You are here: Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The link to the Zoom meeting is below. Enter meeting ID 953 4043 0626 when prompted. If you prefer to join the meeting by phone please dial 330 088 5830.

Contact: Ola Adeoye 

Link: Join the meeting via this link

Items
No. Item

167.

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.

168.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Graham and Spall

169.

Declarations of Substitute Members

Minutes:

There were no declarations of substitute members

170.

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

171.

Order of Business pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Minutes:

The order of business would be as per the agenda

172.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 April 2020 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

173.

139 - 149 Fonthill Road, London, N4 3HF pdf icon PDF 9 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Refurbishment and extension of the building to include the erection of a single-storey fourth floor roof extension and a two storey rear extension to the front part of the building and a two storey roof extension to the rear part of the building to provide retail (Use Class A1) floorspace, business floorspace, (Use Class B1 and B8) and flexible floorspace (Use Classes A2/B1/D1/D2) together with 4 no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and creation of roof terraces. Basement excavation to increase the depth and extent of the existing basement. Demolition of existing chimney and rebuilding and enlargement of existing tower. Alterations to front elevation including new shopfronts and associated works.

 

It was noted that a previous application had gone to appeal

 

(Planning application number: P2019/2563/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

  • The Planning Officer informed members that this was a resubmission following an application that was refused in January 2018 and was subsequently dismissed on appeal in February 2018.
  • Members were advised that condition 22 had been included in the planning permission which removes the additional windows from the rear of the site.
  • The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the proposed extensions, alterations and additions to the existing building would result in improvements to its overall appearance.
  • With regards the appeal decision, the Planning officer reminded the meeting, that the latest scheme proposes the same built form as the appeal scheme, however the 5 single aspect residential units have been removed and are replaced with B1 office floorspace.
  • The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the scheme has addressed the sole reason for the dismissal of the appeal through the removal of the proposed single aspect residential units at fourth floor level which have been replaced with additional B1 floorspace, whilst the built form matches the appeal scheme.
  • In response to concern as noted in the report that only £9881 was being paid by the applicant when the contribution as stated in Council policy, it should be a contribution of £200000, the Planning Officer stated that the Council’s Viability Team had reviewed the independent viability appraisal, and agreed with its conclusions that the scheme is not able to provide the full contribution towards off site affordable housing, and therefore in this instance a contribution towards off site provision of affordable housing via a S106 agreement would be the most appropriate response.
  • In addition, the Planning Officer highlighted the conclusion of the Independent viability appraisal which stated that the scheme could only support the provision of 80 sq. metres of floorspace for a period of 5 years rather than the required 10 years, as required by the policy. The scheme had been tested through the viability appraisal, and as a result this provision is not considered to be in conflict with the aims of the policy.
  • In response to a question about the A1 use, the applicant assured the committee that the specialist retail area would be protected in relation to the new provision.
  • The Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

174.

Edward Rudolph House, 69-85 Margery Street, London, WC1X 0JL pdf icon PDF 16 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a 5 storey building (plus roof top plant enclosure and further basement excavation to the existing basement/lower ground level), to provide for a total of 5,660sqm (GIA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1a), along with a new substation, cycle parking and changing facilities, refuse and recycling storage, hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.

 

(Planning application number: P2019/3464/FUL)

 

The Chair informed the meeting that given the number of objectors to the application he would allow 5 speakers, in addition to considering the written submission and a submission from Councillor Nathan.

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

 

  • The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the scheme had been revised, in order to take account of comments of the Design Review Panel and objections from residents.
  • Following consideration of the report of the Planning Officer, discussion took place on the issues of loss of daylight/sunlight, mirror massing, design/height of the new building, the brick colour of the new scheme not being in keeping with the area, and the lack of adequate consultation with residents.
  • The Planning Officer stated that the scheme had been revised to take account of the Design Review Panel comments in respect of the height of the building, and it was felt that whilst some properties would face a loss of light, the retained light would be acceptable.
  • With regard to the issue of mirror massing, the Planning Officer stated that it given the scheme is within an urban area, that the existing building is low level type, the loss of light is not seen as a major transgression.
  • On concerns about the use of the roof terrace, the Planning Officer referred to condition 7, that the hours of use has been amended to reflect that the roof terraces could only be used between the hours of 8.00 a.m. – 6.00 p.m.
  • In response to a question about the consultation process, it was stated that this had not been possible at pre-application stage due to confidentiality issues, however there had been consultation following this with residents.
  • An objector referred to the loss of light to properties in Yardley Street and these properties were situated close to the new development and that it was felt that the loss of light contravened the guidelines. In addition, it was stated that the building was too high, and if appropriate consultation had taken place a number of the objectors concerns could have been addressed. He added that the proposed changes would be significant to residents.
  • Concerns were raised with regard to the loss of light to both Bagnigge and St.Anne’s House particularly on the ground floors, and that there had been no provision for the Railtrack and TfL implications on the development. The development is adjacent to a conservation area, and to a number of residential buildings, and the fire escape provision was questioned.
  • An objector stated that she was a resident of St.Anne’s House and the proposal for a roof terrace would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

175.

Site of Former Harvist Under Fives Nursery, Hornsey Road, London N7 7NN pdf icon PDF 10 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Erection of a new building, up to 5 storeys in height, to provide 29 flats, together with associated amenity space and detached refuse store.  Departure from the Development Plan.

 

(Planning application number: P2018/4131/FUL)

 

 

It was noted that a previous application had been submitted to appeal, which had been dismissed in 2018

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

 

·         The Planning Officer highlighted some changes to be made with regards to paragraph 10.54 line 6 which needs to be deleted. The Council’s viability officers do not agree with the scale of deficit suggested by the applicant, but advise that even with the omission of the nursery the scheme would be viable.

·         Members were advised that the improved offer of 52% affordable housing and in particular the  73% social rent tenure, are considered to be acceptable in policy terms .

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the scheme proposes a new building and this provides an opportunity to enhance the existing estate with good quality amenity and open space.

·         In terms of design, meeting was advised that the present scheme has evolved as a result of the previous appeal, Design Review Panel and pre-application advice.

·         On the issue of amenity, the meeting was informed that the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy, noise and disturbance or an increased sense of enclosure subject to condition.

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the provision of new housing and the redevelopment of a site which has been left in a state of disrepair for a long time is to be welcomed.

 

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, 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.