Items
No. |
Item |
155. |
Guidance for Members of the Public participating in an Islington Council Virtual Meeting Using Zoom PDF 123 KB
Minutes:
The Chair outlined guidance for
the virtual meeting for the Committee, officers and the
Public
|
156. |
Introductions
Minutes:
Councillor Klute welcomed
everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers
introduced themselves and the Chair outlined the procedures for the
meeting.
|
157. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies were received from
Councillors Graham, Woolf and Spall
|
158. |
Declarations of Substitute Members
Minutes:
There were no declarations of substitute
members
|
159. |
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
|
160. |
Order of Business PDF 55 KB
Minutes:
The order of business would be as per the
agenda
|
161. |
Minutes of Previous Meeting PDF 91 KB
Minutes:
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting
held on 2 March 2020 be confirmed as an accurate record of
proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.
|
162. |
158-160, Pentoville Road, London, N1 9LJ PDF 11 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Demolition of existing single
storey building and erection of part one, part 4 storey plus
basement office (Use Class B1(a)) with associated works (Departure
from Development Plan). Reconsultation on planning application due
to a revised description of development and submission of revised
drawings and supporting documentation
(Planning application number:
P2019/2290/FUL)
In the discussion the following
points were made:
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that no additional updates
had been received since the publication of the agenda.
- Members
were advised that in terms of Local Plan, the Planning Officer
advised that the site is within the Kings Cross and Pentonville
Road Key Area, the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), Northdown Street
Employment Growth Area and the Cross Rail 2 Safeguarding
Area.
- On the
issue of Land Use, meeting was informed that site had been vacated
by an educational operator teaching make-up and beauty application
before 2007 and subsequently occupied by a beauty company which
vacated the premises in 2017. Members were advised that the site
had not been in use recently as a social infrastructure.
- The
Planning Officer acknowledged that the existing structures are not
appropriate for social infrastructure uses although it had been
previously used for this purpose for a short period. Members were
informed that the loss of an educational facility is contrary to
policy, exceptional circumstances make it acceptable to depart from
the policy.
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that the proposal provides
1,196sqm (GIA) of B1(a) use (office) floorspace, Affordable
workspace unit at 5% GIA which is to be leased to the Council, to
be secured via a planning obligation within S106 Legal
Agreement.
- Members
were advised that following consultation responses received from
Design and Conservation officers, the scheme is now considered to
be in accordance with Policy 7.6 of the London Plan Policies and
the aims and objectives of Development Management policies DM2.1
and DM2.3, following a number of revisions carried out by the
applicant which are highlighted in the report.
- With
regards to housing provision, the Planning Officer informed members
that a financial contribution of £159,467 has been secured by
legal obligations for the provision of off site housing.
- Member
welcomed the proposals especially as the premises had not been in
use for an educational function for some time. The proposal is not
considered to give rise to unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring
residential amenity
Councillor Klute proposed a
motion to grant Planning Permission. This was seconded by
Councillor Kay and carried unanimously
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 informatives
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 of the officer
report.
|
163. |
22-23 Tileyard Road & Part of 226-228 York Road Road, London N7 PDF 11 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Demolition of existing
buildings and structures and erection of a part 3- and part
5-storey (plus basement) building to create Class B1(c)
(light-industrial), Class B1 (office) and A3 (ancillary
café) floorspace; service yard;
cycle parking; plant refuse / recycling facilities; and associated
works
(Planning application number:
P2019/3300/FUL)
Councillor Picknell left the
meeting during consideration of this item and therefore did not
take part in the discussion or vote on this item
In the discussion the following
points were made:
- Planning
Officer advised meeting that site is within the Vale Royal Brewery
Road Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS) and not affected by
any formal heritage constraints. In addition, Members were informed
that although several buildings within the site are attractive
Victorian warehouse style buildings, there are no immediate
adjacent designated heritage assets or conservation
areas.
- Members
were reminded that an earlier application at the site, and covering
an adjoining site was refused planning permission on grounds of
land use, neighbouring amenity, design,
sustainability and the absence of an appropriate Section 106 legal
agreement.
- The meeting
was informed of applicants subsequent appeal to the Planning
Inspectorate which was dismissed on grounds of design and
neighbouring amenity.
- The
Planning Officer noted that applicant had endeavoured to address
the reasons the appeal was dismissed.
- In response
to a question the Planning officer outlined the landscaping
proposals, and that it would be implemented prior to occupation of
the building.
- The
Planning Officer acknowledged that the proposal will not involve
the net loss of industrial floor space which is in accordance with
Part B of Policy DM5.3.
- A Member
welcomed the proposals following long negotiations between planning
officers and applicant especially with the use of the Tileyard site by providing space for the
music/entertainment sector.
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that issues with the design
and style of the development and loss of light concerns had been
addressed.
- It was
further stated that the floor plans encouraged a hybrid style of
lettings which is to be welcomed as it encourages flexible
use.
Councillor Klute proposed a
motion to grant Planning Permission. This was seconded by
Councillor Kay and carried unanimously
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 informatives 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 of
the officer report.
|
164. |
5-10 Brandon Road, N7 9AA PDF 8 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Demolition of existing building
and structures and erection of a 5-storey building (with part
basement) to provide a minimum of 3,726m2 of Use Class B1(c) / B8
floorspace and a maximum of 6,902m2
flexible Use Class B1 floorspace, with
service yard, cycle parking, and refuse and recycling
facilities.
(Planning application number:
P2019/3186/FUL)
In the discussion the following
points were made:
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that no additional updates
had been received since the publication of the agenda and that
application site is located within the Vale Royal/Brewery Road
Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS).
- Members
were also reminded that an earlier application was refused on
grounds of height, design and land use considerations and (in
particular lack of floorspace being
proposed which is suitable to the Locally Significant Industrial
Site(LSIS)).
- The
Planning Officer informed members that the proposal now proposes a
scheme that will ensure no net loss of priority floor space and
more than the equivalent of 65% of the plot ratio, and is therefore
acceptable in land use terms.
- Members
were informed that the proposal had been assessed by the Design
Review Panel, and that its suggestions had been included in the
scheme by the applicant which has
resulted in a scheme which is of a good standard of desigm. .
- A Member
welcomed the proposals, that the design is an improvement on the
current site and the proposed landscape features and biodiversity
measures are now in accordance with planning policy.
- The
Planning Officer acknowledged that the scheme will not result in
undue impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms of
daylight/sunlight, privacy or an increased sense of
enclosure.
- Members
welcomed the scheme, that it is acceptable especially as it is in
accordance with Islington’s Policy as highlighted in the
report.
Councillor Klute proposed a
motion to grant Planning Permission. This was seconded by
Councillor Kay and carried unanimously.
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 informatives 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 of
the officer report.
|
165. |
Hostel & Premises 38-44 Islington Park Street, London N1 1PX PDF 5 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Change of use of existing HMO
(House of Multiple Occupation) to allow the creation of 7 no. self
- contained residential units – 3 no.1bed flats, 2 no. 3 bed
houses, and 1 no. 5 bed house.
Excavation at lower ground floor level to increase the floor to
ceiling heights and enlarge the existing rear light wells.
Alterations to the front and rear elevations including installation
or metal railings, new access gates, and proposed landscaping,
refuse and cycle parking provision and other associated
works
(Planning application number:
P2019/2651/FUL)
In the discussion the following
points were made:
- The Planning Officer
informed members of the following updates –
Floor plans PL11-PL14 (proposed lower level ground
to proposed second level floor plan) in condition 2 of the
Committee report need to be amended to Rev. P2. These revisions
were submitted during the course of the application to demonstrate
a soft spot in the proposed dwelling
where a floor lift could be located had been changed to the
installation of a lift and to address inclusive Design Officer
comments.
- In addition, the
Planning Officer highlighted changes to the Heads of Terms –
Correct recommendation (a) – Requiring the 7 no.units to be for social rented housing including
the requirement for the nomination rights for the ‘Move
On’ units to return to Islington in accordance with local
authority lettings policy should the GLA ‘Move On’
scheme cease to exist.
- The Planning Officer
advised the meeting that the site is not within an Employment
Growth Area, Employment designated area or within the Central
Activities Zone.
- Members were reminded
that the loss of the existing vacant HMO is considered acceptable
having consulted the Council’s Environmental Health Team who
manage and license HMO’s within the Borough. The team had
assessed the existing accommodation as not of good
quality.
- Members were advised
that the Council’s Housing Team had not objected to the loss
of HMO and welcomes the change of use as the proposal would deliver
affordable homes which is one of the Council’s key objectives
identified in Part G of Policy CS12 of Islington’s Core
Strategy Policies (2011).
- The Planning Officer
acknowledged that excavation works is to be carried out in the
basement and is considered acceptable in design terms, and that the
proposed works are compliant with the Council’s Basement SPD
in regards to its structural impact. The Building Control Officer
had reviewed the application and raised no objections to the
excavation works from a structural perspective.
- A member of the
public stated that whilst he supported the proposal and had a good
relationship with One Housing Group who had been supportive in
discussions with him, he did have concerns over the excavation
works to the basement, which according to a structural engineers
report could cause cracking and problems to his property. He
requested for a waiver especially on this issue. (Following
questions from the committee the objector clarified that his use of
the term ‘waiver’ was intended to mean that he was
requesting that the committee ...
view the full minutes text for item 165.
|
166. |
Redwood Court, 85 Sunnyside London, N19 3SN PDF 4 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Proposed rooftop
telecommunications upgrade involving; the replacement of existing
antennas, dish and cabinet with 6 no. new antennas, 3 no. dishes
and 2 replacement equipment cabinets to facilitate 5G
coverage.
(Planning application number:
P2019/1652/FUL (Council Owned Building))
In the discussion the following
points were made:
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that although the site is
situated within the Whitehall Park Conservation Area, there are no
statutory or locally listed buildings in the vicinity of the site
nor is Redwood Court listed, so there is no impact on heritage
assets.
- Members
were reminded that issues for consideration with the proposal
include the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance
of the Conservation Area, public benefits, impact on the amenities
of surrounding occupiers and public health implications.
- With
regards to the impact of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the conservation area, the Planning Officer
highlighted concerns of the Design and
Conservation Team with regards to telecommunications equipment
being installed on roof tops. The Team
recognised that considering the host building is not an
undesignated heritage asset and is considerably higher than its
neighbours it will only have a neutral impact.
- Members
were reminded that installations of any telecommunications is
governed by national and international legislation and guidance
which requires the need to comply with limitations imposed by the
International Commission of Non-Ionising Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP).
- A Member of
the public expressed concerns about health risks in connection with
5G masts, especially to children, and that residents had not been
informed of the proposals before commencement. A resident requested
for public discussion of the dangers of 5G with residents before
decisions are taken to erect them on tenants properties prior to
applications being approved.
- A
neighbouring resident stated that she had concerns about 5G and the
effects of radiation and believed that 4G is perfectly adequate for
mobile phone use. In addition, she noted that there is evidence of
associated dangers with prolonged use of 5G mast and its
technology.
- The
applicant stated that all telecommunication equipment and
its installation operates to
international standards and must be in compliance with ICNIRP
guidelines. The applicant indicated that the equipment is low
sound[k1]
generating, designed to be in full compliance with
guidelines and sufficiently separated from nearby residential
accommodation to cause any disturbance.
- In response
to public health concerns raised by objectors, the Planning Officer
informed the meeting that colleagues in Public Health had
considered the proposal and provided guidance that risks to public
health is low and that the deployment of 5G does not pose a threat
to the health and safety of residents (the public Health commentary
on 5G, which was included with the papers was noted by the
Committee). In addition members were advised that the
electromagnetic radiation emitted by the proposed antennas would
comply with ICNIRP Guidelines, and that the proposed installation
has the appropriate certification.
- In response
to consultation concerns, the Planning Officer stated that 179
letters of consultation had been sent to ...
view the full minutes text for item 166.
|