Agenda and minutes

Councillor Rupert Perry welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Sub-Committee and officers introduced themselves. The Chair explained that the Sub-Committee would deal with the determination of the planning applications and outlined the procedures for the meeting.

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.

In relation to Item B2, Councillor Poyser declared that he was a member of the Highbury Fields Association. This would not preclude him from taking part in the discussion on this item.

The order of business would be as follows:

B3, B2, B1 and B4.

RESOLVED:

That the signing of the minutes be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee as, due to an administrative error, they had not been attached the agenda.

Rear extension to existing garden flat at basement and ground floor levels with lightwell and rear extension to maisonette flat at first floor level.

(Planning application number: P2014/3606/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         In response to concerns about rubbish being left in the streets, the planning officer confirmed that there was scope to condition storage space.

·         Consideration was given to the existing extensions in the terrace and the impact of the proposed extension.

·         Concern had been raised by the Design and Conservation Officer that the proposed scheme would be full width and higher than one storey and the proposed first floor half width element would obscure the original window at first floor and not on the staircase side.

Councillor Rupert Perry proposed a motion to refuse permission as the scheme’s scale, height, size and mass would harm the enjoyment of the conservation area. This was seconded by Councillor Gantly and carried with the Chair exercising his casting vote as one member abstained from voting and the rest of the votes had been cast equally.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the reason outlined above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Demolition of existing rear/side extension. Erection of a full width rear/side extension at ground floor level with rooflights above. Creation of basement including steps and access door to rear garden. Loft conversion with dormer window. Screening to existing terrace and raised roof height. Replacement windows. Associated works to garden area.

(Planning application number: P2014/4400/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The previous application was refused due to the front light well and this had now been removed from the scheme.

·        As the property was a single family dwelling, the use of the roof terrace did not require planning permission. Whilst new railings would require planning permission, the current railings had been in place for more than four years so did not.

Councillor Rupert Perry proposed a motion to add a condition that a construction management plan should be required. This was seconded by Councillor Fletcher and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report with the additional condition as outlined above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Erection of a single storey building to include two classroom spaces near Bride Street frontage including access ramps and associated balustrading.

(Planning application number: P2014/2731/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        Following concerns that the school did not engage with its neighbours, the Chair had sent a letter to the school requesting that they liaise more closely with local residents.

·        The applicant confirmed that resident liaison meetings had been held for the first three years but these had stopped due to low attendance.

·        The original planning permission restricted the number of pupils on roll to 1,150. This number could not be exceeded without the school applying for planning permission to do so.

·        Two members raised concerns about proximity.

·        Noise implications were considered. As the area in which the pods were to be located was currently used as outside learning space and the pods would be indoor, officers advised that there should be less noise.

Councillor Rupert Perry proposed informatives reinforcing 1,150 as the maximum number of pupils on roll and requesting the school to reinstate resident liaison meetings. These were seconded by Councillor Fletcher and carried.

The Chair exercised his casting vote as one member abstained from voting and the rest of the votes had been cast equally.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative in the officer’s report with the additional two informatives as outlined above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Construction of a mansard roof extension to provide additional accommodation to the top floor flat.

(Planning application number: P2014/2658/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        Permission had been granted under delegated powers for extensions to Numbers 350 and 352 Caledonian Road.

·        The proposed extension would be visible from Bridgeman Road.

The vote to grant planning permission in line with the officer’s recommendation was lost. Councillor Gantly, seconded by Councillor Rupert Perry, proposed that the application be refused due to inadequate set back, the height of the extension and visibility from the private and public realm. The Chair exercised his casting vote as one member abstained from voting and the rest of the votes had been cast equally.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused due to inadequate set back, the height of the extension and visibility from the public and public realm, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

356 CALEDONIAN ROAD, LONDON, N5 1HX

REASON FOR REFUSAL

The proposed development by reason of its inappropriate design, excessive scale, massing, bulk and height is considered to form an overdominant and visually harmful feature to the rear of the host property. The development is considered to form a detrimental visual development when seen from the surrounding private realm; as such the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding Barnsbury Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to CS policy 9, DM policies 2.1 and 2.3, Conservation Guidance note 10 and Islington’s Urban Design Guidance 2006.

TOP FLOOR FLAT, 348 CALEDONIAN ROAD, LONDON, N1 1DU

REASON FOR REFUSAL

The proposed roof extension by reason of its inappropriate design, excessive scale and height is considered to form a visually harmful development. The proposal is considered to form a visually harmful feature which would be visible from both the public and private realm to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host building, wider terrace setting and Barnsbury Conservation area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to CS policy 9, DM policies 2.1 and 2.3, Conservation Guidance note 10 and Islington’s Urban Design Guidance 2006.