Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Nicholls and Ward.

Councillor O’Halloran substituted for Councillor Nicholls.

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 B1,B3,B2,B16, B4, B17 and B5-B15.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 2017 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Erection of a single storey roof extension, part four storey rear extension, excavation at lower ground floor and internal and external alterations including new shopfront, to create an additional 555 square metres of B1 office floorspace, creation of roof terraces at first and fourth floor front elevation and on the rooftop at fifth floor level, installation of planted screen and installation of plant equipment to rear of rooftop.

(Planning application number: P2016/4972/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Planning Officer advised that scheme had been revised with regards to its design, its extent, scale, bulk, the massing of the rear extensions and the extent of the rooftop roof terrace.

·         Issues of excessive over development, out of scale and character with the conservation area were raised by the objectors. Also issues about impact on neighbouring amenity, loss of light, overlooking, overbearing and noise disturbance arising from roof terrace were raised by neighbouring residents.

·         In response to concerns of objectors, the architect informed the meeting that the proposed rear extensions would not visible from the public as it had now been reduced in height and also set back from the boundary.

·         In response to Members concern about the bulk, scale and massing, Officer advised that this scheme was considered sufficient so as to retain the proportions of the building given its dense central and urban location.

·         On the issue of its impact of the proposal within a conservation area, the Architect informed Members that the proposals was policy compliant.

·         The Architect highlighted the benefits of the scheme, and that the proposal was in line with adjoining and consented schemes, an improved larger entrance which would result in the removal of street parking. He also mentioned that the scheme would result in an increase in B1 office floor space which is required, that could be easily designed for start ups and creative type of businesses.

·         Members were concerned that an updated sunlight and daylight test report had not been submitted with the application as this would provide Committee more information regarding the neighbouring amenity of residents and the loss of light especially with the rear buildings.

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to defer pending the submission of an updated sunlight and daylight test report. This was seconded by Councillor Gantly and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.

Erection of a single storey roof extension to create additional 350 square metres of office floorspace (B1), and over-cladding of the building facades. Associated external alterations to the building’s facade; and the removal and replacement of the existing ramp together with the installation of plant equipment at lower ground and fifth floor level. Removal of existing two cores, replacing with a more compact and efficient single core. Removal of car access way and installation of new ground floor glazed shopfront.

(Planning application number: P2016/3455/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that the initial proposal had been revised from the two storey roof extension to a flat roofed single storey roof extension.

·         The Planning Officer recommended that if minded to grant planning permission a condition be attached requiring details and samples of the materials to be used for internal and external alterations be submitted and approved prior to commencement of works.

·         Issues of loss of privacy and sunlight daylight were raised by neighbouring residents.

·         There were also concerns that the proposed materials being used would have an impact on the character and appearance of the area and that the roof extension would add to the dominance of the building and out of keeping with other buildings in height, massing and scale.

·         Members were concerned with changes to the access cores from two to one as this meant that escape access at floors 4 and 5 could be compromised especially if blocked.

Councillor Gantly proposed a motion to grant subject to a pre commencement condition regarding a fire escape strategy to be submitted to Planning Officers.

This was seconded by Councillor O’Halloran and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and an additional pre-commencement condition regarding a fire escape strategy be submitted and approved by planning officers.

Erection of single storey rear extension at lower ground level with rear roof terrace above, railings and glazed screen, repositioning of external stairs along the eastern boundary. RECONSULTATION 14 Days; (Amended description and amended plans uploaded on public website dated 05/04/2017) – repositioning of rear stairs and reduction of depth of rear extension to three metres.

(Planning application number: P2016/4990/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that drawing plans had been amended during the processing of the application with regards to the overall size of the scheme and its design.

·         In response to questions about loss of privacy, Members were informed that the proposed roof terrace would include an associated opaque glass screen .

·         In response to questions about the impact of the scheme on neighbour’s amenity, the Planning Officer advised that the development would not result in any additional overlooking and that there would be no loss of daylight, sunlight or sense of enclosure.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report

Section 73 application pursuant to vary condition 4 (opening hours) and condition 5 (delivery hours) of planning permission Ref. P110841 dated 27 June 2011 for the variation of the wording of condition 5 (hours of operation) of planning permission ref: P012475 dated 04/04/2002 for change of use from banking hall and offices to restaurant.  The variation of the current section s73 relate to permanently change opening hours from 05:00am – 01:00am (every day) to 05:00am and 01:00am Sunday, 05.00am and 02.00am Monday to Wednesday and 05:00am and 03.00am Thursday to Saturday’ and change of condition 05 (delivery hours) from approved 07:00am – 23:00pm on any day to 06:00am and 01:00am on any day. 

(Planning application number: P2016/3808/S73)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were advised that the application follows a previous S73 application which was approved in November 2015 with a condition restricting the extension of opening and delivery hours to a temporary period of 1 year until 12 November 2016.

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that the proposed variation of conditions would result in an extension of opening hours and delivery hours which was acceptable at this location within a town centre.

·         Members welcomed the revised gyratory road scheme as an improvement in terms of noise generation especially as it simplified and restricted the movements of HGV’s in the local area.

·         Members acknowledged the concerns raised by ward councillors, however noted that no objections had been submitted by Transport for London, the Police and public.

·         Members acknowledged that considering the residential properties in the vicinity of the restaurant was sufficiently set away any changes to the opening and delivery hours would not have any impact on the amenity of resident’s.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0903/ADV)

The Chair informed the meeting that although items B5-B15 were similar applications and had matters common to all the applications, each would be considered on its individual merits.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that item was deferred at the last meeting as it was considered that a visit to Camden to view the actual appearance of the link units in an urban setting would be more informative for Committee Members rather than the submitted drawings.

·         Meeting was advised that of the 63 applications submitted for Advertisement Consent for the internet/wifi/telephones structures called ‘link units’ only 11 had been recommended for approval and 52 had been withdrawn on grounds of those site locations being within a conservation area or within the setting of a listed building or other important heritage asset.

·         Planning Officer advised Members that the current application was only seeking advertisement consent for use on the approved BT phone link unit and that no further objections had been received since the previous report was published.

·         The Planning Officer advised that applications for Advertisement Consent are   to be assessed in terms of amenity and highways safety and that having taken into consideration the setting of the internally illuminated advertisement screens, its relationship to surrounding properties, proposed luminance levels and distance from existing heritage assets and impact on highway safety, the proposal was considered acceptable.

·         Members agreed that in assessing each application, it was important to ensure that the siting of the link units should not lead to an increase in street clutter.

·         A Member welcomed the visit arranged by Officers to view the units sited in Camden High Street and did not consider the advertisements on the link unit intrusive.

·         Members were concerned that prior approval should be determined before the advertisement is considered as the concerns related to procedural order being a crucial issue.

RESOLVED:

That Advertisement Consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0697/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0698/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0949/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0922/ADV)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were concerned with the siting of the link unit in this location as it was too close to a set of traffic lights which could be an additional distraction to drivers especially at night.

·         In response to concerns about the impact of the illumination from the advertisement on drivers, Members were advised that the levels of lighting would be varied between dusk and dawn and during the day in line with TFL guidance.

·         Members were advised that with regard to this location, highways who had been consulted had not raised any highways concerns.

Councillor Angela Picknell proposed a motion to refuse on grounds of highway safety. This was seconded by Councillor O’Halloran and carried.

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be refused for the reasons set out above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0573/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0605/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0553/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0900/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0599/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Advertisement consent for the internally illuminated advertisement screens to two sides of the BT phone link structure.

(Planning application number: P2017/0550/ADV)

RESOLVED:

That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Application for variation of condition 2 (drawings) of P2015/1008/FUL dated 14/07/2015. The amendments include:

- Replacement of previously approved copper cladding with anodised aluminium cladding;

- Enlarged footprint and height of UKPN substation building to accommodate double substation;

- External alterations including alterations to louvred doors on City Road elevation;

- Alterations to louvred doors and steel door on rear elevation;

- Alterations to walkway and safety railing at first floor level over the UKPN Substation;

- Installation of recessed Vitreous Enamel panel on Moreland Street elevation;

- Addition of drawings relating to detailed design of the perforated and engraved panels;

Variation of wording of condition 8 (Pedestrian crossing) to refer to revised drawing MMD-329567_12-C-DR-00-XX-001 indicating revised design of pedestrian crossing.

(Planning application number: P2017/0764/S73)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that the application would not require any changes to the use but issues raised by both the local highways authority and UK Power Networks.

·         Members were advised that condition 12(e) to be removed as it related to a change in the sample of the material, that the approved copper cladding for use on the façade had been identified as no longer fit for purpose as the material would likely corrode leading to a discolouring of the copper thereby leading to a weakening of the façade over time.

·         Condition 12 (d) to be amended to 8 weeks instead of the 6 weeks.

·         An objector was concerned that the health implications of using anodised aluminium cladding had not been taken into consideration especially as aluminium was known to be a dangerous material.

·         In response to fire safety concerns raised, the Council Energy Services Manager informed Members that the material being proposed was a façade of solid aluminium and that nothing existed behind the aluminium that was combustible.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report

Erection of a two storey side extension and single storey front extension, with associated canopy, to existing Morris Building to accommodate WC (toilet) block and meeting room, and to accommodate playground store and disabled WC (toilet) facility. Alteration of internal entrance gate to allow for an enlarged playground towards the school’s main entrance on Upper Street

(Planning application number: P2017/1568/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised that no updates since publication of the agenda and no objections had been received. The Officer advised that the amenity of the neighbouring amendments would not be materially harmed due to appropriate siting, scale and separation distances.

·         Members welcomed the proposal as the changes would not result in any further increase in the student numbers in the school but an improvement in the facilities available for the school.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.