Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor McHugh.

None. 

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 pecuniary or other interests.

The order of business would be amended to consider B3, B2, B4, and then B1.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2022 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Basement excavation to provide additional living accommodation to the existing residential dwelling house with a new front lightwell. Erection of a single-storey rear and side extensions; Installation of metal balustrades to the existing rear outrigger to form a private terrace with associated screening. Replacement of existing single glazed windows with double glazed windows; Installation of 3 roof lights to the rear roof slope and associated alterations

The amendments include:

(a)  increase the 1.8 metre boundary treatment to 2 metres.

(Planning application number: P2022/0093/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• A member asked for clarification on the plans. It was confirmed that there were proposed railings and, screening to protect the privacy of the neighbouring property.
• The objectors raised concerns regarding the impact of the extension on the conservation area, the impact of the extension on residential amenity, in particular, privacy, and the impact on  trees caused by development in the area. It was requested that if approved, the removal of a sideways facing window be considered.
• The applicant’s representatives explained that they assessed the area to ensure the design was sensitive to the surrounding area. Glazing had been reduced and the rear extension glazing was omitted in favour of a green roof that would provide a more positive visual amenity.
• A objector requested that a large window that faced sideways into a main living space be omitted. The Planning officer said there would not be a loss of privacy due to a 2.8-metre-high boundary wall. The applicant explained the majority of the wall was 1.8 metres and they would be happy to include vegetation or screening.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to add a condition to increase the boundary treatment from 1.8 metres to 2 metres. This was seconded by Councillor Ibrahim and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the additional condition outlined above.

Partial demolition/reconfiguration of the external terrace relating to the existing public house and the redevelopment of the adjacent hardstanding car park for the construction of five (3 x 3 bed and 2 x 2-bed) self-contained dwellinghouses (C3 use) and associated alterations.

REASON FOR RECONSULTATION: Revised drawings, Revised Daylight/Sunlight Report, Additional Land use information for car park, Fire Safety Information (including Fire Statement, Fire Strategy, Approved Inspector Letter), Response to objections,

(Planning application number: P2022/1599/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• In response to a member’s question, the planning officer confirmed that the pub could have tables and chairs at the terrace at the front of the property as well as at the terrace to the south of the site.
• The Committee considered recent planning issues on the wider site.
• In response to a member’s question, the planning officer advised that handmade bricks had been used in the surrounding area. Although not in the proposal this could be included as a condition if the committee was so minded.
• It was noted that the buildings were higher than the fence at the rear of the carpark however mitigation such as a sloped, green roof had been proposed to soften the impact of the building.
• The objectors raised concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of materials and analysis related to the application; the protection of pubs in the Local Plan and the lack of an independent assessment related to the viability of the pub; the failure to assess harm to heritage assets and the conservation area; that the Conservation Area Design Guidance prohibited the proposed alterations to original features; the mass and scale of the proposed building and the limited provision of measurements; loss of light and overshadowing and a lack of independent assessment; noise from construction and the constructions impact on wildlife; lack of consultation and reply from the applicant; the impact on the wall at the rear of the carpark and its effect on their gardens and trees at the boundary and issues such as the size and management of a gap between a second wall proposed by the applicant; the impact on protected wildlife; the management of trees; how a bus stop servicing two schools would be managed and the children’s safety and, that the quality, style, mass and design did not match the local area or historic views.
• The applicant’s representatives highlighted to the Committee that the development company was design conscious, sustainably led and aimed to positively affect the built environment for future generations. They had acquired the carpark and the terrace from the pub, who had provided a letter of support for the application and were currently leasing the terrace.  Since the refusal of the previous scheme it had been carefully reviewed and significant revisions had been. They posited that the current site was underutilised and detracted from the setting of the conservation area; the proposals addressed previous concerns and provided a much enhanced outlook when compared to the existing outlook of the site; Historic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Redevelopment of the land behind 12 Chadwell Street to provide a new three bed dwelling across ground and basement levels with associated amenity space and land scaping the proposal also includes demolition of existing hardstanding.

(Planning application number: P2020/2995/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• The planning officer highlighted that an additional objection had been raised.
• Members raised questions regarding the bin storage. The planning officer advised that the bins could be stored in the same location but would need to be moved to the front of the properties for collection. The Sub-Committee considered the implications of bins stored at the front of the house and the impact of moving the bins on those with disabilities.
• Concerning Paragraph 7.17, a member asked what criteria would be used to decide whether or not an air source heat pump would be used. The planning officer stated that the sustainability statement suggested the pump be used, with gas and enhanced building fabrics being an alternative option if the pump could not be provided. Full justification and a section 73 application would need to be provided to vary or remove that condition.
• The objectors raised concerns regarding access to a right of way; size and scale; damage to the conservation area; threat to high quality legally protected trees; cleaning and maintenance problems caused by autumnal leaves; the use of the heat pump and the need for a noise and impact assessment; bin storage and the integrity of a Thames Water mains pipe.
• The applicant stated that since the previous scheme was refused, they had worked with officers to reduce the footprint of the proposed dwelling; set the front elevation back; reduced the site coverage by 35%; reduced the height; moved the bike storage to reduce visual intrusion from the road; provided a greater level of subservience to the surroundings and provided a greater level of external amenity for future residents.  The site was a carpark and the applicant considered that it did not contribute towards sustainable development and the character of the surrounding listed buildings. He posited that planning policy promoted this type of development; the London Plan required small sites to be optimised for housing due to the housing crisis; the development was subservient in scale to the surrounding buildings; did not have prominence from the street; provided potential landscape improvements; an excellent living environment for future residents and safeguarded the amenity of neighbours. It was highlighted that the development achieved or exceeded all space and amenity standards and had been thoroughly assessed in terms of daylight and sunlight.
• The Chair asked why there had not been agreement on the right of way. The agent’s representative was not aware of discussions on this. The council’s legal representative confirmed it was a private right of access and the sub-committee could not impose a condition.
• The Chair asked about the bin collections. This would be considered private rights rather than a material planning consideration.
• The Chair asked about the impact of the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Two storey building with excavation below to provide a single storey basement level with rear lightwells to provide new commercial floor space (Class E) (following demolition of existing workshop building) Installation of plant equipment to rear lightwell.

(Planning application number: P2021/0302/FUL

In the discussion the following points were made:

• The planning officer highlighted that an additional objection had been received and that material planning considerations raised had been addressed in the report.
• The objectors raised concerns regarding a proposal for a three storey building on a constrained site; the proposed first floor would add bulk and height to a dense area of residential flats and would reduce neighbour’s outlook and increase a sense of enclosure; the size, scale and bulks impact on the character and appearance of a conservation area; comparing the site to previously refused applications considered more harmful did not mean this application was not harmful; the proposed first floor was 5 metres from the boundary of Upper Street Flats and the Council’s Policy required an 18 metre back to back distance between habitable windows; No active frontage was provided; neighbour’s amenity would be impacted; the underpinning required to create the basement being on land not owned by the applicant; they had provided a letter from a qualified daylight/sunlight consultant who found faults in the modelling and methodology of the submitted daylight/sunlight report, including inaccurate placements of windows and no calculations for the depth of rooms; that their expert had produced a contradictory view on daylight, sunlight and outlook that should be considered new information as the committee could not make a confident decision regarding the impact on neighbours; the use of a heavily serviced alleyway that also stored refuse would cause further congestion and was an inappropriate access, particularly for inclusivity and accessibility reasons;  no evidence was provided assessing the impact of the development on existing businesses; false statements and errors in the planning application; a failure to notify landowners and there had been no consultation with residents and business owners.
• The applicant explained to the sub-committee that the proposals were to replace a dilapidated warehouse building in a highly accessible location in need of regeneration. They had engaged with officers and the local community which had led to a policy complaint scheme being presented to the sub-committee; the application delivered 422 square metres of new, high quality, energy efficient, and flexible office space that would contribute to the thriving Small Medium Enterprise (SME) economy within Islington; the principle of new employment floorspace, the overall design, particularly the elevational detailing and materiality had been considered acceptable by planning officers and the planning inspectorate; the scheme had been reduced in height by one story and the separation distance at the rear of the property had been increased; there was less development to the rear of the building in comparison to the existing pitched roof; the proposals improved the relationship between the site and the street; the existing outlook was improved; the daylight and sunlight assessment recognised a minor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.