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

Councillor John Pierce declared an interest in agenda item 5.3 114 – 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 10^th December 2020

The Committee RESOLVED

1.       That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10th December 2020 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

There are none

Proposal:

Proposed single storey rear extension

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission, subject to conditions

Jerry Bell introduced the report for the proposed single storey rear extension. He reminded the Committee that the application should be considered on this basis, rather than on the objections regarding the alleged use of the premises as a House in Multiple Occupancy.(HMO)

Eleanor Downton (Planning Officer) presented the application highlighting the site location, including images of the rear of the site, the floor plans and the existing and proposed elevations. It was noted that it would cover the full length or the property, be 4 metres deep, 2.7 metres high with a flat roof with materials matching that of the existing building.

The proposal was considered to be a well designed and subordinate addition, which responds well to the scale of development within the terrace and wider area.  Consultation had been carried out. A number of issues had been raised mainly  relating to use of the property as a HMO and the associated impacts of this. It was emphasised that no change of use was proposed to convert the house into a HMO from a single household residential use. Therefore, any impacts should be similar to that for a residential use.  In addition, due its modest scale and the position of the new windows, the development would not unduly impact upon the residential amenities enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers.

Officers recommend the proposed development be granted planning permission, subject to conditions.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Katrina MacLachlan, Councillor Peter Golds and Councillor Andrew Wood addressed the Committee in objection. They highlighted the following points:

•         They drew attention to evidence regarding use of the property as a HMO and the concerns about this.

•         The growth of HMOs in the local area and the impacts on residents and the local area in terms of pressure on services, amenity impacts, noise disturbance, increase in ASB, lack of affordable housing.

•         Property ownership issues.

The Applicant was not in attendance.

Committee’s questions:

The Committee asked questions of the registered speakers and Officers. In response the following points were discussed:

•         The length of the rear garden which was around 4 ½ meters.

•         The complaints concerning the use of the property as a HMO. It was noted that following the introduction of  Borough wide Planning guidance, that conversions to HMOs now required planning permission and that this property did not have a HMO license.  Applications for such conversations would be considered in the normal way on its merits.

•         The Committee  must therefore only consider the application before them and must disregard the issues about a HMO. Property ownership issues were also not a relevant planning matter

•         In response to questions, the objectors clarified their concerns about the subdivision of the property to create rooms, similar to neighbouring properties.  Concerns were also expressed about the harmful impact of this and the gradual loss of family housing.

•         Regarding the impacts on overlooking, it was explained that the location of the windows would match the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Two storeys 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.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions

Jerry Bell introduced the application for a two-storey extension to an existing residential building of 3 storeys to provide three additional flats.

Katie Cooke (Planning Services) presented the application, highlighting the site location, the character of the area and surrounding buildings, including the heritage assets. Consultation had been carried out. 67 representations had been raised and the key issues raised were noted. Concerns have been raised about the impact on views from Victoria Park. Officers considered the proposal would have an negligible impact on existing views.

The Committee noted the key issues as set out below:

·       Details of the site layout, including the cycle parking plans and the proposed relocation of the bin storage area to accommodate this. The scheme would be car free.

·       That the standard of accommodation accorded with policy standards.

·       The scheme had been carefully designed to be in keeping with the local area in terms of the hight, massing and design.

·       Details of the heritage assessment. The development should have a minimal impact on the setting of the Conservation Area and heritage buildings, given the location of the development and the modern day alterations to a number of these buildings.

·       The scheme would fully comply with the policy in terms of sunlight and daylight, save for minor failings. Details of this was noted.

·       Transport matters, including parking, access and servicing were acceptable

·       Overall it was considered that the scheme was appropriate in terms of height, scale and design, would have minimal impacts and would deliver good quality homes. It was considered that on balance, the benefits would outweigh any harm. Therefore, Officers recommend that the application was granted permission

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Michael Coplowe and Ellie Smith addressed the Committee  in objection. They expressed concern about:

·       Lack of consultation with by the developer. If granted, the residents should be more involved in the proposals.

·       Harm to amenity, street scape and heritage.

·       Conflict with the Victoria Park Conservation Area Planning policy and the Local Plan regarding the appropriateness  of development in that area.

·       Lack of clarity about elements of the proposals including the height, and construction impacts

·       Sunlight and daylight assessment for neighbouring properties. Finding were inaccurate due to the technique.

·       Potential structural damage to the building.

·       Lack of affordable housing and disabled access homes.

Claudia Mastrandrea, the applicant’s representative addressed the Committee. She highlighted the benefits of the application, including the provision of a development that optimised the development  potential of the site without causing undue amenity impacts. It would also provide new high quality homes within a suitable location given the good transport links amongst other issues.  The height of the scheme would be comparable to neighbouring buildings and had been designed to be in keeping with the area. The applicant had worked with the Council to minimise the impacts on sunlight and daylight impacts.  The applicant’s daylight and sunlight consultant had tested the impacts  and had concluded that the retained internal light levels were policy compliant.  All  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

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 tabled.

Jerry Bell 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.

Daria Halip (Planning Services)  presented the application, describing the site and surrounds and details of the extant planning permission. Consultation had been carried out. The presentation summarised the outcome of the objections and that they mainly related to the impacts from the proposed hotel use, amenity issues, the highway impacts and other issues.

Officers drew to the Committee’s attention  the following points:

·       All the land uses had been established as acceptable in principle with the extant consent, the hotel use is the only new use introduced with this proposal

·       The similarities with the extant scheme in terms of the height, massing and the design. The amenity impacts were considered to be broadly comparable to the extant consent with only some limited minor additional impacts surrounding daylight/sunlight.

·       Details of the heritage assessment. The public benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the identified harm to heritage, (that would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm), and satisfies the relevant policy tests.

·       That the provision of the hotel use satisfied the relevant tests in policy, given the size, and scale of the scheme, it’s location and the  distance with nearby visitor accommodation and the adequate servicing arrangements. Officers drew attention to the challenges of providing residential development at the site. In view of this, it is not considered the scheme compromises the supply of housing land.

·       Officers were mindful of the concerns around noise and ASB from the new hotel. Due to the mitigation measures (around controlling this), which were detailed, Officers considered that these issues can be successfully managed. 

·       The scheme would result in a number of public benefits that go beyond those set out in Council’s Planning Obligations SPD. Some of the main benefits included:  Provision of financial contributions for affordable housing and the re-provision of a Public House for the LGBT+ community, to replace the former Joiner’s Arms Public House, (with a better internal layout and a contributions towards fit out costs including to deal with acoustic breakout controls), and a financial obligation towards provision of meanwhile use space for the Friends of the Joiners Arms to operate temporarily during construction period and until the permanent venue is made available on site.

·       Other benefits included: new public realm and landscaping, bespoke Section 106 obligations in relation to careers program, working with local HE and FE colleges and construction & end phase training and apprenticeship programs

·       Transport matters were acceptable.

·       In view of the merits of the application, Officers considered that it should be granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Penny Creed and Kevin Mckenna  addressed the Committee  in objection, as members of a local Tenants and Residents Association . They expressed concern about:

·        The proposed night time economy orientated hotel, which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3