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

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 30^th March 2023.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 March 2023 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

Nil items.

None

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for Construction of 2 storey roof extension to deliver 6no. residential apartments (use class C3), associated amendments to cycle parking and refuse store. New green roofs to existing flat roofs and proposed new roof. Installation of air source heat pumps and solar PV panels to new flat roof. Recladding and replacement of other combustible materials.

Nicholas Jehan, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Committee was reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligation.

Further to questions from Committee Members, officers provided more information on: 

• Previous planning inspectorate rulings on the application site and how they impacted the current application. Also, the issues identified by the planning inspectorate and how these had been addressed.
• The consultation process, numbers of objectors etc. It was noted it was not possible to establish the exact number of residents consulted, but there had been several consultation exercises which had included both LBTH and LB Hackney residents.
• Nature and precedent of the proposed London wide Santander cycle hire scheme which was indicated to be secured by legal agreement. Officers explained they were confident this obligation could be enforced.
• Anticipated disruption during construction phase and plans to mitigate it.
• Technical explanation of the refusal reason provided in the planning history section of the report that ‘The site is located within 3km of the perimeter of an aerodrome’.
• Highways assessment of the scheme consideration loading bays, access for contractors etc. No objections from the highways team had been received.  

Following questions to officers, Councillors debated the application and expressed concern that the proposal to provide cycle hire scheme access instead of dedicated cycle storage/parking was setting a dangerous precedent and may not fully comply with planning policies. Councillors suggested that the Local Plan could aim to strengthen this policy area in future revisions.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission is GRANTED for 242 Hackney Road for:

·         Construction of 2 storey roof extension to deliver 6no. residential apartments (use class C3), associated amendments to cycle parking and refuse store. New green roofs to existing flat roofs and proposed new roof. Installation of air source heat pumps and solar PV panels to new flat roof. Recladding and replacement of other combustible materials,

Subject to the financial obligations, non-financial obligations, planning conditions and informatives as set out in the report.

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for demolition of the existing buildings on the site of 7-15 Blount Street, London E14 7RL and redevelopment to provide 106 purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) rooms, with associated internal and external amenity space and cycle parking, alongside commercial space at the ground floor level.

Fran Haines, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Committee was reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligation.

The Chair invited Shahunur Khanto address the meeting in objection to the application. Mr Khan highlighted the following: 

Local residents had submitted a petition drawing attention to the adverse impact the proposal would have on environment, loss of sunlight and air, increased pressure on public services; that the proposed scheme would alter the characteristics of local area. Mr Khan indicated the petitioners felt the space could be utilised better, including being used to build more social housing. He also expressed concern around construction noise and pollution especially on elderly residents.

The Chair invited Martin Chalker and Tom Slingsby to address the meeting in support of the application. They highlighted the following: 

• The proposal would secure Affordable Student accommodation and would  enhance the site. The proposed provider was a registered charity. Comments from the consultation had been reviewed and taken into account when finalising the proposals for the application.
• The history, purpose and current operations of the proposed provider, Students House. How it worked closely with LBTH groups and partners. Its scholarships scheme and mechanisms to promote good behavior from its residents, its community help and outreach programs. Martin explained the provider has only received one complaint with regards to student behavior.

Further to questions from Committee Members, officers provided more information on: 

• Previous planning applications on the site and reasons why housing provision had not been approved.

·         Application of policy provisions on height and distance from neighbouring buildings. How the assessment of informal surveillance had influenced officers’ recommendation that the proposed distance would be acceptable.

·         Anticipated noise from the construction and plans proposed to mitigate it.

·         Security and noise concerns identified from the proposed use as student accommodation and the plans proposed to mitigate them.

·         Balcony/terraces location, use and restrictions.

·         Sunlight assessment and the relative weighting given to bedroom windows in the assessment.

·         Future change of use. Officers noted that a request for change of use could not be ruled out, but any such request would be subject to a new application and would require planning permission.  

·         Assessment of the housing and affordable viability of the site taking into consideration the history of previous applications.

·         Further detail of consultation responses and explanation of assessment that some petition signatories were outside the consultation area.

Further to questions from Committee Members, objectors provided more information on the main causes of their objections to the proposal. They explained they felt that the increased density and likely misbehaviour of student occupants would negatively  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

None.