Agenda and minutes

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

None.

None.

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.

None.

The Chair outlined the order of business. This had changed so that item B1 was presented last.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting be signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Planning Officers explained there was an error in the report, and they needed further time to speak to the applicant and assess this.

Councillor Poyser proposed a motion to defer the item. Councillor Klute Seconded.

RESOLVED:

That the item be deferred.

Proposed erection of new standalone dance studio in southwest corner of car park following demolition of vacant outbuildings and associated plant area. Plus, the addition of a new accessible WC at third floor.

(Planning Application Number: P2023/0562/FUL)

Jake Sheils, planning officer, introduced the report. They explained an updated version of the NPPF was published on 5th September 2023. The changes relate to an update regarding a Written Ministerial Statement to update policy on planning for onshore wind development in England. After assessment of this updated policy and its impact on the applications presented tonight – officers consider that this does not materially alter our assessments. 

In response to questions from the committee the Planning Officer explained that the outbuilding has been vacant for several years and is to be demolished, with the bricks repurposed for a bin enclosure wall and gate at the rear.

Concerns were raised about noise, particularly from the plant equipment on the northern section of the roof. The applicant had conducted a noise assessment and explained all windows and openings will be closed when the studio is in use, and trained staff will be on-site to ensure there was no adverse noise. This approach is expected to reduce noise for all neighbours.

The proposed studio would be mechanically ventilated to prevent the need for open windows when the building was in use. The CGI in the presentation may have shown a glass ceiling, but there will only be roof lights, not a full glass ceiling.

Objectors had raised concerns primarily related to noise. They had pointed out that the windows at the studio were often left open, which allowed sound to easily travel, making it possible to hear everything happening inside. Additionally, there were concerns about the then-current use of the existing facilities. They were worried that the usage of the new facility might exacerbate the issue, particularly when it came to enforcing the closing of doors and controlling activities. They also expressed apprehension regarding the private hire of the space. They were seeking more information about what activities would be permitted during private hires and how they would be regulated. Furthermore, they sought a restriction on the timing of such activities, suggesting a preference for no activities beyond 8 or 9 PM to minimize disruptions.

The applicant explained that the management strategy had been to relocate noisy activities to a new dance studio with a sealed façade and implement mechanical ventilation to eliminate the need to open windows. A status monitoring point had been established.

It had been planned that the new dance studio would not be in use while the existing building was not in use. This strategy was expected to benefit both the residents and young people in Islington. While some exercise and movement had continued in the existing dance studio, the majority of its use had been for conferences and meetings.

The sub-committee sought further explanation from the applicant. They wanted assurance that there would be less noise compared to the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposed partial demolition at roof level and to west elevation; the erection of a single roof extension for office accommodation (Class E(g)(i) Use) and external plant compound, erection of a side extension at first, second, third and fourth floor levels, installation of a new shopfront with the replacement of ground floor shopfront windows to Clerkenwell Road and lowering of front slab to allow accessible entrance and other associated works.

(Planning Application Number: P2022/2987/FUL)

Mark Heaney, Planning Officer, introduced this report.They explained an updated version of the NPPF was published on 5th September 2023. The changes relate to an update regarding a Written Ministerial Statement to update policy on planning for onshore wind development in England. After assessment of this updated policy and its impact on the applications presented tonight – officers consider that this does not materially alter our assessments. 

In response to a question from the sub-committee the planning officer explained the new building is architecturally sympathetic to the surrounding structures as much as is possible. It replicates a traditional mansard design, showing a considerate approach to its architectural compatibility with the area. Additionally, the front roof terrace is planned to be set back by a meter, further indicating a thoughtful design that blends with the existing surroundings.

The objectors expressed concerns. The main concern was that they felt strongly overlooked during the planning process. Noise assessments were conducted elsewhere, leaving them impacted by construction work and other disturbances. Loss of daylight is a pressing issue, and the terrace is now overlooked by concrete parts of the extension, with no mention of this in the planning process. This led to a feeling of being ignored and misled throughout the planning process, with no communication even after raising complaints and objections. The increase in noise due to the extension does not seem significant enough to justify the 12 to 18 months of work it entails. They requested a review of the terrace's usage times, possibly considering the use of plants to address some of the concerns. It's suggested that these disruptions be confined to Monday to Friday, given the significant amount of construction work in the vicinity.

The Applicant was not present at the meeting. Planning officers answered questions arising from the sub-committee. They explained the planning processes were duly followed, and all assessments were considered correct. There was a planning construction plan in place. The hours of use of the terrace are documented in the application papers. The applicant resisted and did not wish to submit amended plans at this stage but was open to making necessary changes under specific conditions. Concerning the hours of operation for the terrace, it was suggested that limiting its use on weekends, particularly in the evening, could help address noise concerns.

Councillor Poyser proposed a condition to reduce hours of use of terrace to 18:00hrs during week and nothing on weekends. Councillor Klute seconded.

Councillor Poyser proposed a condition that air conditioning condensers be at the same level as previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.