You are here: Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The link to the Zoom meeting is below. Enter meeting ID 916 5058 5222 when prompted. If you prefer to join the meeting by phone please dial 0330 088 5830.

Contact: Ola Adeoye 

Link: Join the meeting via this link

No. Item




Councillor Klute welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers introduced themselves and the Chair outlined the procedures for the meeting.


Apologies for Absence


Apologies were received from Councillors Graham and Spall.


Declarations of Substitute Members


There were no declarations of substitute members.


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.



There were no declarations of interest.


Order of Business pdf icon PDF 54 KB


The order of business would be as per the agenda.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 122 KB


Meeting was informed that the sentence on page 8 of the Minutes which reads -“The Council’s legal officer highlighted that a risk in any further appeal would be that setting aside the Inspectors views relating to the acceptability of sunlight daylight impacts could be construed as unreasonable behaviour.” – be deleted from the minutes due to an error by the clerk.  



That subject to the deletion of the paragraph noted above, the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.


10-18 Regents Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL pdf icon PDF 353 KB

Additional documents:


Redevelopment of the site at 10 - 18 All Saints Street including the refurbishment and extension of 10-12 All Saints Street (including part roof extension and installation of rooftop plant and enclosure) to provide additional Class B1 business floor space with ancillary flexible Class A1/A3 (retail/restaurant) and flexible Class A1/B1/D1 (retail/office/non-residential institutions); demolition of 14, 16 and 18 All Saints Street and erection of a part 5 (ground plus 4) and part 6 (ground plus 5) storey building with basement and rooftop plant and enclosures providing Class B1 office floor space and flexible Class A1/A3/B1/D1/D2 (retail/restaurant & cafe/business/non-residential institutions/assembly & leisure) floor space at ground floor; and associated hard and soft landscaping.


(Planning application number: P2019/3481/FUL)

Councillor Mackmurdie 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:

·       The Planning Officer reminded the meeting that the item was deferred for the applicant to address a number of concerns as set out at the conclusion of discussions at the previous meeting:

o   There was a general concern about scale and massing and in particular that the visual impact of plant proposed on the roof should be further mitigated.

o   There was a concern about the visual "balance" between the locally listed building 10a, and new elements of the development at 14 All Saints Street. The dark colouration of material on the central element of the new building on All Saints Street was considered to relate poorly to building 10a.

o    Members sought a better explanation as to why a hybrid energy solution involving the canal wouldn’t be workable.

o   Members were concerned that noise and disturbance from the operation of plant and some of the commercial uses (café’s restaurants etc) would adversely impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

o   Light pollution plan associated with the proposal would adversely impact on biodiversity and residential amenity.

·       Meeting was also informed that applicant was requested to explore the possible use of hybrid energy solution involving the canal, address the noise and disturbance from the operation of plant and some of the commercial uses (café’s restaurants etc) as it will impact the amenity of nearby residents and for the applicant to consider its light pollution plan.

·       The Planning Officer informed Members that a second despatch was published which captured the various submissions raised by the objectors since the agenda was published one of which was the failure to re consult on the revised plan and a letter from Emily Thornbury MP.  Members were reminded that due to the nature of revisions, all of which resulted in a reduction of the impact of the development, there was no requirement for there to be a further consultation.

·       Meeting was advised that 8 further objections had been received reiterating concerns originally raised and addressed in the report. The Planning Officer reassured Members that amenity concerns had not been ignored, but had been taken into consideration during deliberations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.


Edward Rudolf House, 69-85 Margery Street, Islington London, WC1X 0JL pdf icon PDF 240 KB

Additional documents:


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)


In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The Planning Officer reminded the meeting that the application was presented at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 May 2020 where the item was deferred in order for the applicant to address issues relating to daylight/sunlight, the grey brick, the height, scale and massing of the development and the request for a better consultation to be carried out particularly with resident groups to address their concerns.

·       Members were advised that the Applicant had submitted additional supporting documents, however it should be noted that the scheme has not been amended in regards to the built form such as bulk, massing and height. 

·       On the issue of daylight and sunlight concerns, the meeting was advised that the applicant had submitted a document which included visualisations of the existing and proposed buildings, the mirror imaging exercise undertaken and a BRE compliant cutback scheme, and providing an overall summary of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.

·       An addendum report has been published and a further 4 objections have been received raising similar issues as noted in the report.

·       The Planning Officer reiterated that these further representations include similar concerns that were raised when the item was considered at the last meeting, that the proposed development would cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, specifically to sunlight/daylight.

·       Members were advised that on balance the harm to neighbouring amenity weighs against the scheme, however it is important to recognise the urban context in which the site is set and that some amount of impact is almost unavoidable in situations where buildings are close together.

·       Members were also reminded to note that the existing building is much lower than existing buildings on the opposite side of Margery Street as evident in the mirror massing exercise which was undertaken by the applicant using alternate targets (a methodology allowed by the BRE guidance) and acknowledging this would be within or very close to the BRE guidance. Members were informed that the units currently receive very high levels of light (more than would be usual in such a dense urban area), this is evident with all windows which face the site (except for Sherston Court) achieving a retained value of at least 18% in regards to Vertical Sky Component.

·       The Planning Officer acknowledged that in many cases, dwellings with rooms or windows impacted, these units also have other rooms and windows which will not be impacted. Some units are dual aspect and the main living areas face away from the application site, and this means the impacts will cause less of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.


Former Territorial Army Centre, 65-69 Parkhurst Road, London N7 0LR pdf icon PDF 11 MB

Additional documents:


Redevelopment of site to provide 118 residential units in buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, accessible car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and other associated development


(Planning application number: P2020/0648/FUL)


In the discussion the following points were made:

·           The Planning Officer informed the meeting that site comprises a three storey former Territorial Army (TA) Centre facing Parkhurst Road, has a number of one and two storey ancillary buildings with extensive areas of hardstanding.

·           Site has remained vacant since 2013, identified in the site allocations document as residential, not within a Conservation Area, but abuts Mercers Road/Tavistock Conservation Area and the Hillmarton Conservation Area borders the site to the north and west.

·           In terms of updates, Planning Officer advised that officers would no longer seek to include a preventing wasted housing supply clause in the S106 agreement.

·            The presenting Officer informed the meeting that applicant had submitted a revised plan with correct numbers in condition 2 for approval if planning permission is granted.

·            An objection was received from a Moriatry Close resident raising concerns about construction impact, loss of light, issues which are addressed in the officers report.

·           The Planning Officer reminded members of the long and complex history to the site, that a first application was submitted in 2013 which proposed 112 units but only offered 14% as affordable housing. The application was refused planning permission by committee as members had concerns about height and massing, construction impacts and the amenity concerns on neighbouring occupiers. Applicant appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspector.

·           The Planning Officer advised that another application was submitted in 2016 to address Inspectors concerns about design and amenity. This resulted in the overall height of the scheme being reduced, however the number of homes provided was reduced to 96, and the applicant argued that the reduced number of  units would not make the scheme viable to provide affordable housing. Members were reminded that although the applicant had addressed the inspector’s concerns in all other respects, it refused the proposal on grounds that it had not provided affordable housing in line with Council policy. This decision was subsequently challenged by the applicant at the High court.  However, the appeal was lost as the judge found that the scheme was expected to comply with the Council’s development policy.

·           With regards the present scheme, members were advised that the current application is similar to the 2016 scheme in terms of height, location and footprint but where the previous scheme only provided 96 units looking over the site, the present application now offers 118 within a similar envelope.

·           In addition, Members were informed that half of the proposed units (59) would be affordable, and that the affordable offer would be split approximately 70/30 between social rent and shared ownership, with 41 being available for social rent which complies with housing policy.

·           In terms of design, the Planning Officer advised that it has changed slightly with additional windows incorporated, and some of the upper floor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.


Gallery Suite Business Design Centre, 52 Upper Street, Islington London N1 0LR pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Additional documents:


Change of use of the Gallery suite from Class B1 (offices) to Class D2 (Gymnasium) with minor external alterations including replacement of existing entrance doors.


(Planning application number: P2019/2821/FUL)


In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The Planning Officer informed the meeting of a number of updates since the agenda was published. Members were advised that although the report indicated 4 objectors, officers have been informed that one of the objectors represents a number of people in an household, so the total is now 20 objectors. In addition complaint received from a resident about a generator left outside the Business Design Centre (BDC), although not relevant to the application, has now been addressed by BDC.

·       Meeting was informed that the site lies outside identified primary frontage but within the Angel Town Centre  and that the proposed D2 use is a use which is identified as being generally appropriate to the Town Centre and complementary to the function of the Town Centre as a primary focus for retail.

·       The Planning Officer informed the meeting that the application site is predominately located on the first floor level and the building itself is of limited architectural merit, but is located within The Angel Conservation Area and adjacent to the Barnsbury Conservation Area.


·       Members were informed that the building itself covers the majority of the 1,116m² site with little external space and to the east of the site there is a four storey building currently occupied by the Hilton Hotel with the Upper Street car park directly underneath. To the south of the site, is the former Royal Agricultural Hall building, now operating as the Business Design Centre (BDC) which is Grade II Listed. The application site contains linking bridges to the main BDC buildings, as well as the Hilton hotel building to the east of the site on levels 2 and 3 respectively.

·       Members were advised that the application site is limited to the first floor area (level 2) and a small section of the ground floor area (level 1) as entrance and that the  floorspace involved in this change of use proposal is 1,116m². The Planning Officer reiterated that the proposal only seeks permission for change of use of the existing building and no new floorspace would be created, that  access to the site will be via Berners Road, noting that there will be will be no access from Barford Street and that servicing and delivery will remain on Liverpool Road.

·       Meeting was informed that the proposal also includes minor external works comprising of a replacement door at the ground floor level.

·       With regards to the loss of office accommodation and the request to change its use, members were advised that the site has remained vacant since June 2016 and is considered acceptable following the assessment of the submitted marketing information. Meeting was advised that the report states that there is no realistic prospect of bringing the site back into office use due to the lack of demand for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.