Skip to content

Agenda item

44 Pear Tree Street, London, EC1V 3SB

Minutes:

The upward extension, refurbishment and recladding of the existing building to create a new second and third floor and mezzanine level, associated with the use of the building for Class E purposes, together with the provision of plant equipment and a roof terrace at roof level and the provision of refuse, recycling and cycle parking facilities at ground floor level.

 

(Planning application number: P2020/3206/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following main points were made:

·         The planning officer stated that since the report was published, an additional objection had been received. The points made were addressed in the officer report.

·         The planning officer stated that the building management plan had to be submitted and approved prior to occupation.

·         The planning officer stated that two previous applications had been determined. The 2014 application had been refused and the appeal had been dismissed. The 2017 appeal was approved.  Officers considered that the recent approval carried considerable weight.

·         The current application was solely commercial whereas the previous applications were residential and there were residential roof terraces. Lapsed planning permission should be given less weight than extant planning permission. When determining weight, it was necessary to consider whether there had been policy changes since planning permission was granted.

·         The history of the applications for this site was noted. The last application had been for a larger scaled building and had been approved.

·         It was noted that the previous application had some obscure glazing and window opening restrictors.

·         In response to a member’s question about whether there were restrictions to the use of the roof terraces in the previous approved scheme, the planning officer advised that there were none.

·         The planning officer stated that in the proposed scheme, there were no roof terraces on the south east corner. Officers had initially recommended that use of the roof terrace end at 6pm, however following the submission of a detailed management plan and in agreement with the environmental health officer this had been recommended to be extended to 8pm. The number of site occupiers on the terrace would be limited to 15 at any one time. The environmental health officer had requested that details of the use of the roof terrace be included in the revised management plan to be submitted and approved prior to occupation. This would include the acoustic measures to mitigate noise from the terrace and how any complaints would be managed. The applicant stated that the roof terrace was not large and was integrated into the roof away from neighbouring residential units. 8am-8pm would align with extended office hours. The roof terrace would be used for site occupiers and would not be used for parties.

·         In response to a member’s concern about the building line not being set back on Bastwick Street, the planning officer stated that the design of the two previous schemes was substantially different. In relation to the proposed scheme, design changes to the roof had reduced the impact on the adjacent building and were considered acceptable.

·         Daylight and sunlight were discussed.  The planning officer advised that there were transgressions, mostly to the student accommodation but that due to the nature of occupation of student accommodation it was considered to be acceptable in this case. There was a transgression in relation to a window of 26 Bastwick Street but this window had passed a daylight distribution test.

·         Following an objector’s concerns about daylight sunlight assessments, the planning officer stated that officers were satisfied with their accuracy. Officers detailed the transgressions in relation to the impact on the Pietra Lara Building and stated that although any transgressions were regrettable, they were minor and these were less than in the previous approved scheme.

·         In response to a member’s question about the nature of potential tenants, the applicant stated that the space was flexible. The upper floors could be let to one tenant or a number of smaller businesses. The applicant also stated there was demand in Clerkenwell for retail showrooms.

·         Following an objector’s concerns about a sense of enclosure the planning officer advised that the shape of the roof, with a reduction in the height of the eaves, was deemed to have reduced the sense of enclosure. Also having a commercial rather than residential scheme reduced the concerns regarding overlooking.

 

Councillor North proposed a motion to amend Condition 10 to require obscure glazing and restricted opening windows on the western and south eastern elevations. This was seconded by Councillor Khondoker and carried. The wording of the condition was delegated to officers.

 

Councillor North proposed a motion to add a condition to restrict the use of the roof terrace to occupiers of the office only. This was seconded by Councillor Khondoker and carried. The wording of the condition was delegated to officers.

 

Councillor Khondoker proposed a motion to amend Condition 16 to restrict construction hours to 8am-6pm Monday to Friday only. This was seconded by Councillor Woolf 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 conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report with the amended and additional conditions as 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.

Supporting documents: