Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Convery and Ward.

Councillor Kay substituted for Councillor Convery.

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 Gantly declared a personal interest B5- Christ Church, Highbury Grove School.

The order of business would be B4,B5,B3,B6,B7,B2 and B1.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Section 73 application for the variation to conditions 2 (approved drawings) of planning consent ref P2017/4729 dated 07/02/2018 which granted conditional approval for the: Erection of mansard roof extension with front roof terrace plus erection of rear lower ground floor infill extension and terrace at upper ground floor level. Installation of door to front lower ground floor level and rain water pipe to front elevation. 

The proposed variation of the approved plans condition 2 seeks permission for the following alterations to the approved development:

- increase depth of proposed rear infill extension.

- insertion of three rooflights above ground extension.

- increase height of the rear extension by 0.1metres and the parapet height by 0.6
  metres.

- addition of window to the rear elevation.

- increase in depth (1m) and width (0.5m) of the previously approved rear terrace.

(Planning application number: P2018/0506/S73)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were informed that planning permission had been granted previously by the Planning Committee on 1^st February 2018 Planning Committee and that the issue before the committee was to vary condition 2(drawing numbers) and also seeks to increase depth of proposed rear extension, insert three roof lights above ground extension, increase height of rear extension and the parapet height by 0.6m and the addition of window to the rear elevation.

·         The Planning Officer advised that no objection had been received and that the proposed alterations to the lower ground floor rear extensions and terrace maintain a sense of subservience to the main rear elevation and would not lead to visual clutter.

·         Members agreed that the overall impact of the proposal is not considered to result in an unacceptable harmful impact on the adjoining and adjacent properties in terms of loss of outlook, daylight, sunlight or increase in sense of enclosure or overlooking.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Change of use to flexible Class B1(a) (offices) and Class D1 (University) floorspace. Inclusion of incubator start up space at ground floor level and retention of B1 (office space at ground floor plus the erection of cycle storage stands. 

(Planning application number: P2017/3100/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        
The Planning Officer highlighted a number of changes that will be reflected in the Head of Terms, that the applicant had agreed to offer start-up spaces at 50% below comparable market prices for the duration of the lease and any extension / alteration to that lease; that the personal permission (Condition 4) related to Yannick Naud and that annual reporting would be undertaken (s106) regarding the incubator / start up use would be submitted.

·         The Planning Officer advised that the loss of 1200sq metres floor space especially in an Employment Growth Area was contrary to Islington Policies, however the siting of the university would provide employment opportunities as it is to be occupied by 28 members of staff and 150 students and the third floor was proposed to offer office space to serve as the administrative area for the proposed university.

·         In response to a question regarding the loss of business floor space the Planning Officer advised that the flexibility of the scheme (in seeking to advance a mix of complimentary uses) would involve a scheme which complies with other relevant planning considerations, in particular relating to the use being an employment use and supported by other policies within the London Plan that supports higher education due to the wider support it provides to the local and London economy. 

·         Members were advised that there will be no external alterations to the building except in the case of cycle stands and landscaping which would be conditioned. In addition the Planning Officer acknowledged that the change of use was unlikely to have any adverse impact in terms of deliveries and servicing over and above that of the existing office use.

·         In response to a question about community engagement, Members were advised that the applicant had committed to continue working with existing programmes, provide scholarships and offer maths, French and mentoring tuition classes. Members reinforced the importance for the required Engagement strategy to be submitted by the applicant to increase the hours of tuition provided by the university over time (as set out in the Heads of Terms).

·         With respect to the offer of incubator spaces by the applicant, Members requested that an obligation to set out mechanisms to promote and support local businesses taking up space and services offered within the incubator / start up spaces. 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and an additional condition regarding the incubator spaces for local business 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Flexible change of use of A4 (public house) unit at ground/basement floors comprising 140sqm to retail (A1), financial and professional service (A2) and offices (B1(a)) uses.

(Planning application number: P2017/2685/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that due to a typographical error on drawing number 4506/PA 02B , it should be amended to include the date 14 March 2017.

·         Members were advised that in land use terms the proposed change of use from a pub was considered acceptable as the applicant had provided evidence of at least 2.5 years of marketing (in excess of the 2 year requirement by policy).

·         Members were advised that although the public house is designated as an asset of community value, its loss to another use would not have a negative impact in terms of the vitality and viability of the Local Shopping Area or the nearby Archway Town Centre, and would not be contrary to policy DM4.10 of the Development Management Policies. In addition, the Planning Officer acknowledged that the applicant had demonstrated with evidence that there was no demand for the existing public house use.

·         The Planning Officer advised that the proposed change would not impact the amenity of the neighbouring residents in respect of daylight and sunlight, outlook or privacy as the scheme did not propose any external or physical changes.

·         Members agreed that considering the period of vacancy, the evidence of marketing provided, bringing back to use the vacant building would be beneficial to the community. Members agreed that the proposal was policy compliant.

Section 73 variation to Condition 2 (drawing and document numbers) of planning application P2016/2420/S73. The original application was for the erection of a fourth floor rear extension and fifth floor roof extension to provide an increase in office floor space together with associated works and external alterations.

The proposed variation to Condition 2 relates to external design changes to the building such as adjustment to doors, windows, roof fascia, the omission of brise soleil, and addition of functional building elements including access ladder, flues and rainwater goods.

(Planning application number: P2017/4021/S73)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were advised that the S73 application seeks to amend condition 2 of planning permission P2016/2420/S73 in order to authorise external design changes to the building. Committee were informed that a number of minor changes to the front and rear elevation such as an enlarged roof fascia, the introduction of flues and rainwater piping; the pattern of the crittal entrance doors on the ground floor being regularised; a roof access ladder being added and existing window openings on levels 1-4 to be changed to new double glazed units with painted timber frame with architrave above.

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that since the publication of the agenda, 3 additional issues had been raised by objectors and includes issues around light pollution spillage, the extent of screening to protect privacy and concerns about the impact of the Bi-fold doors on neighbouring amenity.

·         With regards to land use concerns, Members were advised that the S73 application was not proposing a change of the use of the building and therefore any impacts associated with the use of the building for B1(Office) or A1 (retail) purposes are not considered relevant to this application because the building use had already been lawfully established and no increase to the floor area  in either use is proposed.

·         On concerns about hours of operation, Members were informed that with regard to the ground floor A1 unit, there were no proposed changes to the hours of operation as per condition 15, 8.00am to 6.00pm ( Mondays to Sundays) and in the case of the use of the roof terraces, condition 13 would be retained,9:00am to 6.00pm (Monday to Friday).

·         With regards to the design and appearance of the scheme, the Planning Officer advised Members that changes were relatively modest and would not harm the architectural merit of the building or its contribution to the character of the conservation area. In addition, changes on the building’s inner courtyard elevation would not result in it being visible from the public realm.

·         With regards to concerns that the Bi-fold doors would result in additional noise spilling out on to the pavement thereby affecting pedestrians, the Planning Officer advised Members that there had been no change to the previously agreed consent and that the proposed bi-fold doors were considered appropriate and not pose a threat to the safe passage of pedestrians.

·         An objector from the Friends of the Bunhill Residents Association was concerned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Erection of a new single storey Church and Community centre for Christ Church, Highbury, to accommodate the Church's office, reception and administration functions, as well as flexible community space for Church activities and community outreach, and a small café.

(Planning application number: P2017/4445/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that there were no additional updates since the agenda was published. Members were informed that although the building is within a sensitive area in terms its close proximity to two Grade II listed buildings and adjacent to designated heritage assets, it is considered acceptable.

·         Members were informed that as the proposal is a single storey, 4metres in height and approximately 15 metres away from the nearest residential property, there is no impact to neighbouring residential occupiers by virtue of overshadowing, overlooking, daylight, sunlight, over dominance, sense of enclosure and outlook.

·         The agent reiterated the benefit of the proposal as the building was essentially to provide space for its religious activities considering its present location at the basement of the vicarage was not fit for purpose.

·         In response to concerns about the opening hours of the café and the levels of noise that it will generate, Members were advised that the public aspect of the café was modest and unlikely to generate a significant amount of noise, however a condition is to be attached restricting the opening times of the serving hatch to between 08.00 ad 18.00.

·         Members were advised that although 4 trees would be removed as part of the proposal, the applicant had submitted an arboricultural report detailing pruning works to the retained trees and has agreed to provide additional replacement trees.

·         Members agreed that the provision of additional community space was beneficial to the community and would represent a significant improvement to this part of the church premises.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Erection of a two storey extension to existing two storey detached building, to the south east corner of the site fronting Highbury New Park to create additional educational floorspace (213 sqm). The proposal includes alterations to the existing two storey building, including the internal reconfiguration, the windows and external changes including cladding at first floor. The proposal is to provide a new dedicated sixth form centre for Highbury Grove and Samuel Rhodes Secondary Schools, landscaping and other associated works.

(Planning application number: P2017/1725/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed members of 2 updates since the publication of the agenda, a letter supporting the application and a request for an additional condition for the replacement of the trees lost as a result of the scheme.

·         Members were advised that application relates to improved and enlarged educational facilities for two schools and that the two storey extension would provide space solely for 6^th Form students.

·         The Planning Officer advised that although within a constrained site, the proposal is considered to be of a scale which is subordinate and in keeping with the visual appearance of the host building and surrounding area including the residential properties.

·         With regards to the loss of trees, the Planning Officer advised that only one tree would be lost as a result of the scheme and although not included as a condition in the report, the exact wording can be delegated to planning officers with agreement of the Chair.

·         Members were advised that the use of aluminium material instead of timber is acceptable subject to recommended conditions relating to the submission of and approved samples of materials.

·         Members welcomed the scheme and agreed that the exact wording of the condition with regards to the replacement of a tree be delegated to the Planning Officer.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix.

Retention of external mechanical pipework at roof level and access staircases, with railings to the flat roof area of each block affected, and associated alterations.

(Planning application number: P2017/3454/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer informed Members that no updates had been received since publication of agenda and the item was brought to the Committee as it is Council owned, and that the works being proposed include installation of replacement mechanical pipework at roof level and associated access railings across the flat roof of each building.

·         Members were informed that the Metropolitan Police had not submitted any  objections regarding any potential anti-social behaviour issues as a result of the railings and that the need for the railings is to address an health and safety requirement.

·         A resident had concerns about the visual impact of the railings on the residents of the estate and especially its close proximity to a grade 1 listed building, St Lukes Church. The objector suggested that the pipe work should be covered up.

·         In response to the visual impact of the railings, the Planning Officer advised that as shown on the roof plan, both the pipework and railings would be set back from the parapet of the flat roof and therefore largely obscured from ground level viewpoints.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1