Agenda and minutes

Councillor Khan welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers introduced themselves.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of substitute members.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be as per the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes for the meeting held on 8 July 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide for a mixed use development consisting of 3,879sq m (GIA) of a Car Hire Facility (sui generis use class) comprising of offices and 150 parking spaces and 873sq m (GIA) of office (B1 use class) floor space and 118 residential units (C3 use class), along with associated communal amenity space, children's play space, landscaping, cycle spaces, refuse storage. The building would consist of the following storey heights: - Rodney Street: part 5 and part 7 storeys;- corner of Rodney and Pentonville Road: 10 storeys;- Pentonville Road: part 5, part 6 and part 7 storey's with a setback floors at 8th  and 6th floor levels; and- Cynthia Street: 4 storeys with a setback 5th.

(Planning application number: P2014/1017/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The planning officer reported that the Site Allocation referred to in paragraph 11.16 of the officer report had been adopted and was no longer emerging.

·        At the time of the planning inquiry, the Site Allocation and Development Management Policies document had both been adopted and therefore the inspector would have given it more weight than if it was emerging (which was the situation at the time the scheme was appealed for non-determination).

·        A member raised concern about the ‘sui generis’ use class when there would be a low employment generating use. He referred to there being 38 employees within the car hire business (as expanded) and stated that if this was an office development, it could employ 297 people. A member raised concern that in terms of building regulations standard occupancy levels, an office would generate employment levels of one person per 6 square metres, a warehouse would have one person per 30 square metres and the proposed car hire business would have one person per 100 square metres.

·        Clarification was sought as to whether the concept of a ransom price was an accepted concept when considering site amalgamation practices within any viability guidance. The independent viability consultant (from BPS) explained that the guidance covered generic site amalgamation concepts but did not offer guidance on ‘ransom’ situations. While the ransom concept was not specifically supported by guidance, there was also no guidance to say that it was not appropriate.

·        17% affordable housing (by unit numbers) would be provided, 23% by habitable rooms. Policy sought 50% affordable housing.

·        The quality of the evidence supporting the applicant’s build cost figures was questioned. The BPS viability advisor explained that benchmarking was used. A BCIS cost analysis which used standard cost headings had not been used. This created a lack of clarity and a degree of interpretation was required. However any variance would have minimal impact as it was significantly less than the deficit of the scheme.

·        Members raised concern about the accuracy of some of the figures in the viability study.

·        Concerns about the height and massing of the previous scheme, privacy and overlooking had been addressed.

·        The planning officer advised that land use was not previously raised and was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Approval of details pursuant to condition AG16 (Arsenal event day coach parking locations) of planning permission ref: P061170.

Condition AG16 of planning permission ref: P061170 stated:

'That during any major event, at least 40 coach parking spaces shall be made available for use within the stadium or at another location(s) outside the stadium previously agreed by the Council'

The proposed parking locations in order of priority:

Queensland Road (18 spaces)

Hornsey Road (9 spaces)

Sobell Centre (12 spaces)

Hornsey Street (11 spaces)

Finsbury Park (90+ spaces)

The applicant sought permanent permission.

(Planning application number: P2014/1017/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were discussed:

·        Prior to the 2013/14 season, Hornsey Road had been used for police vehicle parking rather than coach parking.

·        The consultation included the maximum number of coaches that would be parked on each road and the number of times each season each road would be used.

·        New residents of the Queensland Road development were advised that this road would be used for coach parking.

·        People disembarked from the coaches once they had parked at each parking location. At the end of each game they returned to the same point.

·        A police representative advised that Queensland Road was the police’s first preference for the parking of away fan coaches as this was near the away fan turnstiles and the away fan pub. If the away fan coaches were parked further away e.g. at the Sobell Centre, extra policing would be required.

·        It was not possible for coaches to park under the stadium. Coaches would have to be scanned and this was not feasible at the current time. The stadium was also not designed for fans to disembark under the stadium.

·        It was acknowledged that different groups of people had different priorities; residents would not want their road at the top of the priority parking list, ward councillors wanted the Sobell Centre used and the police wanted Hornsey Road to be used. If the Committee wished to change the order of the roads to be prioritised, reconsultation would be required.

·        Concern was raised that repeatedly granting temporary planning permission meant a final decision was not made.

Councillor Khan proposed a motion to agree planning permission for one year to enable the monitoring of the proposed scheme. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That permission for the approval of details on a temporary basis be granted for a period of one football season (2014/15) subject to the conditions and informative set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report plus 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.

Demolition of existing works building and re-development of the existing surface level car park, along with the conversion of existing Grade II listed underground vaults to provide a mixed use development comprising of a part 4, part 8 storey building providing 38 residential units (19 affordable, 19 market rate) (Class C3), a 61 bedroom hotel (Class C1), office floor-space (Class B1a), restaurant (Class A3), retail (Class A1) and gym (Class D1), along with the creation of new public realm, associated landscaping and alterations to the existing access arrangements.

(Planning application number: 2013/3257/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        Islington Council’s lease of part of the site expired in 2126.

·        Concern was raised that the scheme had not been resubmitted to the Design Review Panel after it had been amended. Officers were asked to resubmit schemes on future developments of this scale.

·        The Core Strategy aimed to maximise affordable housing and not impinge on people’s amenity.

·        A structural survey had been undertaken and a condition would be put in place requiring further details to be submitted to ensure the listed vaults would not be damaged by the development.

·        Concern was raised about daylight and sense of enclosure to neighbours in Shire House, particularly as some of them already had low levels of daylight. The planning officer advised that there were a number of tests conducted and there would not be a high loss of both daylight and sunlight to any windows. In many cases, rooms had more than one window which retained higher levels of Daylight Distribution to the rooms.

·        Concern was raised that although the affordable housing provided by the scheme was 50% and in line with council policy, in absolute terms the figure was low.

·        Concern was raised that there would be detrimental impacts to social housing occupants of Shire House.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to refuse planning permission to protect neighbouring amenity. This was seconded by Councillor Khan and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused to protect neighbouring amenity with the wording of the reason to be delegated to officers.

Demolition of existing works building and re-development of the existing surface level car park, along with the conversion of existing Grade II listed underground vaults to provide a mixed use development comprising of a part 4, part 8 storey building providing 38 residential units (19 affordable, 19 market rate) (Class C3), a 61 bedroom hotel (Class C1), office floor-space (Class B1a), restaurant (Class A3), retail (Class A1) and gym (Class D1), along with the creation of new public realm, associated landscaping and alterations to the existing access arrangements. 

(Planning application number: P2013/3297/LBC)

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to refuse listed building consent on the ground of prematurity. This was seconded by Councillor Khan and carried.

RESOLVED:

That listed building consent be refused on the ground of prematurity.