Agenda and minutes

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

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them subject to the following amendment:

That the eighth bullet point on page 3 should be amended to read “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”.

Application to vary the wording of condition 1 of planning permission reference P120092 dated 30 January 2013 that granted the temporary change of use to D1 use to allow the building to be used as a place of worship for a maximum period of 3 years [approved for a maximum period of 2 years]. The amendment of condition 1 would extend the time limit for the temporary use of the building for a further 3 years from the date of permission.

(Planning application number: P2014/3185/S73)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        On the Site Allocation the building had D2 use. A temporary D1 and D2 use had been permitted to enable the immediate occupation of the building. The intention was that an extension to the planning permission would give the applicant more time to work towards D2 use.

·        The building was in the process of being refurbished.

·        The applicant agreed to meet with the objector to discuss his concern about noise.

Councillor Kay proposed a motion to amend the end hour of use to 11pm Monday to Thursday to encourage D2 use. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Nicholls proposed a motion to strengthen the wording of Condition 14 which related to external noise, to include an investigation into the noise issue raised by the objector, to be carried out by a suitably qualified expert who would make mitigation proposals. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the case officer’s report plus the amended and additional conditions as outlined above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Application for Variation of Condition 1 (temporary consent) of listed building consent reference P120093 dated 30 January 2013 for listed building works relating to the temporary change of use to a mixed D1 (non-residential institution) and D2 (assembly and leisure) use for a maximum period of 3 years [approved for a maximum period of 2 years]. The amendment of condition 1 would extend the time limit for the temporary use of the building for a further 3 years from the date of permission.

(Listed building consent number: P2014/3177/S19)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The building was in the process of being refurbished.

·        The importance of investment into this building due to it being on the Buildings At Risk register was noted and influenced the consideration of the proposals.

RESOLVED:

That listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the case officer’s report.

Demolition of an existing two-storey residential building (Romford House)(consisting of 18 units) and 81 garages to allow for the construction of 70 new homes (27 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed, 15 x 3 bed and 2 x 5 bed) across nine infill sites, consisting of the construction of a part three, part four storey block and a two semi-detached pair of dwellings facing Balls Pond Road, a two storey block between Dove Road and Balls Pond Road, alterations and extension to ground floor of Threadgold House to create a residential unit and community rooms (measuring 135.8square metres), a part two, part three storey terraced row facing Wall Street, a part single, part three and part four storey extension to the north east corner of Ongar House, a four storey extension to the west elevation of Ongar House, a three storey terraced row replacing Romford House, a four storey block between Warley House and No. 53 Mitchison Road and a part single, part two storey terraced row to the rear of Warley House, and the provision of new green space and sports and play facilities, including a new ball court to the east of Greenhills Terrace, cycle storage, public realm improvements across the estate and the relocation of Baxter Road to the front of Romford House.

(Planning application number: P2014/3363/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         An addendum report had been circulated. It addressed proposals to retain highway/on-street car parking through a reduction in estate car parking spaces.

·         The 70% affordable housing would be allocated in accordance with the local lettings policy. Residents from the estate would be prioritised, followed by residents from the ward.

·         Block H was for over 55 year olds. Those who were over 55 and had been displaced from the development or were willing to downsize, would be prioritised.

·         Following a question about lines of sight between Block D and Ilford House, the planning officer advised that there was a lighting strategy in place, the route was well used and rear windows would overlook the route so there would be naturral surveillance.

·         Following concern from a resident, the planning officer confirmed that notification letters had been sent out, site notices had been displayed and all statutory requirements had been met.

·         Following concern about noise emission from the ball court, the planning officer advised that Condition 25 required a ball court noise management plan to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Councillor Poyser proposed a motion to amend the closing time of the ball court to 8pm. This was seconded by Councillor Picknell and carried.

Councillor Rupert Perry proposed a motion to condition that the ball court be locked at 8pm and that the ball court be managed to ensure it was not used after this time. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to condition that the floodlights be shielded. This was seconded by Councillor Picknell and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Refurbishment and extensions to the existing building comprising: demolition of existing rear two storey courtyard part of building including former caretaker’s flat; demolition of existing fourth floor plant room on Bonhill Street; erection of rear infill extension at ground to fourth floor level; erection of fourth and fifth floor level roof extension along Bonhill Street and Tabernacle Street; recladding and alteration to external facades; together with internal reconfiguration; and change of use of the basement (1,778sqm) from B8 distribution warehouse to B1 office. The extensions would provide 2,503sqm of new B1 office accommodation (total 8,578sqm of B1 office floorspace) and the provision of six new residential flats with front terraces at fifth floor level, comprising one x three-bedroom flat and five x two-bedroom flats.

(Planning application number: P2014/1103/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        Current servicing arrangements were from Bonhill Street.

·        There was a chain across the service yard. Officers were not aware of a reason why this chain could not be removed.

·        There was one gate for both vehicles and pedestrians proposed. This gate would be open between 8am and 7pm and users would open the gate with their fob outside of these times.

·        The traffic survey results were considered.

·        The applicant stated that the building had been designed to be as efficient as possible.

·        The applicant stated that the car parking space for residents’ cars was not being changed. Although there were nine parking spaces on the lease, the space was more suitable for eight cars.

·        Concern was raised that the scheme was broadly the same as the one last presented to the committee.

·        Concern was raised that the proposed scheme did not protect the residents who had particularly special needs. As a special needs group, special provision was needed and this was a material planning consideration.

Councillor Khan proposed a motion to refuse permission as the scheme did not protect the residents who had special needs. This was seconded by Councillor Fletcher and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the reason outlined above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

161-169 ESSEX ROAD, LONDON, N1 2SN

MINUTE 69

Amended Condition 7:

CONDITION: The religious worship use and any other use taking place within the building (as hereby approved) shall only operate between the hours of:

• 07:30 to 23:00 Mondays to Thursdays;

• 07:30 to 23:00 on Fridays;

• 08:00 to 23:00 Saturdays; and

• 08:00 to 20:00 on Sundays and Public Holidays.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

Amended Condition 14:

CONDITION: Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a noise impact survey/investigation shall be carried out at the site and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The report shall include an investigation of noise transfer to adjoining properties and where this is found to be above acceptable levels suitable means of sound mitigation should be detailed that has special regard for the heritage value of the building. The noise mitigation measures shall be implemented within 3 months of the approval of details and maintained as such thereafter.

No music or amplified sound emanating from the premises shall be audible at 1 metre from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises.

REASON: In the interest of protecting neighbouring residential amenity whilst safeguarding the heritage importance of this building.

DOVER COURT ESTATE, INCLUDING LAND TO NORTH OF QUEEN ELIZABETH COURT AND GARAGES TO WEST OF AND LAND TO NORTH AND EAST OF THREADGOLD HOUSE, DOVE ROAD; GARAGES TO EAST OF ILLFORD HOUSE, WALL STREET; ROMFORD HOUSE MITCHISON ROAD; LAND TO EAST OF WESTCLIFF HOUSE AND ONGAR HOUSE, BAXTER ROAD; LAND TO EAST OF GREENHILLS TERRACE; AND GARAGES TO REAR OF AND BALL COURT TO WEST OF WARLEY HOUSE, BAXTER ROAD, ISLINGTON, LONDON, N1.

MINUTE 71

Amended Condition 29

CONDITION: The ball court and associated floodlighting hereby approved shall be operated during the hours of 0800 – 2000 only. The ball court shall be locked outside of these hours and the use of the floodlights within these hours of operation shall be controlled by a photocell detector and a timer switch.

REASON: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers adjacent to the ball court and to protect the wider biodiversity value of the site. 

Amended Condition 30:

CONDTION: Full details of the lighting across the site, including the floodlight to the ball court shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the approved development.

The details shall include the location and full specification of: all lamps; light levels/spill lamps, floodlights (inclusive of shielding), support structures, hours of operation and technical details on how impacts on bat foraging will be minimised. The lighting measures shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved, shall be installed prior to occupation of the development and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

REASON: To ensure that any resulting general or security lighting is appropriately located, designed do not adversely impact neighbouring residential amenity and are appropriate to the overall design of the buildings as well as protecting the biodiversity value of the site.

ZIMCO HOUSE, 16-28 TABERNACLE STREET AND 10-14 EPWORTH STREET, ISLINGTON, LONDON, EC2A 4LU

REASON FOR REFUSAL

The layout, design and intensity of the servicing arrangements, in combination with the particular needs of disabled and elderly residents (that occupy the Habinteg development at 10-14 Epworth Street) who use the on-site car parking spaces, would lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity and detrimentally affect the safety and security of the residents using the parking area, due to pedestrian/service vehicle conflicts. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DM2.1B viii, DM2.2, DM8.1, DM8.2, DM8.4F and DM8.6 of Islington Development Management Policies 2013.