Agenda item

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 applications. Councillor Klute seconded.

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, the planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 (page 38-46 of the Agenda) of the officer report and an addition of the further condition set out above.