Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

Councillors Sufia Alam, Kahar Chowdhury, Abdul Mukit and John Pierce declared an interest in agenda item 4.1. Armoury House, 7 Gunmakers Lane, London, E3 (PA/20/01914).This was on the basis that they had received a written representation from a colleague on the application. They indicated that they could consider the application with an open mind

Councillor John Pierce declared an interest in agenda item 4.2, 114 – 150 Hackney Road, London, E2 7QL (PA/20/00034). This was on the basis that the Councillor had:

•         helped establish the Friends of the Joiners Arms and was involved in the Asset of Community Value.

•         Councillor Pierce had also spoke publicly at the meeting about this issue.

Councillor Pierce stated that he would leave the meeting for this item. Councillor Kevin Brady deputised for Councillor Pierce for this application.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 14^th January 2021.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To RESOLVE that:

1)   in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)   in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

3)   To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1.            The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.            In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

3.            In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Place be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

Two storey extension above the existing building with three self-contained flats, cycle parking storages and new bins storage for new residences and associated landscaping work in the external areas.

Grant planning permission with conditions

Gareth Gwynne introduced the application for a two storey extension above the existing building with three self-contained flats and associated works.

Katie Cooke presented the report. This application for planning permission was considered by the Development Planning Committee on 14^th January 2021.

The application was deferred by Members to request the following:

·       Justification of why a contribution for affordable housing has not been sought;

·       Details in terms of potential noise impacts from the proposed fifth floor roof terrace; and

·       A site visit

The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including:

·      Details of the site location and the character of the area, including  a mix of converted industrial and new buildings, the Albany Works complex and Gun Wharf.

·      The site lay in the Victoria Park Conservation Area and is close to Victoria Park.  Whilst not listed itself, there were a number of listed building nearby. Officers remained of the view that the scheme would have minimal impacts in regards to the setting of the area.

·      Access arrangements would remain as existing with a new bin storage area and new cycle spaces. Details of this were noted.

·      All of the units would be in accordance with policy standards in terms of internal standards and private amenity space.

·      That the scheme had been designed to minimise the impacts, through for example, setting back the development.

·      The submitted daylight and sunlight assessment had been reviewed by officers and showed full compliance with the exception of a minor failing.

·      The results of the consultation (involving two rounds of consultation)  and a summary of the responses received. 67 representations were received.

In terms of the reasons for deferral, the following issues were noted

The lack of affordable housing contribution given the approach to the114-150  Hackney Road Development. (Item 4.2).

It was confirmed that, as with all small developments, Officers did not consider it appropriate to apply the draft SPD to this scheme, since the Planning Obligations SPD and associated calculator have yet to been adopted. The Hackney Road Scheme (for which a contribution could be sought),  is an unusual scheme. It differed from this development in a number of ways given: its classification as a major scheme, the application of a public benefits test, and the issues around the timing of the decision notice, following the adoption of the SPD. This is not the case for this scheme.

Lack of noise assessment in relation to the impacts on residents below the development.

·       It was noted that the Council’s Noise Officer has been consulted on the scheme and were of the view that the impact would be in keeping with that from the surrounding residential properties. They had no record of any complaints from similar extensions and felt that any noise impacts could be managed.

·       Overall, Officers were of the view that the proposal would raise no undue impacts in this regard. Therefore it was considered that no noise report was necessary.

Issues with the plans

It was noted that new drawings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Proposal

Mixed use redevelopment of site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height from four to eight storeys above a shared basement, to contain a maximum 9 residential units (Class C3) up to 10,739m2 (GIA) hotel floor space (Class C1) up to 3,529m2 (GIA) employment floorspace (Class B1), up to 358m2 (GIA) flexible office and retail floorspace at ground level (Class A1, A2, A3 and B1) and provision of Public House (Class A4) along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage.

Recommendation

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and s106 agreement

Update report was tabled.

Gareth Gwynne introduced the report for the mixed use redevelopment of  the site to provide a maximum 9 residential units, hotel floor space, commercial space, the provision of Public House along with associated works. He advised of the issues raised in the update report, containing additional representations.

Daria Halip (Planning Services) presented the application, providing a brief overview of the scheme and the surrounding area.

This application for planning permission was considered by the Development Committee on 14^th January 2021.

The application was deferred by Members for a committee site visit.

The committee also sought information on the following items:

a.       The condition limiting the late night opening hours of the Public House to 12 months

b.       The rent levels for the Public House with a view to providing longer term affordable rents

c.        Review the radius for the provision of the meanwhile off site temporary venue for the Public House

d.       Daylight/ Sunlight Impacts on Vaughan Estate, particularly with regard to the existing architectural constraints

e.       Conditions regarding the use of the roof top area

f.         Management of the footfall from the scheme including details of the joint management for the operation of A4 and the hotel bar

The report and presentation addressed each of these issues as set out below:

Consultation

The Committee were reminded of the details of the statutory consultation carried out by the Council and the applicant’s which was set out in the report.

It was confirmed that the Council’s consultation went above and beyond requirements involving engagement with George Loveless House. 109 letters were sent to all registered properties in this development.

In addition, the Applicant had carried out non statutory consultation including a public exhibition and had offered to meet with the Columbia Tenants and Residents Association. The applicant had also engaged with the Friends of Joiners Arms.

Therefore it was considered that adequate consultation had been carried out.

Daylight/ sunlight impacts, Vaughan Estate

The Committee were reminded of the outcome of the assessment as detailed in the report, particularly the issues around:

·       The existing site constraints that acted as a barrier to sunlight and daylight exposure.

·       Details of the gains and losses in daylight/ sunlight, compared to the extant scheme.

Overall, it was considered that the proposed development would have a minor adverse impact onto the daylight/ sunlight conditions to these properties.

Furthermore, when taking the extant consent as material planning consideration and the significant public benefits secured with the current scheme, the impact is considered to be on balance acceptable.

Management of the Hotel Bar and the Public House

The Committee noted details of the separate conditions regulating the above, including the requirement to submit an  Operation Management plan and to establish a Community Liaison group to deal with any issues. The wording of the condition for the hotel was set out in the updated Committee.

Use of rooftop area

The Committee were reminded of the restrictions on the use of the rooftop area.

A compliance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

There are none.

There were none

There are no items.