Transcript

Transcript

Can we start the live stream and the recording please? Good evening everyone and welcome to Hackney Council's planning subcommittee meeting. I am Councillor Jessica Webb and I will be chairing this evening's meeting. This meeting will be recorded and is being live streamed on YouTube. Members taking part in voting this evening are present here in the council chamber. Welcome to any members of the public and press who join us this evening at this meeting. For anyone joining the meeting remotely via Google Meet, there is a chat function. However, please note it is to only raise IT related issues. As chair of the subcommittee, I will not be monitoring it. Meeting participants are reminded to turn their mobile phones off or put on silent and please behave yourselves. In the event of an internet outage, we will adjourn the meeting and come back and continue once resolved. Apologies, this is a bit different to how we usually work. Cameras normally do the whole thing, so we've just moved it all around a little bit, but we are quite functional tonight. Fellow planning subcommittee members, can you please introduce yourselves? Good evening, Councillor Ifrit-Samatar for Goa Ward. Good evening, Councillor Michael Desmond, Hackney Downs Ward. Councillor Michael Levy, Springfield Ward. Thank you very much. Now, as you all see, we've got various council officers present at this meeting. So what I'm going to ask is when you speak, please just say your name and your position so that people will know who is talking. Thank you very much. So people who are going to speak have already contacted us and we do have representatives from the applicants in attendance. Planning committee members, if you need to ask any questions. But I understand that there are no objectors who have registered to speak on the applications before us this evening. So I need to go through how this meeting will proceed. We will hear each planning application in turn summarized by the planning officer. We will then hear up to a five minute statement from the applicant. Members of the committee will be free to ask questions of all the officers or the applicant. Now, my role is chair. I will endeavor to ensure that all members of the committee have everything they need to make a decision. Applicants have the opportunity to set their case and that the meeting is efficiently run. We haven't got people here, but I will not be taking any contributions from the floor because you have not registered to speak. Subcommittee members are not representing either their wards or the political parties. Members will have to make the decisions on the basis of site visits that they have made, what we have read in the application report and what we hear tonight. We must make any decision on an application in accordance with the council's development plans, our local plan, the London plan, and less relevant material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Subcommittee members are reminded not to take into account or discuss non-material planning matters. When taking a decision, members should not have allowed themselves to prejudice any application prior to this meeting. Similarly, if a member has any interests relating to an application of the meeting, they must consider whether that interest ought to be disclosed. And where appropriate, they must withdraw from the meeting while the application is discussed and voted on. When we have finished our deliberations on the planning application, I will read out the recommendation as set out in the published application report. And then members will vote on the recommendation by raising their hand. When the decision is made, that is normally the end of the matter for the subcommittee. The applicant may appeal our decision. If we had objectors in present, they may seek legal address. And we will now go to the published agenda, beginning with agenda item one, apologies for absence. The ones that we have received are Councillors Joseph, Councillors Garcia, and Councillor Rout. I also had received one from Councillor Noel Cross, who now has to attend another meeting. So can we note those four apologies, please? Any others to note? I can't see anything else. Thank you very much. Item two, declarations of interest. Do members have any interest they wish to declare? I see none. Thank you very much. Agenda item three, to consider any proposals referred to the subcommittee by the Council's monitoring officer, and none have been received. In reference to agenda item four, minutes of the previous meeting, we do not have any to consider tonight. This is due to our staff member being off, and so we will be doing two sets of minutes at the next meeting. I hope that's okay with everyone. Right, let's move to the first meeting agenda item, which is agenda item five, 2024 1490 Harvest House Leeside Road. Which officers are represented? Naked by the deputy team leader of the majors team. Excuse me, I'm just sharing the screen, and I just got an error message. Okay, thank you very much. When you are ready. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Looking south, the surrounding context is of predominantly light industrial uses with some residential development, particularly on land to the south of the River Lee. In townscape terms, the overall massing of buildings and the localities between two and six stories. The elevator train line to Clapton is located to the west of the site. Sites located within a priority industrial area is within the Lee Valley archaeological priority area, but is not a conservation area and does not contain a listed building. As per the extant approval, the demolition of the existing building is not objected to. This photo shows recent residential buildings to the west. The view down Thaydon Road shows the industrial nature of much of the context. The canal path is quite narrow and overshadowed by the riverside trees. The largely blank elevation at ground floor level can be seen here. And the residential windows of the modern building mount side walk in the foreground. The rear of the existing building can be seen in this image between the modern blocks. The proposal would improve the architecture of the elevations from the extant approval and would increase the scale of this elevation fronting Thaydon Road to a height of seven stories. All of the additional units of the scheme were proposed to be affordable housing. This is eight additional units which would be provided in the shared ownership tenure. It should also mean that all of the units on this southern core would be affordable housing, thereby improving the development's attractiveness to registered providers. On the elevation fronting the River Lee, the overall height would remain the same at six stories. The roadside elevation shows a development that's a story taller than its nearest immediate neighbour, but which is considered to be an acceptable response to the context of the street. We find that this River Lee elevation improves upon the design of the approved scheme. The side elevations help understand the proposed massing. Here Thaydon Road is to the right of the picture. It can be seen how the roadside elevation is taller than the riverside elevation. And here Thaydon Road is to the left of the picture. For context, these next slides show comparisons between the elevations of the extant scheme on the left with the current proposals on the right. This is the front elevation, and the approved four stories on the left can be compared to the seven stories proposed on the right which will contain the affordable housing. On the riverside elevation, the height could be seen to be the same, albeit that the image on the right has the top of the Thaydon Road part shown slightly greyed out above. The overall architectural approach is considered to have simplified and improved the elevations. On this comparison image, the Thaydon Road elevation is shown to the right. As can be seen, changes to the architecture include slight differences in massing. Nevertheless, the internal layouts are similar and the housing mix is considered to be acceptable despite the fact that the additional units are mostly one or two bedrooms. Here the Thaydon Road elevation is shown on the left of both images. The floor plans show the proposed uses and layouts. This is the ground floor plan. Proposal is three commercial floors with the same floor space and layout as previously approved. These are accessed from Thaydon Road. The whole ground floor commercial unit would be affordable workspace, as befits this PIA location. This represents 15% of the employment floor space in perpetuity. Residential units are shown to the right. This represents 15% of the employment floor space in perpetuity. Residential units are shown to the rear, facing the river at this floor. They are accessed via the undercroft to the front, as per the approved arrangement. The condition is recommended to require a mural artwork within the undercroft, as is shown on the submitted drawings. To the front, residential and commercial cycle parking is shown. Space is tight and there is a slight shortfall of residential cycle spaces where 64 rather than 70 would be provided. However, the high-quality gas-assisted two-steer spaces that are recommended by condition means the provision is considered acceptable in this instance. As per the committee report, proposed works outside of the red line boundary are limited to essential highways works in order to ensure that the scheme remains viable. Three on-street disabled parking bays would be provided, located within 50 metres of the entrance. A year's membership to a car club would be made available for new residents to help ingrain sustainable travel. In transport terms, subject to the recommended conditions and legal agreement clauses described in the committee report, those are considered acceptable. At first floor level, you can see the commercial floor space to the front and further residential units to the rear. There's a similar arrangement at this second floor, final level with commercial floor space. From the third floor upwards, the layout is of affordable housing to the front with the private residue to the rear. In all 14 units of affordable housing are provided, six social rented units as per the approval and eight new units of shared ownership, which is all the additional unit provided by this scheme. The fourth floor is similar to the third. Overall, the committee report describes how the proposed standard of accommodation has been found to be acceptable. At the fifth level, the massing is stepped back from the adjoining building to the west. At the sixth floor, the massing reduces again, forming a landscape communal terrace accessible by the affordable units. And at root level, a biodiverse roof and photovoltaic panels are provided. In terms of amenity impacts, much of the context is industrial, but there are residential buildings to the west and east. The adjacent building to the west has a blank elevation directly facing the proposal, and at four stories it blocks a view with much of the proposal from its neighbour further west. The adjacent building to the east faces two ends of the U shape of the proposal. At this property, facing windows at ground and first floors have their daylight significantly impacted. At these properties are eight maisonettes that have the majority of their aspect looking away from the proposal site, with only one habitable room, a bedroom, at each property facing this development. As such, the committee report finds that the daylight, sunlight, outlook and enclosure impacts of the development are acceptable. In terms of overlooking and condition requiring balcony screening facing east is recommended, which ensures that this is also acceptable. In terms of sustainability, the excellent scheme remains a consideration, since it could be built out in its approved form. In this respect, we note that in comparison, the proposed development has improved fabric performance levels, more renewable electricity generation, and that it replaces gas boilers with ASHP. The overall carbon savings have been increased from 27% to 63% against Part L 2021. The non-residential units will achieve a BREEAM excellent rating, and as such the scheme is compliant with Hackney and London Plan energy policies and should be approved in these terms. Looking at biodiversity, the submitted urban greening factor calculations demonstrate that the proposed UGF is 0.33, which is considered acceptable on this tight site. The applicants have provided biodiverse planting at ground and sixth floor level communal areas, along with a green roof at the top floor. The condition has been recommended to ensure that the proposal would not have any impact on neighbouring trees lying in the canal. To conclude, the proposed application is considered acceptable in respect to relevant policies in comparison to the EXTAN consent. The architecture of the façade is considered to be improved. The commercial and affordable workspace is appropriate for the priority industrial area, while the uplift in residential floor space provides solely affordable housing, improving the public benefits of the scheme. As is detailed in the committee report, in these and other respects the scheme is considered acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions in the legal agreement. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee. I will try to spare you five whole minutes of speech today, just to note that we're very pleased to bring this application and to seek advice from the committee. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the committee. I will try to spare you five whole minutes of speech today, just to note that we're very pleased to bring this application and to seek permission for something that is very, very similar in nearly every regard to the existing consented scheme, but with the affordable housing uplift that was described by the officer. Madam Chair, if I may, I'm happy to use the balance of my time to answer any questions the members may have. Okay, committee, any questions? Councillor Desperate. So this is a very important area, not that far from where I live where I sometimes wander along aimlessly looking at swans, although very rarely listening to the ballet that I should be listening to while washing them going down the River Lee. Aesthetically, it's very important that it's built to a high standard. And also, I'm concerned about how close it will be to the river. I think the Faden Roadside is fine. How close will it actually be to the river? And will the appearance of it, as you walk down and many people jog, many people ride cycles, will it be aesthetically pleasing and what is the actual brick or cladding? I hope you're not using cladding that you intend to use. Thank you, sir. So from the beginning, the design approach has been to ensure that the views from the marshes are and from the River Walk itself are in accordance with the remainder of the townscape that has already been redeveloped for residential uses. And if I could note one of the images in the officer's presentation of the existing site context, you'll see that the building to the right, if you're looking at the site from the tow path, has one back actually, Nick, that's all right. You'll see that in the other direction, but you'll see that in the photos from the tow path that the building to the right that's been built out has residential units that have windows immediately adjacent to the pathway. One of the design improvements that we discussed and agreed with officers in this application is to have a defensible plan to boundary along that for both for the people on the path, but then also for the residents. Yeah, so this is a useful drawing, but I also, when I first heard the question, I brought this one up because it's quite instructive. This is the consented scheme on the left, the ground floor you can see is right up against the tow path, whereas on the ground floor on the proposed there's a setback with some planting in. It's not a huge setback, but it is more of a setback than the one they could build tomorrow. And if I may then about the materiality, it is a brick finish. I'm also not a fan of cladding. All right, well that sounds as though there is an improvement because that image you showed, which I frequently wonder about, the windows are not really well situated, so that's quite good. So do you know exactly how many feet or meters it will be from the river, or you don't know? It's going to be, as the officer said, it is a modest setback. I think probably about a meter at its greatest point in the middle of the drawing there at the top. Okay. I have Councillor Levy. Thank you, Chair. Can I ask the officer on Garlingham which one is it? Yeah, 6.3. Yes. I'm just trying to understand why the REAP advice would not be acceptable on the river frontage to increase the height beyond six stories. I thought perhaps logic would lead me to say the opposite to be true. So it's not a reduction on that side. It's exactly the same height at 27 meters. I think that we are quite careful of that view from metropolitan urban land through out of the canal. There was a lot of discussion about that. So it's not a reduction on that side. It's exactly the same height at 27 meters. I think that we are quite careful of that view from metropolitan urban land through out of the canal. There are very few buildings of more than six stories. So my design officer can speak to it further, but I think from an early stage we were keen that it didn't increase that much on that side. In terms of stadium road, if I take you to maybe a useful existing photograph I've got here, these are industrial units and there's a road directly in front of it as well. In terms of stadium road, if I take you to maybe a useful existing photograph I've got here, these are industrial units and there's a road directly in front of it as well. In terms of stadium road, if I take you to maybe a useful existing photograph I've got here, these are industrial units and there's a road directly in front of it as well. In terms of stadium road, if I take you to maybe a useful existing photograph I've got here, these are industrial units and there's a road directly in front of it as well. So overlooking shouldn't be that much of a problem from this side. And as you can see the context, we consider that the context can take something of certain stories from this side. Councillor Semitore. Sorry. Hi, I'm going to pretend, and I need you to be with me, that 2022 was yesterday, therefore I'm newly elected and this old jargon is a bit much, so work with me. When I was going through this layout, the presentation over there and all the information over here, I'm trying to simplify it as much as I can in order to understand it. So the commercial use as well as residential use as well as so many different things that's going into this and the demolition of the current building, simplify that for me and people watching at home. When you're the current place, what's happening right now? Are there people living there? Are there businesses over there? Would they be impacted? What does that mean? And in terms of the, first of all answer that bit, then I'll answer the second bit. I hope it makes sense. So the approved scheme has been implemented, so you could knock down that existing building tomorrow, but at the moment it's only been implemented by knocking a little awning down at the front, so it is still working. It's a workplace. I haven't gone in and had to look around it to find out exactly what they're doing. It's a light industrial sort of automotive garage. It's a light industrial unit. So given that we're not objecting to the demolition of the building, but it is a priority industrial area, what we're looking to do next is put in an amount of commercial floor space that's essentially the most that we can get. That was established at the time of the previous permission to be a certain level. If you look at the screen here, you've got the ground floor on the left-hand side. That's the commercial where you see the tables. The tables are indicative only. And the next one, you've got residential at the top and the rest of it is commercial. Can you see how it's working off the same core effectively? And then on this second floor, you've got exactly the same layout of the commercial effectively with the residential behind. All of those residential units facing the river, they're all private units. Then when you get to the third floor, can you see how there's two cores serving each? So at the top, you've got the private units all on one core. And at the bottom, you've got a separate core for all of the residential units on this southern side. And they're all of the affordable units effectively. Is that what you were after? That was brilliant. Thank you so much. And the next part was, again, where we've simplified for different territory. You explained the affordable housing section as well as social housing section for the commercial parts of the building. Please break that down a bit for me. So if I go back, the ground floor is the affordable workspace. The policy requires 10 percent to be provided at a discount in perpetuity. In this case, it's 15 percent. And that's largely because of the way the building works. You couldn't really divide that up any further. But that's more than policy compliant. And then it's really helpful to have a separate core for affordable units because it makes them more attractive to a registered provider. On this development, they were going up at the front. And it would have been really difficult to attract a registered provider to run these affordable units that you see running off the core to the front. If all of these new units hadn't been affordable and they have agreed to make all of the units affordable, two different types of affordable. At first, there was six social rented units as approved. All of the new units are shared ownership units. That's still a good offer, we think, considering. All happy? I think those are all the questions. I just want to say before. Oh, yeah, go on. Councillor Levy, go on. Sorry, again, can I refer to 6.6.6 in terms of, I'll be honest with mine, of course, in terms of blue badge parking. I wasn't very contented that it got three. Can you confirm there are actually three new places rather than a reduction of existing parking, which is already constrained on the site along Leeside? And I wouldn't like to see residents lose three more places. That's noted. We'll look at it. These are spaces that will be created when we've had a look at the park and sign management plan and gone through it to find them. I mean, if that can be sort of, you know, register that. Residents shouldn't lose out on the fact that new blue badge places are being provided, but not at the expense of residents who are already trying to find parking spots, which they've paid for, to reduce any further. I don't know if our transport officer knows exactly how many potential spaces there are down there. Conversion is common and we would have to have a look at it. Joe, do you know that? I think, Councillor Levy, it's a good question. I think, as Nick says, we'll very much know your concern and we can liaise with the council's parking team on that. Yeah, absolutely. Off the top of my head, I'm not overly aware, but we can endeavour to find out for you. What you might find, just as an aside, there are cars spilling out from the existing unit. There's some space in the, just before the unit, when I was there on site before, I did notice that it seemed like maybe some spaces were already taken up. Are you happy with that? All right. Thank you. Yeah. If we're satisfied that we have asked all our questions, can I just bring the committee's attention to the addendum on this? So the recommendation would be grant planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement, but also incorporating this addendum note regarding drainage. Yeah. So including that. So can I see those in favour? Please show. There you go. Carried unanimously. Thank you. All right. Let's move to the next agenda item, please. That's agenda item six. So are we having some movement? This is 2023 1361 Vince Street. So do we have the applicants for that? Yes. Crowd there. Do you want to move in and fill that block, please, in the middle? Okay. So are we all good? Yeah. Everyone happy? Right. Let's crack on. Agenda item six, one Vince Street and 2292338 Old Street. Robert, are you introducing this? I am, yes. Yeah, my name is Rob Brew. I'm the team leader of the major applications team covering for the case officer who's fortunate enough to be on holiday today. This is the site. You can see it's quite a narrow site on the north side of Old Street, quite close to Old Street roundabout. The south side of Old Street here is actually within the London Borough of Islington. Here's the site as it is present. The two story pink building is a bar and there are three single story units which we take away use. I would point out the, you can see the blank wall to the north of the site. That's the residential building to the north of the site. And you can see that there aren't actually any windows in that elevation, which is helpful in terms of impact on amenity. This is looking from the north, the view of the rear of the site. The two story building there isn't painted pink at the back. You can't really see the single story buildings behind the garages. If I can ask the committee to note the shiny silver glass building, the Inmarsap building, which is on the south side of the road in Islington. It's going to become relevant later on. This was a scheme that was granted planning permission in 2017, a 10 story residential scheme. The current proposal is for a 14 story. Note that the the elevational design has changed since this image was produced, but it's useful one to compare the two. You can see we've gone from 10 stories to 14 stories and the site has got a little bit bigger by the inclusion of those single story units. But in the intervening period, Islington has granted planning permission for this 36 story office building where that shiny glass Inmarsap building is. So you can see that the context around the site has changed significantly. So the additional four stories is not considered to be a concern in landscape terms, which is different from the decision we reached in 2017. This is a bit difficult to see. You can see faintly there's the blue lines. This is an image taken from the townscape assessment for that office building. But you can see in the bottom left hand corner, there's an element of the two story bar poking out and the silver building opposite. So you can see that it does form part of the immediate context of the site. It's not a distant tower. This is going to be literally over the road. Here's the proposed ground floor. On the right hand side is the main office reception. On the left hand side is a refuse to another ancillary accommodation, plus a separate commercial unit that fronts onto Old Street, providing some active frontage, which is welcome there. This also shows some of the public realm improvements that are being provided outside the site and will be subject to a section 106 should the committee decide to grant permission. This is the basement cycle stores. They're proposing 72 spaces, half of which are two tier, which is not single tier is better, but you can see that there are space limitations. And also we want to make sure that the showering facilities and other support facilities provided, but they do include some space for large bikes, cargo bikes and the like. Moving to the upper floors. This is the floor plan at first to fourth floor levels. Overall, the scheme would provide 3,600 square meters of offices, which includes 412 square meters of affordable workspace, which is 11%, which is above the target. Overall, the scheme would provide 3,600 square meters of offices, which includes 412 square meters of affordable workspace, which is 11%, which is above the target of 10%. And then on the upper floors, fifth to 13th floor, there's a setback. You can see this little garden there on one of the roofs. And on the top, there's a roof plant. And then on top of the roof plant, there's a deck, which accommodates the TV panels and air source heat pumps. The sustainability credentials of the scheme are quite good. It achieves a 39% carbon saving, which exceeds the 35% target. But it doesn't meet the net zero emission aspirations. Therefore, there is carbon offsetting contribution sought through the legal agreement. Here's the main elevation facing Old Street. There's the facing materials of bricks of different colors, the details of which are reserved by condition, because we'd like to have a look at the colors to make sure they're sympathetic to the area. This is the north elevation facing towards the residential buildings to the north of Old Street. Here's a townscape view taken from the Old Street roundabout. There you can see the silver glass box that is the Inmarsep building on the right hand side stretches all the way to the roundabout. Here's a view taken from the north, from the junction of Vint Street and Cranwood Street. And you could see the residential building to the north. That's the one that had the blank wall facing the site. The proposal has very little impact on the residents of this building because their windows basically faced east and west, and they're not particularly affected by the proposal. That's not the case for the other buildings, though. The ones which are faced north-south, they will be affected. But you can see this image is taken from the 3D model in the Sunlight and Daylight report. But there is a cutaway there, which is really helpful in terms of sunlight and daylight. So the nearest residential building to the northwest is the Cholden House. The report suggests that 40% of the windows facing south would experience a noticeable loss in sunlight and daylight, but they retain decent levels of sunlight and daylight so that the amenity of the occupiers is not considered to be harmed. So it's a noticeable loss, but not a harmful loss. They do retain enough sunlight and daylight for normal residential activities. And here's the view that most people would get of the site, east and west. This is a landscape view taken from the east on Old Street. Just on the left-hand side you can see the Art Hotel, which has been constructed on the northern end of Great Eastern Street. So you can see in these views, it's quite slender, fairly elegant kind of building. And that's the view that most people will get from the east and the west. So the scheme is considered to be a good scheme. The site is within the central activity zone, where commercial uses are encouraged, and it provides an entirely commercial scheme. It's considered to be acceptable, subject to various conditions and our planning obligations to go into a legal agreement, and in those terms it's recommended for approval. Thank you. Applicants, you have up to five minutes. Should you wish to use them? Do introduce yourself when you start. Thank you. Oh, sorry, pressing the wrong button, apologies. I'd just like to just point out in the presentation, one of the visuals was a previous visual of the scheme that was presented at an earlier pre-application meeting. Hopefully it's quite clear in the later images that it is actually a brick building design now, and it has changed quite a bit since the earlier images, so just wanted to clarify. So we understand that there are no objectors registered to speak in opposition, so we'll just keep this quick. We just wanted to confirm that on behalf of our client, H Company 2 Limited, who own the site, that they are committed to delivering the scheme and the significant public benefits associated with the development. This includes contribution of over 3,700 square metres of high quality office floor space in a location designated for this use by council policy. Over 10% of affordable workspace at 60% of market rates. Activation and enhancement of the streetscape, including flexible commercial unit at ground floor. Creation of up to 215 new end user jobs plus additional jobs during the construction period. Public realm improvements to Staff Street at the rear. A new safe pedestrian crossing point at the junction of Vince Street and Old Street through provision of tactile paving and a raised threshold to slow vehicles. And ecological enhancements, including 100% biodiversity net gain through the use of bio-solar roofs and new tree planting. As well as insect hotels, bird boxes and bat boxes, which have been incorporated into the facade design. The design has been developed through significant pre-application discussions with Hackney offices, the GLA, and has been taken to a design review panel. We believe the proposals which have been designed taking inspiration from the rich urban context of the surrounding area will contribute greatly to this part of Hackney. We've got some members of the applicant team here as well who can answer any questions. Thank you. Okay, open to the committee. Councillor Desmond. So we don't very often see any swans around Old Street roundabouts. It's a very different location, although it's good that we have such a diverse borough. There has been an extremely large number of applications recently, and I went with my sister on a sentimental journey. My father was born in Hoxton to see some of the regeneration. It's generally okay, but there are some aspects of concern. This is not particularly one that would worry me, but I did want to clarify a position about the existing bar. There was a scene rather reminiscent of 12 Angry Men with Henry Fonda when Hammerson, 12 or 14 years ago, wanted to get rid of the light bar in Shoreditch for a large development by Liverpool Street Station. And that had extreme historic connotations. It was the original engine room for the station. And we in the end objected. Hammerson said that was that and the scheme wouldn't happen. But six months later, they came back and the light bar is still there. So the first thing I wanted to ask is, is this particular bar that's going to go going to in any way participate or the owners or the clientele in the new development? Have you had discussions with them? And how long has that particular building been a bar? So at the time that the site is developed, our applicant is committed to speaking with all existing tenants about firstly, if they would be interested in relocation to a different area of Shoreditch, which our client does own a lot of property in the area. But also just to note that in the new development, there will be a flexible commercial floor space at ground floor, which does include provision for an A4, sorry, a sui generis use, which does allow four bar uses. I mean, it is a lot smaller in floor space, but something like a wine bar, we would think would be appropriate. I saw that. So that's helpful. So I wouldn't want that amenity to be lost in terms of the occupancy once it's built. Are you looking at one large company to take the building or are you looking for several? Or what is the intention? Because we're concerned in Hackney to have the widest range of potential businesses. And obviously there are only a limited number of businesses that could afford to rent a substantial building like this. So the floor space has been designed so it can be fully flexible in terms of any incoming tenant needs. So that could be floor by floor tenants. And it has been designed in that way. So there's a kitchenette and there's access arrangements and everything per floor. So it would just depend on any incoming tenants and what they require. There's been a bit of marketing evidence as well undertaken about the size of units. And we understand that there are a lot of small and medium enterprises that would be looking. So these sort of areas that we're looking in terms of each floor space would be quite appropriate. That's fine. And finally, because it's about six stories and obviously we're very concerned about fire safety. To what extent is it going to be accessible for appliances in God forbid the event of there being a fire? And has this been looked into to make sure that there will be adequate coverage from the London Fire Service should such a situation arise? So the Fire Brigade has reviewed our fire report and confirmed that they have no objections to it. There is access to the site from the rear on Staff Street for a fire engine to pull up and access the building. And we provide two stair cores for firefighting purposes as well. Perhaps I could add a little to expand on those answers for you Councillor Desmond. In terms of the light bar at the principal place, that was definitely a building of heritage value. Here the heritage value is negligible. The building, the bar, the existing bar is a cocktail bar. It used to be a pub many years ago, but the cocktail bar is not any asset of community value or anything along those lines. So the actual existing use is not something that we consider to be worthy of retention. Although of course the agent is correct, the existing, the proposed ground floor commercial unit could be operated as a bar. A bit of a long thin bar, but they work just as well as others. You mentioned also the occupier, who the occupier would be, just to ensure the committee are under no illusions. This is not a material consideration, maybe of interest, but it's not material to reaching the planning decision. And then finally, the fire escape, they have submitted an escape plan, which is all fully compliant. And then it happens, it's right next door to a fire station, but that's not relevant. Hopefully that's helpful comments. Thank you for that clarification, I appreciate it. I need the other councillors. Just to kind of quickly follow up on the question about, we might not need to know who the occupiers are, exactly that kind of question. Why? And can we please, if for example, the checks and balances, we're talking about 3,700 office spaces. And how do we know the people who are using those, in terms of crime, in terms of like different things? I'm thinking TV episodes here. How do we make sure that there's adequate checks and balances done? Yeah, it's an established planning principle that we're involved in the use, not use that. So when we're granting planning permission for a house, we're not considered who's going to be living there. In the same way that when we're granting planning permission for an office, we're not considering which business may be occupying it. What we have is policies to make sure that the standard of accommodation is good, that it's suitable for a wide variety of commercial occupiers. And they've picked all those boxes, they've met those policy objectives well here. So there are very rare instances where a particular occupier may be, I don't know, maybe a museum or a theatre or something which is intrinsic to the actual occupier themselves. Then it becomes a relevant planning consideration. But for the vast majority of uses, it's the use we're considering rather than who the individuals are going to be occupying it, because that is beyond planning control anyway. Thank you. Councillor Levy, did you want to say something? Any questions? Yes, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Can I just touch upon 6.3.12? I noticed the officer's comments about there is considered a scope for additional height of that currently approved. Just wondered whether there are any plans afoot to utilize that consideration. And if so, would there be an impact on the sunlight daylight calculations that we've currently had? In other words, how much extra height could be supported without detriment to daylight and sunlight, things that are approved already because there are difficulties currently. And would it suddenly become a, in theory, one could add some height to the existing building, but the cost of lots of light would be that which would not necessarily be supported ultimately. I just wondered what the balance is. Thank you. I think the reference is to the previous 2017 scheme, which was a residential scheme and was at 10 stories, which at the time was considered to be the maximum height suitable for the site. But I pointed out that in the meantime, it's never proved this over the road that changes the context considerably. And this noted that the elevation of treatment has changed. But this is a good image because it gives a more direct comparison between the two. So the reference, I think, is that the proposal before the committee this evening is four stories taller than the one that was previously granted planning permission. But I mentioned the context has changed, so there's a townscape justification. Any additional increase in height would require a new application to be made, which we would consider on its merits in the future. The Sunlight and Daylight has been tested for this building as it's proposed, as it's before the committee. Okay, committee, if we have no more further questions, then I look forward to a vote. So the recommendation summary is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement. Those in favor, please show. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, if we move to agenda item seven, twenty twenty four, nineteen forty four, thirty one, Lockhurst Street. It's a bit of a smaller application than the previous one. Thanks for laughing. But it will be explained. You got Jonathan? Yeah. Okay, so I feel like Jonathan's first time presentation. If everyone's ready, let's have agenda item seven. Thank you very much. Hi, I'm Jonathan Bainbridge. I'm the planner for this application. I do apologize about my voice. I keep losing it today, so I hope it will last. So good evening, Chair and good evening, members. Item seven seeks all planning permission for the replacement of the existing boundary wall with the new boundary wall and the installation of a bike and bin stall within the front garden at 31 Lockhurst Street in Clapton, London. The application site located on the southern side of Lockhurst Street highlighted here in red. There are no locally or statuary listed buildings in the surrounding area, and the site is not within a conservation area. The application site is situated in a terrace with two storey lake Victorian properties and consists of a mid-terrace property. Currently, the site is undergoing renovation works and the existing front boundary treatment comprises a relatively low cement wall. The wall requires replacement as it's badly damaged and is in a derelict state. This presents a public health and safety issue. The surrounding area is characterized by residential housing, predominantly of two storeys, constructed in brick with sash windows similar to that of the application site. The surrounding front boundary treatments along Lockhurst Street are varied in style, materials, and height, some of which contain front garden refuse and recycle storage. Here are further examples of refuse and recycle storage of varying sizes and materials located in the front gardens along Lockhurst Street. The proposed bike and bin store is to be located within the front garden. The proposed bin store would enclose two wheeler bins and the proposed bike storage would have width of approximately two meters. A 300 millimeter green roof will be installed on the top of the storage unit. This will help soften the visual impact of the works when viewed from the street and provide biodiversity through the provision of presentation. This is the street elevation view. The storage unit would be constructed of large timber battens. Officers consider this an acceptable material that would be in keeping with the existing storage units located on Lockhurst Street. The proposed new brick wall would measure approximately one meters in height and would be approximately 3.9 meters wide. Replacing the badly damaged wall would significantly enhance the aesthetics of the site and improve local health and safety. A condition is attached to ensure materials match. The side elevation showed that the height would be approximately 1.1 meters along the front street boundary line rising to 1.45 meters. Overall, officers consider the proposed bike bin store and new front boundary wall would be suitable additions to the host building, which would not appear as overbearing or dominant additions to the property and would be in accordance with relevant policies. The proposal would not adversely impact any neighbouring residential immunity as the size and location of the works being situated a sufficient distance from neighbouring windows would not result in adverse overshadowing, outwork or sense of enclosure impacts. For these reasons, officers consider the proposal to be recommended for approval. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Just saying, well done on your first presentation. That was really good. I wouldn't go on the X Factor with that, but I'm sure it'll do well elsewhere. We have no one speaking in support or no objectors. It is as set out in accordance with our terms of reference and that's why it's come here. So if we're okay to move straight to the vote committee, those in favor, please show. Thank you very much. Lovely. Thank you. So we haven't quite finished committee. Don't get too excited. So delegated decisions, please note the delegated decisions that are attached to the agenda. No comments. Lovely. Thank you very much. Agenda item nine. Any other business I have considered urgent? Nothing has come to me. I'm not bringing anything and I can't see any AOB coming from here. Although I would say that we do have a get roll card for Gareth. So please do sign that if you want to do that. And please note that the next meeting is on Wednesday. Are we having a pre app as well on the 20th? No, no. I just wonder why that was there. Then if not, please note that the next four meetings on Wednesday, the 4th of December. And with that, I declare this meeting closed. Thank you very much.