Agenda and minutes

Councillor Poyser welcomed everyone to the meeting. The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clarke, Khondoker and Woolf. Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Klute in relation to Item B2.

Councillors Williamson and Wayne substituted for Councillors Clarke and Khondoker. Councillor Kay substituted for Councillor Klute on Agenda Item B2.

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.

Councillor Poyser declared that in relation to Item B2 he knew some of the objectors. He had not expressed any opinion on the application.

The order of business would be B2 and then B1.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2022 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them subject to the following amendment:

Helen Strongman, Chair of the Bakersfield Estate Residents Association stated she had compared the height of the new development to the height of the current five storey prison buildings rather than to the Bakersfield Estate.

Refurbishment and improvement works to park to include: replacement of existing Redgra pitch with 9-a-side pitch and associated retaining walls; creation of new grass area for amenity recreation and sports use; removal of existing park buildings and erection of new community hub building; new and reconfigured entrances and footpaths; installation of adult gym equipment; park furniture; removal and replacement of trees; and landscaping throughout.

(Planning application number: P2021/3658/FUL)

In the discussion the following main points were made:

·       In response to a member’s question about the operating hours listed in the officer report, the planning officer stated that these hours had been put forward by the applicant. The applicant stated that these hours were standard across Islington parks. In response to a member’s concern that the hours might be insufficient and some residents would be unable to afford bookings, the applicant stated that in addition, there were 12 hours per week booked in for programmed activity and over 25% of pitch hours available were free to end users. The programme would be regularly reviewed.

·       In response to a member’s question about the management of the facility, the planning officer stated that it would be managed by the council’s Greenspace team. The applicant stated that GLL would manage bookings on the council’s behalf and this would be embedded into the contract.

·       An objector raised concerns about carbon emissions and air pollutants as a result of barbecues. He requested a condition to make Barnard Park a barbecue free zone.

·       The applicant stated that the council had a policy to allow barbecues in open spaces and currently was not seeking to change this policy.

·       The applicant stated that the Islington Football Partnership was in its 20^th year and was a successful partnership.

·       In response to a member’s question, the applicant stated that in addition to the bookable times, there were daily non-bookable times.

·       The chair asked the legal adviser whether barbecues were a material consideration. The legal adviser stated that the effects of barbecues i.e. emissions and smells were in theory material considerations but a ban on barbecues would not meet some of tests required for this to be conditioned. The applicant stated that the restricted barbecue area in Highbury Fields was the result of a by-law.

·       A member stated that it was important for the management plan to have the right balance between organised sport and informal kick-about time.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to condition a review of the sports pitch management plan after two years.  This was seconded by Councillor Wayne and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to add a condition to require the bricks to be used to be London stock Flemish bond. This was seconded by Councillor Convery and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objection provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 297.

Phased comprehensive redevelopment including demolition of existing structures; site preparation and enabling works; and the construction of 985 residential homes including 60 extra care homes (Use Class C3), a Women’s Building (Use Class F.2) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E) in buildings of up to 14 storeys in height; highways/access works; landscaping; pedestrian and cycle connection, publically accessible park; car (blue badge) and cycle parking; and other associated works.

(Planning application number: P2021/3273/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer stated that the application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 10 February 2022.

·         Determination of the planning application was deferred for eight reasons as follows: 1) viability; 2) provision of London Living Rent housing; 3) use of the residents’ facility; 4) facilities for older children and young people; 5) fit out of the Women’s Building; 6) costs of operating the Women’s Building; 7) access to neighbouring streets; and 8) concerns about tenure distribution.

·         The applicants had responded to these matters in letters dated 24 February 2022, 3 March 2022 and 7 March 2022.

·         A further 13 representations had been received since 10 February 2022.  One of these was a representation from Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North.

·         To date, there has been a total of 247 responses from 205 unique respondents.

·         A letter from Community Plan for Hollowayraised concerns in relation to the reasons for deferral. They had also requested amended/more detailed conditions or new conditions.  The planning officer stated that not all of the matters raised could be dealt with by way of condition and that detailed matters could be addressed at the time that conditions were discharged.

·         Several letters from the residents of Trecastle Way and Penderyn Way asked that the Committee consider the impacts of the proposed development on their homes and raised concerns about the process for considering the deferred application.

·         The concerns raised by local residents related to: tall buildings; overdevelopment; the need for affordable housing; a lack of a need for the Women’s Building; the Women’s building should be larger and stand alone; pollution from the development including light pollution (the landscaping condition covered general and security lighting); and lack of pepper potting.

·         The concerns raised by local residents were issues that had previously been raised and previously considered in the committee report.

·         There had been a Freedom of Information request for the Design Review Panel letters.  All letters had been provided including those that had been superseded by the current proposals. The Committee were advised that the only letter that remained directly relevant to the current proposals was the fifth letter.

·         In response to a request for BPS viability appraisals, these had been provided to the person requesting them.

·         The CCG had continued to raise concerns about the lack of a Section 106 contribution for GP facilities.

The planning officer provided an update on the eight reasons for deferral as follows:

Viability

·         The applicants’ position on the viability of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 298.