Items
No. |
Item |
107. |
Guidance for Members of the Public Participating in an Islington Council Virtual Meeting using Zoom PDF 123 KB
Minutes:
|
108. |
Introductions
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.
|
109. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
There were no apologies for
absence.
|
110. |
Declarations of Substitute Members
Minutes:
There were no declarations of
substitute members
|
111. |
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.
Minutes:
There were no declarations of
interest
|
112. |
Order of Business PDF 51 KB
Minutes:
The order of business would be
as per the agenda
The Chair stated that the
Committee had received letters of objections in respect of a number
of items under discussion and that these had been considered by the
Committee
|
113. |
Minutes of Previous Meeting PDF 105 KB
Minutes:
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting
held on 14 January 2020 be confirmed as an accurate record of
proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.
|
114. |
10-16 Theberton Street, London, N1 0QX PDF 8 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Reinstatement and
installation of walls at basement and ground floor levels to
separate 14 and 16 Theberton Street, 10 and 12 Theberton Street and
partially separate 12 and 14 Theberton Street: install a ground
floor at rear of 12 and 14 Theberton Street by infilling atrium:
installation of extractors to rear, and change of use of ground and
basement floors of 12 and 14 Theberton Street at Class A3
restaurant with associated internal alterations
( Planning Application
Ref: no: PL2018/3913/FUL)
Discussion with this
application was considered in conjunction with Item B2, although
votes with regard to its recommendation was taken separately. In
the discussion the following points were made:
- The
Planning Officer reminded members that the application under
consideration had been previously refused, however the revised
scheme had incorporated a number of amendments.
- Members
were informed of the significant history relating to this site and
included an enforcement action, an appeal to the Planning
Inspectorate which had been refused, and importantly planning
breaches dating back numerous years
- The
Planning Officer informed members that the revised scheme
had reduced the number of covers from
181 to 150, and importantly the large space had been partitioned so
that the space in the restaurants would be more intimate and would
be in keeping with other restaurants in the area. This reduced
space will reduce the ability for the premises to hold
large banqueting events.
- With regard
to noise concerns, the meeting was advised that applicant has
submitted an updated Acoustic Report. In addition Public Protection
had been consulted about the proposal and are satisfied that the
proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions providing limits to
operational noise of the extractor flues, covering permitted hours,
operating hours and timers on flues and internal insulation
details.
- Members
were advised that the additional extractor fans will be designed to
ensure that the noise levels are set 10DB below current background
sound levels, which is 5DB lower than the Council’s the
current expected level. There are additional conditions imposed on
the applicant to ensure compliance with the measures
proposed.
- In response
to a Member’s question, the Planning Officer stated that
12/14 Theberton Street would be one unit and included the
beneficial reinstatement of internal featuress.
- In response
to Members concerns about the noise levels, the Planning Officer
stated that in regard to the rear extraction units officers were of
the view that the impact is not such that the application should be
refused. In terms of loading hours, time restrictions have been
imposed so as to limit any harm to neighbours as much as
possible.
- With regard
the high number of tables and chairs outside the restaurant, the
meeting was advised that this would require a licence. Planning
Enforcement officers would be monitoring the site to ensure
compliance with any permission. In addition, the Planning Officer
informed the meeting that in terms of recycling, arrangements would
need to be put in place prior to first occupation of the
premises.
- An objector
stated that this site had an ...
view the full minutes text for item 114.
|
115. |
10-16 Theberton Street, London, N1 0QX PDF 8 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Reinstatement and
installation of walls at basement and ground floor levels to
separate 14 and 16 Theberton Street, 10
and 12 Theberton Street and partially
separate 12 and 14 Theberton Street by
infilling atrium: installation of extractors to rear: and change of
use of ground and basement floors of 12 and 14 Theberton Street to Class A3 restaurant with
associated internal alterations
(Planning application
number: P2018/3973/LBC)
Discussion with this
application was considered in conjunction with Item B2, although
votes with regard to its recommendation was taken separately. In
the discussion the following points were made:
- The
Planning Officer reminded members that the application under
consideration had been previously refused, however the revised
scheme had incorporated a number of amendments.
- Members
were informed of the significant history relating to this site and
included an enforcement action, an appeal to the Planning
Inspectorate which had been refused, and importantly planning
breaches dating back over 7 years
- The
Planning Officer informed members that the revised scheme
had reduced the number of covers from
181 to 150, and importantly the large space had been partitioned so
that the space in the restaurants would be more intimate and would
be in keeping with other restaurants in the area. This reduced
space will reduce the ability for the premises to hold large
banqueting events.
- With regard
to concerns about noise, works are needed to reduce noise and this
would be by works to the existing ceilings, noise installation and
the insertion of internal walls.
- Members
were advised that the additional extractor fans will be designed to
ensure that the noise levels are set at 10DB, which is below
Council’s the current expected level. There are additional
conditions imposed on the applicant to ensure compliance with the
measures proposed.
- In response
to a Member the Planning Officer stated that 12/14 Theberton Street would be one unit and had listed
building issues which would be addressed by the proposals and it
was welcomed that the listed building obligations were
restored.
- In response
to questions from Members concerning noise the Planning Officer
stated that in regard to the rear extraction units this was felt
not to be significant and were not of a significant nature to
refuse the application. In terms of loading hours these had been
set to limit the harm to neighbours as much as possible. There had
been an issue with tables and chairs outside the restaurant and
enforcement officers would be monitoring this. In addition, in
terms of recycling arrangements needed to be put in place prior to
first occupation of the premises.
- An objector
stated that this site had had an unfortunate history where the
owner had ‘flouted’ planning law, carried out the
development unlawfully over a 7 year period. The owner had also
failed to comply with enforcement notices and taken to the Crown
Court over this where he pleaded guilty.
- An objector
further stated that they objected to the fact that there would be
an 80 cover restaurant and this could cause ...
view the full minutes text for item 115.
|
116. |
137-139 Essex Road, London, N1 2NR PDF 7 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Demolition and
replacement of front and rear facades (including roofing) and
additions to the roof, to include a one-storey extension fronting
Essex Road, and two-storey extension fronting Asteys Row (with glass box above) to accommodate
5x1 no.1 BR unit (2 person), 2x no. 2 BR units (3 person), 1xno.2BR
units (4 person), x 1 no. 3 BR (5 person unit) residential units:
refurbishment of existing ground and first floor and creation of
part basement level Class B1 office space (115 sq. metres) and
retention of ground floor (150 sq.m.)
Class A1 retail unit fronting Essex Road
(Planning application
number: PL2018/4159/FUL)
In the discussion the
following points were made:
- The
Planning Officer reminded the meeting that item was deferred after
consideration by the committee at its meeting on 7th
November 2019 for a number of reasons. The reasons include the
retail frontage and quantum issues; sustainability credentials of
the proposal; sunlight/daylight impacts and issues of overlooking,
loss of outlook and dominance.
- Members
were advised that further information had been submitted by the
applicant to address the above concerns, for example amendments had
been made specifically to the 3rd floor. Amended plans
have included a revised proposed north elevation and applicant has
provided a sunlight and daylight analysis.
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that the amendments in the
revised application would reduce the sense of enclosure and outlook
loss concerns raised by the neighbour. Meeting was informed that
although officers acknowledge outlook is affected, it is not
considered materially harmful and a reason to refuse planning
permission.
- With regard
to the loss of retail space which would have to be considered in
against the retail function of the Angel Town Centre, the meeting
was advised that the revised proposal now results in the retention
of a further 50sq.m A1 space ensuring that a total of 1500sq.m A1
space is retained at ground floor within the development.
- On the
sustainability concerns raised at the previous committee meeting,
the Planning Officer advised that the applicant had submitted a
Technical Note which seeks to ensure that measures regarding the
existing retail & office refurbishment, residential unit
services, ventilation, overheating, rainwater and lighting were
compliant.
- In addition
Members were advised that the sustainability measures now being
proposed are now considered acceptable with a condition proposed
which ensures that there will be a 19% reduction in regulated CO2
emissions of at least 25% in comparison with regulated emissions
from a building which complies with Building Regulation.
- A resident
neighbour was concerned that concerns regarding access in the
existing Astey’s Row still
remain; the revised plans had minimal changes and would still have
a visual impact on the Conservation Area. Other issues raised by
the objector was the applicant unwillingness to consider other
options in addressing the loss of both daylight and sunlight.
Meeting was also advised that her views and concerns had not taken
been taken into consideration since item was deferred.
- In response
to the objectors concern, the agent informed the meeting that
...
view the full minutes text for item 116.
|
117. |
Cottam House, 36-40 York Way, London, N1 9AB PDF 5 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Installation of new
doors to York Way entrance: erection of a ground floor infill
extension to rear and installation of new doors to provide
additional B1 floorspace: replacement
of existing ground floor windows to rear elevation: replacement
store room door: replacement of existing rooftop plant equipment:
new stepped terrace and platform lift at rear ground floor: and
associated works
(Planning application
number: P2020/0021/FUL)
In the discussion the
following points were made:
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that conditions had been
imposed which are outlined in the report, with updated wording to
some conditions verbally presented.
- A Member
made reference to the change in use from B1 to B1c light
industrial, and the servicing space at the rear, and whether these
issues had been considered by officers and expressed the view that
vehicular access should be from York Way.
- An objector
insisted that both items B4 and B5 should be considered together
and expressed concern about the increase in noise levels as a
result of the new plant being installed. In response, the Legal
Adviser stated that each application needed to be considered
separately as they were different planning applications.
- In
response to the concerns that the lift at the rear would be used
for servicing, the Planning officer acknowledged the Platform lift
at the rear of the building is to enable access for disabled
people.
- An objector
stated that the courtyard is also the front garden for residents of
the Ironworks building, and that the proposal which will result in
a significant increase in deliveries
would impact on residents amenity.
- A
suggestion that a condition be included in the planning permission
to ensure that all deliveries should be through the York Way
entrance was noted.
- The
applicant acknowledged that the new rear platform lift was for
disabled access only and this replaces a steep ramp, and complies
with building regulations. In terms of noise from the new plant to
be installed, he stated that it is envisaged that noise from the
site would reduce, and this was an exciting development for the
fashion/textile industry and the site would be the UK HQ. The
applicant stated that he was willing to accept an additional
condition that there would be no use of the courtyard for
deliveries, and that the courtyard should only be used for those
servicing the building, and vehicular delivery access should be
from York Way. Members were reminded that the additional condition
in term of delivery was more relevant to item B5 and not
B4.
Councillor Convery
proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded
by Councillor MackMurdie and carried
unanimously
RESOLVED:
That following
consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment
and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee,
submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this
meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions
and informatives set out in Appendix 1
of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed
of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of ...
view the full minutes text for item 117.
|
118. |
Cottam House, 36-40 York Way, London, N1 9AB PDF 5 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Change of use of ground
floor from office (Class B1) to clothing manufacturing place and
showroom (Sui Generis) for a temporary period of 2 years
(Planning application
number: P2019/3552/FUL)
In the discussion the
following points were made:
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that site is located within
the Central Activities Zone and an Employment Growth Area and that
the section of York Way is predominantly mixed-use in character,
with many commercial and residential buildings and some ground
floor retail/restaurant/bar uses.
- Members
were advised that the application for consideration is for a
temporary period of 2 years.
- The
Planning Officer informed the meeting that G2G processing use is
akin to a B1(c)(light industrial use) and that showrooms can fall
under a number of different use classes, including
A1(retail).
- The
Planning Officer acknowledged that there would be a slight increase
in vehicular access to the site which will have no impact
on impact on highway traffic.
- On the
issue of noise and vibration concerns, the meeting was advised that
the applicant has submitted an acoustic report and the
Council’s Public Protection (Noise) officer have welcomed the
proposal subject to conditions which will address operational noise
limits for the new equipment and the installation of a timer.
Members were also informed that the report indicated that the plant
would be contained in a double glazed glass enclosure.
- The
Planning Officer stated that a number of conditions have been
included in the planning permission which addresses issues around
the operations on the site, as outlined in the report.
- A Member of
the Public, was concerned that placing the new plant/machinery at
the end of the courtyard was like an ‘echo chamber’,
and this would exacerbate noise to residents of the Ironworks
Building. A resident was concerned that considering the planning
permission was only limited for 2 years, an alternative site should
have been found, and in his view the proposed site was in the wrong
place.
- Meeting was
reminded by residents that the owners were a Hong Kong based
company and the owners renting the site were both connected and
requested for a more effective condition relating to deliveries be
imposed and that the application was not in accordance with the
vision for the Regents Quarter development.
- A resident
stated that on moving into the development in 2005 there was no
discussion at that time of it being an industrial site. He added
that the proposed plant/machinery was only in existence in another
part of the world, and was sited in a converted water mill and
contained in a shipping container.
- An objector
was concerned that there was insufficient information provided by
the applicant with regards to vibration and mitigation measures
which needs to be addressed before granting planning
permission.
- A Member of
the Public stated that the noise acoustic report submitted by the
applicant was flawed and that no noise monitoring had been
conducted in the courtyard and that only background noise was
measured. The machinery that would be used was for ...
view the full minutes text for item 118.
|