Agenda and minutes

Councillor Klute welcomed everyone to the meeting. Member of the Committee and officers introduced themselves.

Apologies were received from Councillors Khan and Rupert Perry.

There were no substitute members.

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.

None.

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

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Demolition of existing vacant two storey warehouse building. Redevelopment of site to provide 156 residential units, through erection of a four storey linear building (with five storey element to west end) adjacent to railway line; erection of five detached blocks (one x six-storey, three x five-storey and one x four storey buildings); erection of part one, part three storey building to Caledonian Road frontage – including a 41sqm A1/A2/A3 commercial unit at ground floor level; together with creation of an access road into the site from Caledonian Road, provision of wheelchair accessible car parking, comprehensive landscaping including provision of pedestrian access from Carnoustie Drive, and associated ancillary development.

(Planning application number: P2014/0609/FUL)

An addendum report detailing independent viability review reports had been circulated, a copy of which would be interleaved with the agenda.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The development would result in a 5% loss in nature conservation land on the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

·        Ongoing treatment had not eradicated the Japanese Knotweed on the site so several metres of earth would have to be dug out.

·        Officers considered the heights of the buildings to be appropriate as they were not out of scale with nearby buildings.

·        Objectors had concerns about the impact of the development on their TV signals.

·        The development could not be gated as the Section 106 agreement required there to be 24 hour pedestrian access.

·        The impact on daylight and sunlight to windows on Bunning Way and the overshadowing of gardens on Bunning Way had been assessed and overall fell within BRE guidance.

·        The applicants confirmed they would agree to the Section 106 being amended to ensure there was no impact on TV reception to nearby residents.

Councillor Poyser proposed a motion to amend the Section 106 agreement to ensure there was no impact on TV reception to nearby residents. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the 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’s report with the amendment outlined above, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application or for it to be called in for the determination by the Mayor of London and subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report.

Demolition of existing buildings and residential redevelopment of the site to provide 98 dwellings (18 x one bedroom, 50 x two bedroom, 24 x three bedroom and 6 x four bedroom units) in a part two, part eight storey building, together with cycle parking and amenity spaces.

(Planning application number: P2014/2131/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The Daylight and Sunlight assessments did not verify whether the rooms were habitable or not so the results assumed the worst case scenario i.e. that all the rooms were habitable.

·        The applicant confirmed that Family Mosaic charged social rents wherever possible and that units would initially be allocated according to 100% nominations from the council.

·        100% of the properties currently proposed to be social rented would remain as social rented properties for 30 years and the percentage could diminish after this time. This was standard wording in the contract to providers.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the 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’s report and the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report.

Demolition of all existing structures onsite (forecourt shop, canopy and pumps) and the erection of an eight storey building plus basement levels comprising of a 212 bedroom hotel (Class C1), five self-contained residential units (facing onto and entrances onto St John’s Square comprising of a 4 x three bedroom units and 1 x 2 bedroom unit), the creation of 93 square metres of office/workshop space (Class B1), 410 square metres of flexible commercial floorspace (Retail A1 use and restaurant A3 uses) with a new pedestrian access from Clerkenwell Road to St John’s Square, cycle storage provision, landscaping and associated alterations.

(Planning application number: P2014/0373/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        Concerns were raised about the servicing arrangements and the management of vehicle movements in St John Square. Members were advised that a banksman would be employed to manage and monitor servicing and delivery vehicles entering and exiting the square and there would be a booking system for delivery and servicing vehicles.

·        The applicant stated that if vehicles arrived outside of the agreed time, they could wait in a holding area in a street away from the square until an agreed time. The holding area suggestion should be explored further.

·        There was concern raised regarding the cumulative impacts of servicing of St John’s Square and whether this had been adequately assessed.

·        Concern was raised about the impact there would be on manoeuvrability within the square if the turning head became blocked.

·        The extant permission expired in March 2015.

·        There would be an adverse impact on daylight and sunlight levels to some windows in Spectrum House. However daylight and sunlight levels were considered acceptable.

·        Taxis would stop at the Clerkenwell Road entrance of the hotel.

·        The applicants stated that bookings would be restricted to a maximum of parties of ten to ensure coaches would not need to access the site.

·        The applicants confirmed that the reason they were not using the extant permission was that the building had been marketed as an office for many years and there had been no success. They stated that the configuration of the building was more suited to a hotel than an office.

Councillor Gantly proposed a motion to amend the Section 106 agreement to restrict bookings to a maximum of parties of ten. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to defer the consideration of the application to enable the applicants to undertake more work on the servicing and traffic management plan. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the consideration of the planning application be deferred to enable the applicants to undertake more work on the servicing and traffic management plan.