Agenda item

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 operational management plans, which can be used. The applicant also pledged to do everything to minimise visual impact.
• Members heard that the toilets were classified as universal toilets because they don’t have shared spaces, and were designed in accordance with the latest, national guidance on unisex toilets. The national guidance specified universal toilets in buildings going forward, and each toilet had their own facilities. The toilet ‘breezeway’ had support during public engagement for having two entrances and no enclosed spaces.
• A meeting took place between the applicant and the Council’s tree team concerning the memorial tree. The tree was specified as being in poor condition and that if it was better specimen, the applicant would consider relocation, but the tree’s ill-health prevented this. Additionally, extensive enquiries were conducted, both in Islington and neighbouring boroughs, to establish the tree’s ownership and purpose, without success.
• Members agreed to delegate to officers, the inclusion of an additional section (g) to Condition 12 securing pond provision and safety and access needs, which reads: details of proposed pond, including details of how the pond has been designed to ensure the safety of service users whilst maintaining an appropriate level of access. 

• Members agreed to revise to Condition 17, to read/include: Details of all outdoor furniture including any parasols or shading mechanisms whether they be fixed or moveable.

Councillor Hamdache proposed a motion to grant planning permission. 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 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.