Agenda item

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 did advise that they would be willing to accept a planning condition to address overlooking requiring such features as blinds.

·         Councillor Fletcher in her discussions felt that the massing was acceptable but that she held concerns regarding privacy and the provision of sheet glass opposite residents. It was queried what discussions regarding privacy took place with officers.

·         Councillor Convery advised that the retail provision was satisfactory and referred to the Baltic Street application where obscure glazing / fins were provided to address privacy across the highway.

·         The Committee agreed to defer the item so as to allow the applicant provide a more permanent solution to the issue of overlooking and loss of privacy. Suggestions of using obscure glazed windows was noted.

Councillor Kay proposed a motion to Defer. This was seconded by Councillor Fletcher and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.

           The meeting ended at 9.40 pm

Chair