Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tommy Gale.

Members will be asked to declare any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on this agenda.

There were none.

Webcasting of the Meeting

The Chair to announce the following: “In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record and film public meetings, I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available on DVD upon request.

If you are seated in the Chamber it is likely that the Council’s cameras will capture your image and you are deemed to be consenting to being filmed and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If you are addressing the Committee your contribution will be recorded and broadcast unless you have already indicated that you do not wish this to happen.

If you wish to avoid appearing on the Council’s webcast you should move to one of the galleries.”

Any Other Announcements

Webcasting

The Chair announced that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and would be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available to those that requested them.  Those seated in the Chamber were deemed to be consenting to being filmed.  Anyone wishing to avoid appearing on the webcast should move to one of the galleries.

(i)       Written Communications

The Committee will be asked to receive written submissions in respect of items on the agenda, if any.

(ii)      Deputations

The Committee will be asked to receive requests for deputations in respect of items on the agenda, if any.

The Chair reported that the written submission objecting to the application in respect of the Former Hampstead Police Station, 26 Rosslyn Hill, London NW3 1PD, had been withdrawn. The objector confirmed that the concerns raised were in response to information in the Officer’s Report but have since been resolved by information contained within the Supplementary Agenda.

RESOLVED –

THAT the written submissions and deputation requests contained in the supplementary agenda be accepted.

There was no such business.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2024.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2024 be agreed and signed as an accurate record of the meeting.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities.

Application no: 2024/1078/P      Officer: Ewan Campbell

Proposal: Change of use from former police station (sui generis) to provide 5 residential units (Use Class C3) and commercial floorspace (Use Class E), space for a private healthcare use (Use Class E(e)). three storey and four storey rear extensions, replacement of windows, external alterations, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, rooftop plant and associated ancillary works.

RECOMMENDATION:

      i)         Grant conditional planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement

    ii)         Grant conditional listed building consent

Application no: 2024/1186/L       Officer: Ewen Campbell

Proposal: Change of use from former police station (sui generis) to provide 5 residential units(Use Class C3) and commercial floorspace (Use Class E), space for a private healthcare use (Use Class E(e)). three storey and four storey rear extensions, replacement of windows, external alterations, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, rooftop plant and associated ancillary works.

RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation text

Consideration was also given to the information and deputations contained within the supplementary agenda.

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Responding to questions from Members, Planning Officers provided the following information:

• Condition 19 related to the installation of privacy screens on the proposed terrace area for Apartment B, the reason for the condition was to prevent overlooking and reduce visual contact, rather than to reduce noise.
• Generally acoustic style screens would be installed to reduce noise transmission generated by noisy plant or equipment, these typically would not be required for amenity spaces in use at a residential property.
• The outdoor terrace area will likely not be in use for much of the year, given the climate in the UK.
• Residents’ concerns had been noted and it was clear the Committee were sympathetic to the issue raised around overlooking and noise. If conditional planning permission was agreed, officers would work with the applicant to ensure that consideration was also given to minimising noise disturbance with an appropriate design. The applicant had already committed to doing so.
• It was noted, however, that whilst officers were able to ensure the terrace was designed sympathetically and the potential for noise disturbance reduced, the area should not be enclosed completely by screens to achieve this as there was a policy requirement to provide outdoor amenity space to residential properties and this would diminish the quality of that space for future occupiers.
• The proposed terrace area that was closest to neighbouring properties was 13 metres, for which privacy screens and planters had been conditioned.
• There was a first floor balcony that was a distance of 12 metres away from a neighbouring property but for this the view was less direct, so overlooking was not a concern.
• The Committee were able to amend the wording of the reason for condition 19, to require the privacy screen to mitigate noise as well as overlooking.
• Officers would then check the design to make sure it was an acceptable design solution and did not diminish the quality of the amenity space.  

The applicant team responded to questions by providing the following information:

• Certain mitigations had already been put into the design to prevent overlooking from the terrace such as increasing the size of the parapet wall and the addition of a large built-in planter, which means the end of the terrace closest to the neighbouring properties cannot be accessed.
• It was also agreed that a privacy screen be installed along the side of the terrace which faced the neighbouring properties. It was hoped that an appropriate design for the screen would include sound attenuation measures.
• The applicant indicated that they would discuss these measures with Mr Grosz and other neighbours before the design was finalised.

Responding to a question the deputee, Mr Grosz, stated that they were not satisfied with the proposed measures because they did not guarantee the installation of noise attenuation measures. Mr Grosz added that the solution could be as simple as adding a sound barrier or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7(2)

Application no: 2024/0601/P      Officer: Kristina Smith

Proposal: Change of ground floor use from Cinema (Sui Generis) to Flexible Use for Cinema (Sui Generis) / Class F.1 / Class F.2 / Class E

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal agreement

Consideration was also given to the information and deputations contained within the supplementary agenda.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised that due to a technical error the online objection submitted by Bartholomew Estate and Kentish Town Conservation Area Advisory Committee could not be viewed and details of it were therefore not included in the report. However, the CAAC had since emailed a summary of their objections which stated that they agreed that the site may not be suited to a cinema but insisted that the site be retained for community use.

The Planning Officer also advised that Ward Councillor Joseph Ball had objected to the proposal and stated that the site should prioritise community needs, not just commercial opportunities.

Responding to questions from Members, Planning Officers provided the following information:

• The Section 106 Legal Agreement for the previous permission for the site had secured a “plan detailing access arrangements to the cinema and identifying possible measures to be implemented by the owner or cinema operator to encourage cultural and educational outreach programmes for local residents”
• There was no requirement for the site to be a community cinema or a community use, permission was granted for a Sui Generis cinema which is ultimately a commercial use.
• Several different use Classes has been applied for, but these uses were not intended to co-exist, rather a flexible permission was being sought which would allow the unit to switch between uses within a 10 year period without having to seek further planning permission.
• The application had aimed to broaden the scope of uses which could operate from the site, so that different operators could be approached to take the space, to ensure that an appropriate use for the site was identified.
• The aim was to have a cultural or community use, but many of those uses actually fell under Class E, so by seeking a more flexible permission the applicant could look at uses other than a cinema.
• The Committee could amend Condition 3 to restrict Class E (c) uses, which would prevent the site being used for professional and financial services.
• If this condition was applied and then an estate agent or bank was interested in leasing the site, new permission must be applied for.

The applicant team responded to questions by setting out their views as follows:

• In terms of consultation, the applicant had met with the Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum and other community groups and had met with former Councillor Georgia Gould.
• Community events had also taken place in the vacant space, including events with charities. 
• Engagement with community groups and the wider community would continue whilst alternative uses for the site were being considered.
• The applicant had been dedicated to finding a tenant to take on the cinema space and had done a considerable amount of work over the last five years to bring the cinema to fruition.
• It was currently unclear how the building would be used in future; however, the applicant had every intention to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7(3)

Application no: 2023/5086/P      Officer: Christopher Smith

Proposal: Erection of first floor rear extension and pitched roof extension incorporating front dormer, and other minor alterations

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional planning permission

Consideration was also given to the information contained within the supplementary agenda.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised members that an additional condition was proposed to require submission of details of the facing materials. Delegated authority was sought to draft this condition. 

Responding to a question about tree protection, the Planning Officer advised that condition 5 aimed to protect retained trees during construction and the applicant would be required to carry out construction in a way that did not cause damage to neighbours’ trees.

A Committee Member expressed concern for the nearby residents, one of whom was vulnerable and required access to the front of her property at all times due to health concerns. Clarity was sought on whether a Construction Management Plan would be required. A Committee Member asked whether an Equalities Impact Assessment had been done. 

The Planning Officer advised that as the application related to minor works to a residential property, a Construction Management Plan or Equality Impact Assessment would not usually be required and would be considered disproportionate. However, equalities issues were considered when applications were assessed by officers as required under the Public Sector Equalities Duty.

In response to a follow up question the Planning Officer advised that it would be minuted that the Committee would expect the applicant to engage with neighbours throughout construction to manage any potential negative impacts, such as deliveries blocking access.

The Head of Development advised that whilst it would not be reasonable to require a Construction Management Plan secured by a Section 106 legal agreement, a lighter touch option of a Construction Management Statement could be secured by condition, this would be specific for the purpose of minimising the impact of the construction process on the amenity of the neighbours. 

On being put to the vote on the officer’s recommendation, it was unanimously

RESOLVED –

i)               THAT Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions, as set out in the agenda; and

ii)              THAT it be delegated to officers to finalise the wording of the additional conditions agreed for the facing materials and the Construction Management Statement. 

ACTION BY:   Director of Economy, Regeneration & Investment                                 Borough Solicitor

There was none.