Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tom Simon.

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.

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 10 October 2024.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 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: 2023/1804/P      Officer: Kristina Smith

Proposal: Erection of a 7 and 4 storey building at Plots A and F (respectively) following demolition of existing buildings and structures; erection of roof extensions at Plots B, E, I and J; external refurbishment of the existing buildings at Plots C and D; erection of replacement entrance pavilion at Plot P; plus cycle parking and plant provision; hard and soft landscaping to provide an additional c.16,000sqm (GIA) of Class E (g) floorspace and ancillary uses

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional Planning Permission following:

               i)         Referral to Mayor of London for his direction;

             ii)         Finalisation of detailed wording for conditions following consultation with the Mayor; and

           iii)         Completion of Section 106 Legal Agreement

Consideration was also given to the information contained within the tabled paper which included a representation from Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum. 

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Responding to questions, Planning Officers provided the following information:

·       Providing housing was the priority land use of the local plan and, on most sites, this would be sought. On some sites, housing was required to be provided as part of mixed-use development.

·       However, as this site was located in a designated industrial area, the priority was for employment space and the application was considered support and to enhance the industrial area, it was considered that introducing residential uses could undermine the success of the employment area. Furthermore, the policy specifically set out that in these kinds of locations that mixed use was not specifically required.

·       It was intended that the gym would be located in the lower ground floor of plot E.

·       Applications were to be assessed and determined against the local plan that was adopted at the time of determination.

·       The report confirmed that the development incorporated design principles which would contribute to improved community safety and security, in accordance with policy C5 of the current local plan.

·       In terms of the emerging local plan, which was a material consideration, the development was deemed to meet the policy requirements contained within it and had several positive features for crime prevention such as improved natural surveillance.

·       Whilst the application should be considered on its own merits, there were some aspects of the application which were beneficial because they would improve permeability which could then link to development which might come forward in the future on neighbouring sites.

·       Some residents had expressed concern about loss of daylight and sunlight due the building on Plot F. At Carrol Close, there were only minor fails in terms of sunlight. In terms of daylight there were three windows that were not BRE compliant, experiencing a 20% to 30% loss. However, annual values of between 19% and 24% would be retained on these windows, which was considered an acceptable level of daylight for an urban location.

·       Similarly, with regard to Sanderson Close, the most significant impact was on one room on the ground floor, which had a 50% reduction in No-Skyline, but retained daylight and sunlight at an acceptable level. 

·       Furthermore, the properties were dual aspect dwellings, so although there would be some minor loss on the affected elevation, the other side of the property would not be affected. 

·       During the pre-application stage several features of the application were amended in response to concerns, such as setting the building back from the street edge and reducing the size of the windows by adding spandrel panels.

·       In terms of impact on residential amenity and potential noise from the proposed terrace areas, proposed condition 34 restricted use of the terrace areas to between 8am and 8pm, and the use within this time range would be associated with office use, which was not expected to result in a harmful level of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7(1)

Application no: 2024/1364/P      Officer: Ewan Campbell

Proposal: Demolition of existing car park and offices, and erection of a new 8 storey building for use as office (Class E); with ground floor cafe unit and affordable workspace in basement. Proposed servicing facilities, cycle and refuse storage and associated landscaping along St Cross Street.

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

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

The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised that late submissions had been received from a local resident and a ward councillor objecting to the application, no new planning issues were raised by the late submissions.

A condition was also omitted from the report, which would limit access onto the terraces on the fifth and sixth floor levels facing the Ziggurat building. Officers sought delegated authority to draft and add that condition (or amend condition 37) to the decision notice in the event permission was granted. 

Responding to questions, Planning Officers provided the following information:

·       In terms of height, the proposed building was  higher than the eighth storey of Ziggurat Building, however, the Ziggurat building had plant on the roof  the added height of which was almost level with the top of the proposed building.

·       The residents of the Ziggurat Building were concerned that they would be detrimentally affected by the proposed development, especially in terms of loss of light and, as such, had submitted their own sunlight and daylight survey.

·       It was acknowledged that there would be losses of sunlight and daylight, particularly at the lower levels of the Ziggurat Building where daylight levels would already be low due to the existing multi-story car park, but the upper levels would still retain good levels of sunlight and daylight.

·       The modelling that was used in the resident’s survey for sunlight was not the conventional Building Research Establishment (BRE) approach that was referred to in the Council’s policy and guidance and used by officers when assessing applications.

·       The BRE guidance recommended that at least 25% of the total Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) should reach a window, with at least 5% in the winter months.

·       When assessing the application officers noted that there were some individual windows that directly face the development that were negatively affected but, in many cases, windows on the Ziggurat Building exceeded the recommended levels in both summer and winter, due to the fact that they were loft style apartments, they had large rooms with multiple windows facing different directions.

·       The information submitted by residents also included a sun path analysis, which focused on sunlight in certain windows on specific days, which was not the methodology referred to in the Council’s guidance and used when assessing planning applications.

·       Consistency in assessment and determination of planning applications was important. Officers used the agreed methodology when considering planning applications.

·       The development plan and supplementary planning documents refer to the BRE guidance and set out the methodology that is to be used when assessing planning applications.

·       The report looked at individual windows and considered the impact on them in terms of loss of light and loss of sunlight and concluded that there were transgressions, which had been acknowledged within the officer’s report.

·       However, there was a requirement to apply guidelines in a flexible way, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Mitigating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7(2)

Application no: 2023/3824/P      Officer: Josh Lawlor

Proposal: Development of the existing vacant car park involving erection of a five storey plus basement block of flats to provide 11 residential dwellings and associated works.

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

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

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Responding to a question about the affordable housing on site, the Planning Officer advised that the affordable housing unit would be secured in perpetuity by the Section 106 legal agreement and a registered provider from our approved provider list had indicated interest in taking the unit.

The Head of Development Management added that the affordable housing unit could not be disposed of on the open market, so if the registered provider did not want to continue managing the unit they would not be able to sell it as a private unit, it would be restricted by the terms of the Section 106 Agreement and would have to continue to be affordable housing.

On being put to the vote, it was unanimously in favour of the officer recommendation

RESOLVED –

THAT Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions and Section 106 obligations, as set out in the agenda.

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

Application no: 2024/1193/P      Officer: Brendan Versluys

Proposal: Erection of 4 storey building to provide 15 self-contained flats at ground, first, second and third floor levels and office use at ground floor level, following demolition of existing MOT repair garage and hand car wash.

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

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

On being put to the vote, it was unanimously in favour of the officer recommendation

RESOLVED –

THAT Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions and Section 106 obligations, as set out in the agenda.

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

Application no: 2024/1039/P      Officer: Daren Zuk

Proposal: Erection of single-storey roof extensions to the five properties comprising Darwin Court to provide new residential units (Class C3). Associated works including accessibility enhancements, fire safety upgrades, waste and refuse store enhancements, landscaping and other works.

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

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

The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised that a late submission had been received from a ward councillor objecting to the application. The representation raised concern about construction impacts, compensation for residents and the spending of any affordable housing payment. 

The Committee viewed a model of the site, the Committee discussed the following points:

·       Officers identified for Members the location of Cecil Sharp House and 15 to 31 Gloucester Avenue.

·       Members were shown the proposed roof extension on the model and officers indicated that there was an extension proposed on each of the five blocks.

·       In response to a question regarding the construction methodology, Members were informed that the developer intended to do a sequenced modular build to minimise disruption to residents.

·       Members sought more information on trees, Construction Working groups (CWG) and Construction Management Plans. 

Responding to questions, Planning Officers provided the following information:

·       Surveys, such as structural surveys and asbestos surveys, would typically be undertaken after planning permission was granted, as part of building regulation processes.

·       An £8000 construction bond was considered sufficient for this site as it was an application for a rooftop extension, and did not have more complex build elements like basement construction.

·       The consultation summary in the report outlined the responses to the statutory consultation and referenced the 149 letters of objection that were received as part of the consultation process. The issues that were raised by those objections were highlighted within the report.

·       Furthermore, the supplementary agenda listed further written submissions, including an objection letter submitted by a Ward Councillor.

·       The establishment of a CWG would be required as a Head of Term within the Section 106 legal agreement and would need to be in place prior to the commencement of construction, as set out in the supplementary agenda.

·       Having this requirement in the Section 106 agreement meant that the Planning Authority could intervene if this obligation was not met.

·       Affordable housing on site was usually prioritised, however, when considering this application, it was determined that a payment in lieu was more appropriate.

·       This was due to the development being roof extensions on existing buildings. Registered housing providers usually seek units that have separate entrances so that the properties can be managed separately from private housing, this was important in terms of affordability.

·       A viability assessment was submitted by the applicant, which was audited by BPS, which found that the development was in deficit and an affordable housing contribution could not be provided. It suggested that instead, the scheme should be subject to a late-stage review of viability.

·       However, following negotiation with the applicant it was agreed that a payment in lieu of £500,000 would be taken upfront, rather than pursue a late-stage viability assessment.

The applicant responded to questions, setting out their view as follows:

·       A viability report had been submitted as part of the planning application, despite it not being a requirement, which had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7(5)

There was none.