Agenda and draft minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Clarke

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be Item B2, Item B3, Item B1.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 21^st March 2023 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Proposed redevelopment of 17-18 Aylesbury Street, comprising extensions at fourth and fifth floor, (following partial demolition of second, third, fourth and fifth floors) rear extensions at third floor and internal and external refurbishments, to provide 65.5sq.m of additional Class E(g)(i) office floorspace in addition to ground floor shopfront replacement at 17c Aylesbury Street and associated alterations.

(Planning application number: P2023/0630/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• Revisions had been made since the refused application and there was only a 65sqm uplift in employment space.
• There was no bike storage within the building currently.
• The applicant commended the officer report, highlighting that their proposals sought to refresh and improve the workspace, make it more energy efficient and given the location within the Central Activities Zone, a refurbished space would have the ability to create more jobs. The applicant also noted that they had made further cutbacks to ensure the light impact was minimal, the side windows will be appropriately glazed and that they were working to improve the shopfront and general appearance.
• While there were no specific proposals to improve cycling, and the requirement for bicycle provision was 80 square metres rather than the 65 square metres in this application, the applicant was receptive to proposals to offer a proportionate contribution for off-site cycle storage.
• With regards to concerns about the glazing, Members agreed to revise Condition 10 to read: Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, prior to occupation of the development, all new windows proposed along the 1st and 2nd floor rear elevation and entire side eastern flank elevation of the building shall be obscurely glazed with purpose made obscure glazing to protect the amenity of 9-10 Jerusalem Passage. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter into perpetuity.

Councillor North proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to tightening Condition Ten to specify and include opaque glazing to all new windows on the eastern flank elevation, and also the insertion of an additional head of term into Appendix 1, to secure the contribution to one Sheffield cycle stand in the immediate vicinity of the site. This was seconded by Councillor McHugh and carried.

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 revised conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the revision to condition ten outlined above; 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 report as amended above, the wording of which was delegated to officers; and subject to any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application or for it to be called in for determination  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Demolition of existing garages and erection of single storey building to accommodate 1x2-bedroom self-contained residential unit with associated landscaping, cycle parking and refuse storage and associated works to existing flats including new amenity spaces and landscaping treatments.

(Planning application number: P2022/2440/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• Members heard an update from the Planning Officer, in which it was stated that outline energy and sustainability statements had been provided, and that calculations had been provided that demonstrate that the unit complied with average daylight factor for daylight and sunlight; however full details would still be sought from pre-commencement conditions.
• Members were shown an overview on the site and surrounding context (in which Block A was cited as nearest to the junction); the existing Garages, the 2017 application which proposed roof extensions to each block and was refused on design and amenity, and had subsequent appeals withdrawn; the proposed new dwelling’s appearance and the proposed new dwelling within site context. Members were also told access would take place from Regina Road and that in late 2021 a withdrawn application submitted, which was slightly revised in 2022, in which officers retained concerns regarding the buildings at the side.
• Regarding the potential of a height condition on the fence, members were told that the report established a height of 1.8m, and that the trellis was included at the request of the Metropolitan Police/Design Out Crime Officer.
• Members heard objections from one resident, who told the Sub Committee that in 2017, the leaseholders of Flats 1-16, (alternatively known as Blocks A and B), purchased the freehold, and that their representation was on behalf of all of them. The objections included, that the materials were not in keeping with the other blocks at the location, that there was a general dislike appearance of the new buildings, that the proposed landscaping was not in keeping with garden, that there was a lack of current adequate bin facilities and that there was no consultation from the applicant.
• Additionally, members heard from the objector that if the bin storage was not closed and/or sufficiently managed it could again be a source of anti-social behaviour and vandalism.
• Members heard that the Planning Officer assessment on the bin storage had included Block C residents as well as the new residents, and given the new unit was a single dwelling, two-bedroom unit, it wouldn’t consider that to have significant detriment on bin storage.
• Members were advised that conditions regarding overall green space provision could be reviewed later in the process. Members were also advised that they were in a position to put forward a motion to impose an amendment to condition six, with wording delegated to officers, on the inclusion of a waste management plan to be submitted on the start of the scheme, that would include details of how the bin store would be secured.

Councillor Convery proposed a motion for deferring consideration of the application, citing the ambiguity from the absence of a detailed waste management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Demolition of the existing café, park keeper’s bungalow, bandstand, and associated ancillary structures; construction of new café, with public toilets and changing places toilet, and a new teaching shelter with associated wildlife garden.

This application involves development on Metropolitan Open Land (DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN).

(Planning application number: P2023/1388/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• Members heard two updates from the Planning Officer. The first update was that there was an error in the report where it was states that the proposals would result in the loss of metropolitan open land, which was inaccurate and should instead have stated that the proposals would result in the loss of openness within Metropolitan Open Land, as the land’s MOL status would not be affected. The second update was that Bright Start – the service that would operate the teaching shelter - had reviewed the proposals, giving their full support for the wildlife garden, pond, and teaching shelter.
• Members were shown that the site was within the Highbury conservation area which had high levels of architecture, and had well-used, but poorly sited single storey facilities. Members were also shown site photographs, the site wide layout, proposed elevations, proposed teaching shelters, the design, café space and biodiversity measures to be implemented, in which there would be a net biodiversity gain.
• Members heard that the proposals were considered to meet national and local policy on open land, and that while it was a departure from policy on building on open public land, it had to be weighed up against the public benefit.  The existing bandstand would be replaced by teaching shelter. Water drainage would be required by condition and details of wayfinding signage would also be necessary.
• Members heard two objections, which highlighted concerns with the internal layout of the café, security, access, optimisation of the space for customers, but which also praised the engagement levels and the current layout of the café.
• The applicant is encouraged to continue engaging with the community throughout the development and also through the tendering process.

• The applicant noted that they had conducted an extensive consultation in which they changed the design considerably, and that their proposals had worked within the constraints, to create a more accessible space for the park; and the staff office opened onto the space that the staff were expected to supervise.
• Members heard that the internal layout of the café was limited in terms of space, but not fixed, and both the layout and proportion of space given to catering rather customer would be a matter for fit out by operator.  The Design Officer had raised no objections to the café layout.
• Members heard that there would be a tendering process for the procurement of the café operator, in which engagement with community and social value will be a focus, but there was no current plan to engage with stakeholders.
• It was suggested that given the level of interest in visual design, there could be a condition imposed around  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.