for the intended client group. Other concerns included inadequate and inaccurate consultation, overdevelopment of the site and the loss of parking resulting in parking pressures to neighbouring streets.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 375.