Agenda item

Demolition of Vibast Community Centre, 169-173 Old Street and Health Centre, partial demolition of garages to west of Bath Street, the construction of 55 new homes (comprising 16 x 1 bed units, 25 x 2 bed units and 7 x 3 bed units), a community centre (D1 use), two flexible A1/A2 use units across three buildings, consisting of the erection of a part single, four and nine storey building at the junction of Old Street and Bath Street to provide a community centre and A1/A2 unit with residential above, a part two and three storey building at the junction of Old Street and St Luke’s Close to provide an A1/A2 unit and residential units and a part single and four storey residential building fronting Bath Street, alterations to the garages fronting Bath Street, the provision of a new amenity space to the east of Steadman Court and public realm improvement works across the site, inclusive of hard and soft landscaping, cycle parking, alterations to entrances and alterations to boundary treatment. Application re-consulted following receipt of amended plans detailing two additional doors (serving a sub-station) in the Bath Street elevation of the garages.

(Planning application number: P2015/0709/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that Paragraph 6.2 of the report should refer to six rather than eight wheelchair units.

·         The health centre provision would be relocated at two centres, one near the Whittington Hospital and the other in Camden.

·         The flexible retail space was for A1 or A2 use.

·         The applicant had designed measures to address crime and anti-social behaviour. The plans encouraged permeability through the estate which was in line with policy. Soft close, non lockable gates were proposed to gain access to the garden area.

·         A member raised concern about whether the North/South routes across the site were desire lines. The planning officer advised that the applicant had undertaken an exercise to look at desire lines across the site. He also advised that there was a bus stop by own of the routes and TfL had stated that this bus stop could not be moved. The member referred to another estate in the borough where measures were now being put in place to reduce permeability as anti-social behaviour was a problem when the estate was more permeable.

·         Although the proposed development would result in the loss of trees, overall there would be a net increase of 49 trees, more amenity space and green space plus a larger community centre.

·         The Chair advised that the committee had to consider whether the application was  consistent with policy, consider the application before the committee and undertake a balancing exercise as there had been a number of objections and the rights of future residents also had to be considered. The scheme would provide homes for people on the housing waiting list.

·         A member stated that the security concerns of residents were appreciated. However a number of mitigating measures had been designed into the scheme and time should be given to see if these worked. If more excessive security measures were put in place, it would not be known if having the gates open at all times worked. In addiction, there would be more people on the estate, which would increase natural surveillance. He suggested reviewing the security measures in two years’ time.

·         A member suggested that if the committee reviewed the security measures and found that having the gates open at all times was not successful, a further planning application would have to be submitted to amend this condition (Condition 8). Therefore he suggested instead removing this condition to enable Islington Council’s Housing Department to devise a scheme in conjunction with residents.

·         Concern was raised about the loss of the health centre. The council was trying to work to improve GP provision in the borough.

Councillor Klute proposed that Condition 5 be amended to include measures to suppress dust during demolition. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to remove Condition 8 to enable Islington Council’s Housing Department to devise a scheme in conjunction with residents. This was seconded by Councillor Gantly and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report amended as above, plus the prior completion of a Directors’ Agreement securing the heads of terms set out in the officer’s report.

[Post meeting note: For the purpose of  clarity regarding the gates, officers would add the following informative to the Decision Notice:

INFORMATIVE: For the avoidance of doubt, with specific reference to the two gates fronting Old Street that would serve pedestrian routes next to Steadman Court and Bartholomew Court, the relevant approved landscaping plans (ref: 3072_L_902 Rev P2 and 3072_L_905 Rev P2) detail that further information on entrance proposals are set out in the Design and Access Statement. The Design and Access Statement and the Planning Statement detail that the gates would be closed ‘dusk till dawn’ with only fob access between these time. Although the approved Transport Statement details that the pedestrian access points into the site would have 24 hour secure gates with fob access and audio intercom, these measures did not form part of the final proposal.]