Skip to content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD. View directions

Contact: Ola Adeoye 

Items
No. Item

358.

Introductions

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.

359.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Donovan-Hart, Picknell, Court, Convery, Gantly and Ward.

360.

Declarations of Substitute Members

Minutes:

There were no declarations of substitute members.

361.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

362.

Order of Business pdf icon PDF 52 KB

Minutes:

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

363.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

364.

202-210 Fairbridge Road, London, N19 3HT pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolition of existing MOT garage (Use Class B2) and the erection of a 5 storey building to provide 2no. commercial units (Use Class B1/B8) at ground floor, 15 residential units above (4x1 beds, 11x2 beds, Use Class C3), with cycle parking, refuse storage, plant, landscaping, and associated engineering works.

 

(Planning application number: P2017/2754/FUL)


In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that no representations had been received since the papers were published and that Network Rail had withdrawn their previous objections.

·         The Planning officer provided a number of updates to reflect corrections -: Condition 2 (drawing numbers), Condition 5 (omitting the reference to PV panels) and Condition 13 (omitting the reference to a basement).  Also Members were advised that the opening hours referred to in condition 11 were correct, and p38/ paragraph 10.104 of the report should be updated to reflect condition 11.  

·         With regards to the provision of affordable housing, Members were advised that a financial viability assessment had been submitted by the applicant which had had been independently appraised, and that that the scheme could viably provide 5 shared ownership units and a residual surplus of £42,000.

·         The objector was concerned that the proposal would impact his amenity and quality of life, as his own house would be sandwiched between the scheme and another proposal seeking permission.  The case officer advised that the other proposal (469 Hornsey Road) was acknowledged in the committee report, does not currently have planning permission, and that the objector’s concerns would only be realised if both schemes were granted planning permission.  Therefore the current application should be assessed on its own merits, and if permission is granted, the cumulative impacts of any future decisions will need to be assessed when those decisions are made.

·         The objector was concerned with overlooking and privacy due to the height of the building and suggested a more solid screening to address their concerns.

·         The agent in response informed Members that the scheme before the Committee was as a result of the advice received from both the design review panel and council officers and that issues of overlooking and loss of privacy had been addressed by ensuring that the living rooms were sited in the rear elevation of the site and privacy screens would be included.

·         The agent advised that the scheme had been designed to minimise the impact of overlooking. With regards to noise pollution during construction, this will be managed by a construction management plan. He reiterated the benefits of the scheme.

·         A suggestion to amend condition 15 to refer to the privacy screens being solid and fixed in place was agreed.

·         The committee resolved to approve the application subject to condition 15 (privacy screens) being amended to refer to the privacy screens being solid and fixed in place.

Councillor Fletcher proposed a motion to amend condition 15 as stated above. This was seconded by Councillor Nicholls and carried.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 364.

365.

9-12 Great Sutton Street, London, EC1V 0BX pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolition of existing building and construction of a part two, part six-storey mixed use building providing 1,802m2 of B1(a) office floorspace over basement, ground, first and second floors and 10 residential flats (three x 1-bedroom, six x 2-bedroom, one x 3-bedroom) above.

 

(Planning application number: P2016/4533/FUL)


In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that item was deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 18 July 2017 for three reasons which the applicant had now addressed. Members were advised that the applicant had submitted responses from the Design Review Panel (DRP), an amended daylight sunlight report and a Fire Strategy.

·         The meeting was informed that 2 letters of objection had been received, one from a resident who is registered to speak and 2 letters from local Member of Parliament raising issues of overlooking, privacy, daylight/sunlight and light pollution. The local MP has requested if further amendments could be made to overcome overlooking issue.

·         Members were informed that feedback from DRP was positive and they were impressed with the quality of the materials proposed especially with the special bricks. Also Members were advised that applicant had received a letter from the fire authority confirming their satisfaction with the proposals safety strategy.

·         With regards to the impact of the daylight loss, the Planning Officer advised that fewer windows actually failed the test as compared to the original officer assessment in the July report and that the applicant had visited 5 neighbouring flats to confirm the room sizes and layouts and submitted an amended daylight/sunlight assessment.

·         Objections raised by neighbouring residents included concerns regarding overlooking, the scale of the scheme, whether the new case officer been passed the previous letters of objection, whether the windows were numbered correctly in the amended daylight/sunlight report and that officers had not visited their apartments to assess the impact of the proposal on resident’s amenity.

·         In response the applicant’s agent informed Members that the proposal would provide a higher quality, more accessible and more employment space than the existing buildings currently offered. They clarified the addresses of the flats that had been visited and the window numbering in the daylight/sunlight report

·         Members were concerned about the level of overlooking from the offices to nearby residents and Cllr Fletcher proposed a motion to amend condition 9 to alleviate the privacy concerns by providing obscure glazing to all south facing windows to the rear elevation.  This was seconded by Councillor Khan and carried.  

·         Members were concerned about the hours of use of the terrace and potential noise pollution concerns arising from the use of the roof terraces and Cllr Kay proposed a motion to limit the hours of its use from 09:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday.  This was seconded by Councillor Nicholls and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the amended conditionsand subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 365.

366.

Paul Anthony House, 724 Holloway Road, London, N19 3JD pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolitionofexistingbuildingsandredevelopment

to providea 6-storey(plus basement) building accommodating 1,307sqm(NIA) office floorspaceat basementand firstto fifth floors,anda 243sqm(NIA) retail (A1use) unitatgroundlevel,together with associatedcycleparkingand  refuseand  recycling storage.

(Planning application number: P2016/3353/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that at paragraph 10.163 of the report, the Head of Terms should include the payment of a figure of £350,000 for the provision of affordable housing within the Borough.

·         Members were advised that the site is located within Archway Town Centre and that the proposal would result in a substantial increase in office floorspace, inclusive of SME workspace together with 10 new residential units

·         In response to sunlight/daylight, outlook and privacy, Members were informed that conditions have been recommended to ensure that there would not be any significant impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that although there is a reference to additional excavation in paragraph 10.25 for providing an increased basement, this would not take place on Network Rail land which is not within the site.

·         Members welcomed the scheme as policy compliant.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to 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.

 

367.

Site of Electricity Sub Station, Opposite 15-27 Gee Street & Car Park Spaces 90-98 Goswell Road pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that item was deferred at the 5 December meeting to allow the applicant consider a more permanent solution to the overlooking concerns and loss of privacy. Members were informed that the applicant had identified 3 dwellings which could be most directly overlooked.

·         Members were informed that the applicant had proposed internal louvres to mitigate overlooking of residential units within The Rooftops. Members were informed that in the case where residential windows were directly opposite the office floorplate the louvres would be rotated to block out the view, and where the views are oblique the louvres would be oriented to allow straight views out whilst screening angled ones.

·         The Planning Officer advised that a further objection had been received with accompanying photographs to demonstrate the likely reflection of activity within flats within the Rooftops onto the glazed façade of the proposed building.  The Planning Officer presented the photographs to the committee.

 

·         Members were informed of a further objection had been received raising concerns that overlooking and reflection onto the façade of the proposed building may have safety and security implications for residents, and also raising concerns in relation to light pollution. 

 

·         The Planning Officer advised that residents of The Rooftops had requested that the recommended condition at paragraph 2.22 of the committee report be amended to require consultation with residents of the block on the details of measures to mitigate light pollution.

·         Neighbouring residents were concerned about overlooking and loss of privacy as they were surrounded by similar type of buildings and that conditions regarding the light reflections were not sufficient and that it would be important that neighbouring residents be consulted regarding the appropriate measures to alleviate light pollution concerns as previous schemes that had similar conditions were not fulfilled after changes in tenancies. 

·         The Agent advised Committee that the applicant had worked in conjunction with the Design Review Panel to address the overlooking concerns. The agent reminded Committee that Gee street was a public highway; the proposal being an office development facing residential so there was no policy issue of overlooking.

 

·         Councillor Fletcher enquired on whether further commitments to within the condition to secure a management plan for light pollution mitigation measures which should address tenant arrangements and leases.  

 

·         It was suggested that an additional condition be recommended to secure and permanently maintain the overlooking mitigation measures detailed within the Internal Views Report submitted by the applicant.

 

·         Planning Officer informed the Committee that condition 2 (plan numbers) would be revised to reflect a couple of corrections to plan documents and plan numbers and also conditions 9 (energy efficiency) and conditions 10 (renewable energy) will be amended to reflect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 367.