Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Court.

There were no declarations of 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 B2, B3 and B1.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a 27-storey building (part 10, part 15, part 20, part 25, part 27-storeys) with 3 basement levels to provide for 63,507 square metres (GIA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1(a)) and 1,222 square metres (GIA) of flexible retail/professional services/restaurant/café floorspace (Use Class A1/A2/A3) along with associated access and servicing arrangements, cycle parking, refuse storage and landscaping works.

(Planning application number: P2017/3103)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were informed that since publication of the agenda, a response had been received by Network Rail, who have requested a condition relating to drainage, method statements/APPM, earthworks/excavations and tunnels if planning permission is granted.

·         The Planning officer also advised that since publication of the Officer’s Report, the applicant had offered 955 square metres of SME workspace contained within the proposal, at a discounted rate of 60% of the market rental value for a period of 15 years.

·         Members were advised that the scheme would provide suitable office floor space to be occupied by micro and small enterprises and the proposal would result in public realm improvements, widening of footway pavements and the introduction of a place making tree at the junction of Ropemaker Street and Finsbury Pavement.

·         With regards to housing provision, Members were informed that an off-site contribution of £4,639,680 is to be secured by legal agreement.  

·         In response to objectors concerns about the loss of light and lack of consultation, Members were advised that letters had been sent out including residents of the Heron building and the loss of light was minimal in the context of 5 windows being impacted at relatively low levels when weighed against the other advantages of the scheme.

·         In response to the agent’s assertion that the scheme would bring in business rates to Islington Council, the legal officer advised Members that this was not a material consideration.

·         Members discussed the provision of employment at the site and the number of local jobs that would be created. A request for London Living Wage to be paid was requested by Councillor Kay with the applicant advising that was outside the scope of the development stage, but that a commitment during the construction phase for that to be paid would be made.

·         A query regarding the net or gross job number increase was raised by Councillor Convery.

·         Members welcomed the scheme as policy compliant, especially with its commitment on providing employment opportunities for apprentices.

Councillor Fletcher proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Ward and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the additional condition outlined above; and conditional upon 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 as amended above and subject to any direction by the Mayor of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 348.

Redevelopment of the site at Regent's Wharf including the refurbishment and extension of 10-12 Regent's Wharf (including part one/part two storey roof extension) to provide additional Class B1 business floorspace with ancillary flexible Class A1/A3 (retail/restaurant) and flexible Class A1/B1/D1 (retail/business/non-residential institutions) floorspace at ground floor level; demolition of 14, 16 and 18 Regent's Wharf and erection of a part 5 and part 6 storey building with rooftop plant enclosure providing Class B1(a) office floorspace and flexible Class A1/A3/B1/D1/D2 (retail/restaurant & café/business/non-residential institutions/assembly & leisure) floorspace at ground floor; and associated hard and soft landscaping.

(Planning application number: P2016/4805/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised that an objection had been received from Historic England and the key points are summarised as follows:

o   Some elements of the proposed scheme would result in small improvements to the locally listed buildings however the scheme would result in harm to the conservation area, and that the heritage benefits of the scheme are minor and would not balance this harm.

o   Scale and design of the new dormer windows to the canal side elevation of No. 10 would be extremely dominant and would introducing an entirely alien, prominent feature to the roofscape.

o   The large extensions at the south end of building 10 would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the building.

o   Creation of an expanded upper storey to building 12 will mean a dominant area of the building does not relate to this historically functional building’s original use.

o   Substantial alterations proposed to locally listed buildings would reduce the prominence of these important buildings in the street scene, and thereby reduce their legibility as industrial buildings and cause harm to the Regent’s Canal West Conservation Area.

o   Revisions should be sought to reduce the harm caused by the proposed works, particularly regarding the design of the proposed canal side roof structure and fenestration to building number 10.

·         The Planning Officer advised that a further representation had been received from the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society (GLIAS) clarifying the extent of the windows on the canal-side elevations of buildings 10 and 12, as originally constructed.  The GLIAS also referred to evidence that the dormer windows to the canal-side elevation of building 10 were original features.  The Planning Officer advised that it is therefore likely that the dormer windows were original features of the building.  The Planning Officer further advised that the dormer windows currently provide little benefit in terms of daylight receipt to the existing accommodation and the top loft floor space is uncomfortable, suffering from poor daylighting and overheating.  The proposed dormer windows would therefore provide for an improved quality of internal accommodation whilst their design is supported by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer.

·         The Planning Officer reported that the Tree officer raises no objections to the removal of the alder trees which as they have reached their growth potential and represent a constraint to achieving a better overall landscaping scheme on the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 349.

Demolition of existing boundary walls and brick substation enclosure and erection of a seven storey building to provide 3,956 sqm (GIA) office (Use Class B1a) floorspace on part ground floor and Levels 1-6 and 94 sqm (GIA) retail floorspace on part ground floor.

(Planning application number: P2017/3389/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were informed that item was deferred at the Committee on 7 November 2017 as there were concerns about the lack of provision of an active retail or leisure floor space on the ground floor.

·         Members were advised that the applicant had addressed this concern through the introduction of a ground floor retail unit on part of the ground floor fronting Gee Street whilst the small/micro unit office workspace would be located partly on the ground floor and partly on the first floor.

·         The Planning Officer advised that the Council has received a number of representations and that the Planning Service had been advised that the initial consultation letters produced in September were not received. The re-consultation was therefore the first notice received by some residents who had now written Accordingly, residents have raised concerns that they have not been provided with sufficient time to provide responses.  Members were advised that the Council had fulfilled its statutory publicity requirements for major planning applications set out within The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

·         The Planning Officer advised that 8 further objections have been received which raise concerns which are summarised as follows.  Excessive height, overbearing visual impact, loss of daylight, increased footfall, increased demand for on-street parking, out of character, overlooking and loss of privacy – in particular by reason of narrow road and excessive amount of glass, offices will overlook bedrooms and bathrooms, light pollution, measures to address light pollution don’t work in practice. Objectors requested the Planning Committee visit flats at the rooftops (15-27 Gee Street to appreciate the impact of the proposed development).

·         The Planning Officer also advised that a representation had been received from Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court raising concerns regarding noise and disturbance during the construction period affecting court proceedings and construction traffic impeding access to the court building by custody vehicles.  It was therefore recommended that conditions 4 and 18 be revised to indicate that Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal service are consulted on the Construction Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan and the Delivery and Servicing Management Plan.

·         Objectors who addressed the Committee stated that the road width was 5.4m and that over this distance the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy was felt to be acute. They raised concerns over the length of the office working day to include cleaner’s hours and raised concerns for safety. They did not consider curtains to be appropriate due to potential for them not to be used.

·         In addressing these concerns, the applicant referred to the policy applying between facing residential habitable room windows and not to apply across a highway. However, the agent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 350.