Transcript

My name's Councillor Ruth Hayes, I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. Please note, we're not expecting a fire alarm test this evening, so if the alarm is sounded, please follow my instructions and evacuate the building. I'll start by asking my fellow members and the officers here to introduce themselves, starting on my right. Councillor Sabi-North, St. Peter's and Canalside Ward. Councillor Martin Clute, St. Peter's and Canalside Ward. Councillor Shreya Nanda, Hill-Rose Ward. Councillor Penelope, Nulli Hamdash, Highbury Ward. Siobhan McHill, Planning Applications Team Manager. Land Baker, Assistant Director of Development Management. Luke Bates, Deputy Team Manager on the Planning Applications Team. Mark Davis, Planning Officer. Guy Feng, Planning Officer. Laura Avery, Legal Advisor. Emma Taylor, Clark to the Committee. Thank you very much, indeed. Firstly, have we any apologies for absence? I understand, Councillor Clark. And any declarations of substitute members? Councillor North, thank you. Any declarations of interest? So, we move to the order of business. As Chair, I have discretion to bring forward items or to vary the order of the agenda where there's a lot of public interest. So, if there are many objections to an application, I'll request that you keep it concise and to time to ensure it's there for everybody who wants to be able to speak on any of the applications. For procedural reasons, we'll be taking item 4B, which is 33 to 37 Corsica Street, as the first item of business. But I will ask for a show of hands as to who's here for each of the items, and then we will order the others. So, can I see anybody who's here to speak in relation to B1? That's either as an objector or in support of the application, which is the Archway Leisure Centre. Thank you very much. So, that's three people. Those in attendance wishing to speak on Shirling Way. Thank you very much. I think... Is that some... Yeah. The item B3, the penthouse flat at Coleman Fields. Just one? Thank you. And those who are here for 33 to 37 Corsica Street. So, that's two, five, six, seven, five, five, six, seven. Thank you very much. In that case, we will start, once we move on to the applications, with B4 Corsica Street. We will then take Shirling Way, then the Archway Leisure Centre, and then Coleman Fields. Our first item is item A6, the minutes of the last meeting. Can I ask if the committee agrees the minutes of the previous meeting? Thank you very much. I'd ask... We've got a very good attendance here tonight. I would ask people to note that this is not a public meeting. It's a meeting of the committee held in public. And so, all remarks need to come through the chair, and I can only take people when they have been called to speak. For each item, we'll be introduced by a planning officer. Committee members may then ask questions of the officer. Objectors will then be invited to speak, followed by the applicant. The objectors and applicant are normally allowed to speak for no more than three minutes each. There is a timer, so speakers will be able to see how long they have remaining. After the objectors have spoken, the applicants will have the same length of time to reply. It's on the practice to take up to three objectors with three minutes each. The applicant then has up to nine minutes to respond. Then the committee will discuss the application. Only those invited to speak at this stage will be allowed to do so. So, that will be for the committee to discuss what they have heard. When the committee has finished its deliberations, I shall read out the officer recommendations and proceed to a vote. Once the vote has been taken, there can be no further discussion of that item. So, we will move to item B4. I would just like to highlight to people that the committee considered this application on the 18th of June 2024 and resolved to grant planning permissions subject to conditions and a legal agreement. Since that previous committee meeting, a detailed letter has been received by the planning department that raises concerns with the assessment of the application with regard to trees. Given the previous resolution of the committee and the nature of the concerns raised, I'm proposing to the committee that we can find discussions tonight to the issues set out in the addendum report and do not reopen matters that were previously considered and they were considered in some considerable detail. There is an obligation on the committee to be consistent in its decision-making and bearing that in mind, speakers may wish to tailor their representations in the light of that. Also, for that reason, this item will be considered by the councillors who considered it previously, which are myself, councillor North and councillor Hamdash, and there will not be deliberations involving other committee members. Thank you. So, I believe councillors Clute and Manzac will be removing themselves to another part of the room for this item. Thank you very much, and can we move now to the planning officer's introduction to the item. Thank you. Yes, this planning application concerns 3337 Corsica Street. So, this is the location plan. And then there's just an aerial view to remind the committee where the site is located. Sorry, next slide, please. And these are some site photos of the front of the building, and you can see an Indian bean tree in the front of the site. And there's just existing plans and the existing layout of the existing house. So, the proposal is to demolish the existing house in a rectal replacement dwelling, two-storey dwelling, with a basement. And this is an illustration of the proposed scheme. So, the next slide. So, and again, please. So, these are just some proposed views of the scheme. Next slide, please. And then the proposed elevations of the proposed new dwelling, and the proposed plans sections there as well, just to show the entire scheme. And then this is just an overview of the existing building footprint on the left and the proposed building footprint on the right. And the below plan just gives an illustration of the site layout, and the purple indicates the area of the basement that comes outside of the footprint. So, in looking at the trees and the landscaping, as part of the proposal, five trees would be removed from the site. They are all rated as Category B or Category C, and the dead tree is a dead tree. So, we can consider it as four living trees, and the Japanese maple tree in the rear garden is an unrated tree. It's not a living tree. So, this gives an illustration of the existing layout. These are photos of some of the existing trees, and just for clarity, the ash tree, T9, in the back garden, which is shown in the below row in the third image, is to be retained. Next slide, please. So, as part of the development, 12 new trees are proposed to be planted on the site. This would result in a total of 13 trees on the site, including the existing ash tree, which is to be retained. So, this is an illustration of where the trees are proposed to be planted. Next slide, please. So, this is an illustration of the green illustrates the tree canopy cover at the time new trees will be planted, and the blue lines indicate the total extent of tree canopy that will be achieved over a course of 10 years. So, in 10 years' time, how large the trees could be on the site. Sorry, next slide, please. So, these diagrams give an illustration of the existing proposed tree canopy. So, on the left, we have the existing situation. In the middle, we have the canopy cover that we provide at the time the 12 new trees are planted on the site. And then on the right, we have, in 10 years' time, what the tree canopy cover would achieve. And we can see that there would be a notable increase from the number of trees on the site and the overall tree canopy cover. And in addition to the 12 new trees on the site, the applicant has agreed to a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution of £9,000 to cover the cost of the planting of three new trees in the ward. And that will cover the cost of tree pits and three years of aftercare for those trees within the hive reward. Next slide, please. And so, the recommendation is to plan information to be granted subject to the legal agreements during the following head of terms and the conditions as listed in the committee report. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you very much, indeed. Does the committee have any questions for the officer? Councillor Hamdash. A few questions from me. So, on the canopy cover slide, and you mentioned about the greater cover in 10 years, is the growth between year one and year 10 exponential? Or is it calculated to be the same amount? Because I'm trying to work out at what year would it reach the existing canopy. Is it by three or four years? How is that calculated? I'm afraid I don't have that information in the exact year when it would meet the current situation. All I would add, though, is obviously within our policy for trees, it does allow up to 10 years for the canopy covering these circumstances. And then just one more question from me. So, one of the things that counts against the Indian green tree is the closeness to the existing building. But how much of a material condition, material matter, is that when the building is being demolished? I mean, we have to look at the quality of the tree now and what its expected lifespan is. It has got a good rating, fairly good rating, in terms of its quality. But we do have to consider that. But the other thing I would note as well is when we're saying do we have to consider if the building wasn't to be demolished? In conservation terms, if an appropriate redevelopment here, no matter what scale, much smaller, much bigger, came forward, we wouldn't have grounds to resist the demolition of a building that isn't considered to contribute positively to the conservation area. So, the building would essentially go regardless. Thank you. If there are no other questions, we move to hear from people who wish to object. I've got three names, Anne Crookshank, Bronwyn Taylor, and Jennifer Puddington. So, you can go in the order you would like to go. Each of you will have three minutes and you will be able to see the time once you've started. Thank you. If you could use the microphone, yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Ah, better. Right, thank you. Okay. On behalf of the Neighbour Group, we query why the usual planning guardrails have been ignored in this case to the significant detriment of the local community. Firstly, in terms of the legal challenge and MP representation. The planning report, Denham, refers to an additional representation raising concerns with Council's assessment. This is a material understatement. The Council received a formal pre-action protocol letter on behalf of the residence group as a precursor to a judicial review. Detailed concerns have been raised by Jeremy Corbyn, MP, with the Council on several occasions. The issues raised by the residence group and by Jeremy Corbyn, MP, have not been addressed. The planning team have not engaged to resolve any of them. The purpose of the PAP letter is to seek to reach mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues to avoid legal proceedings with its risk of substantial legal costs for the Council. Why would the Council choose to ignore the opportunity to reach a mutually beneficial solution and instead incur significant legal costs and leave it to the courts to decide? For the protected tree, the addendum says it contains an updated assessment of these matters. However, much of it recites sections of policies it should be complied with but in this case are not. It states that the tree loss will only be permitted where it is demonstrably unavoidable in order to meet other policy requirements. However, the report fails entirely to demonstrate why the loss of the vegetation, in particular the two Class B trees, is in effect unavoidable. Let's speak clearly what we're dealing with here. The site is three large blocks containing one large house with a significant footprint. The balance is the garden almost entirely covered by mature trees and shrubs as can readily be seen by Google Maps. This report entirely fails to demonstrate why the loss of vegetation, in particular the two Class B trees, in effect unavoidable. It would be wholly laughable and wholly unconvincing to suggest that this site is overly constrained for the development of one house. The proposed house is intended to be smaller in footprint than the existing one. No justification has been provided as to why it cannot be constructed within the footprint of the former one and the protected vegetation preserved as required. It is not permissible to fell trees simply to facilitate development as claim. The policies require the design of the building to accommodate the existing trees and facilitate their growth, not the other way around. Not only is it not demonstrably unavoidable, nor are there exceptional circumstances, nor have the hierarchy or canopy requirements been appropriately considered. No specific other local plans have been provided in support of the tree removal and the development as proposed. Let's also be clear about the vital importance of the environmental policy requirements. No substantive analysis of the effect of the loss of the trees and the inadequacy of the proposed replacements in terms of CO2 emissions, street cooling and amenity contribution to the streetscape have been provided in conflict with policy requirements. Planting trees in other parts of the borough does nothing to deal with the existing head island effect in Corsica Street and is not compliant with the mitigation hierarchy. Any new trees planted now, even semi-mature ones, will take decades to provide the benefits that the existing trees do? Thank you very much indeed. Would you like to pass to one of the other objectives? If you could state your name for the record as well. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for sticking so carefully to time as well. Thank you. Do I need to stand? No. All right, I'll sit. My name is Bronwyn Taylor. I live next door at number 39. A lot of what we've heard about the Indian bean tree has been totally misleading. I felt as though the planning application was passed on a lot of misleading comments last time when the planning, the chair of the planning office asked the architect if the tree was causing damage to the building and he replied, yes, it's causing big cracks in the front. Well, you see, it's going to be demolished so I don't know why anyone paid attention to that. It's completely misleading. As Anne has said, with a totally different design, the tree could be accommodated. There's a lot of stress in all those reports that have come out about how constrained it is in that small space. There's plenty of room for it. If the building is moved back as we have suggested that the whole site could be redesigned and it's why does this new development have to come right up to the pavement with a four-meter wall in front? It's just beyond belief. It doesn't fit in with the local environment. It causes problems of safety in the street. So I'm suggesting that the tree could be accommodated quite easily by changing the front design of the property, setting it back and if you look further down Corsica Street, number 31, it's got this large frontage now which is quite pleasant with an overhanging canopy, a bit of extra parking when they need it and this could be done at number 33 to 39 and propose the new planning thing and it doesn't have to cost the council anything. This is another statement which misled, I think, at the last meeting that the chair asked what the effect would be for the council of adopting any space that was made in front of the proposal and they said the council couldn't afford it. Well, I don't see why that should be relevant because you can have a building pushed back and a wider space in front just like number 31 or alongside where I live all those places are pushed back. The council doesn't own that extra frontage, we do, but it makes a nice spacious pavement for people walking along so it's irrelevant talking about the council having to adopt it. This should be imposed according to the urban design guidelines which specify where the pavement is excessively narrow or where there's a danger to an existing tree. It should be widened, the frontage should be widened. I think that's it. Thank you very much. And we now move to the third speaker. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jennifer Puddington. I live in the adjacent road, Liberia Road, and as such I represent the wider neighbourhood who feels concerns about this planning application. Finally, why hasn't the planning team pushed for appropriate modest amendments to the scheme to bring it into greater conformity with policies? This includes advocating for the development to be pushed back by a couple of metres with an open frontage, slightly reduced in height, and for the two category B trees to be retained. Does the basement really need to be that vast and destructive? Such a simple suite of amendments would go a long way to resolving many of the key concerns and without creating an unfortunate precedent while still allowing the applicant to build the vast majority of the design proposed. In summary, the key points of the neighbourhood submission are why have the usual planning guardrails been ignored in this case? Where is the public benefit? Why is the council not actively engaging with local residents to resolve these important issues as sought by the pre-action protocol letter and instead risking public funds being spent on litigation? How is the community fabric and environmental condition of the neighbourhood being safeguarded and enhanced as required by council policy? How is it helpful for residents who expect to benefit from the protections afforded by council policies and also for applicants when the planning policies are so inconsistently applied by the planning team? Why is it apparently one set of rules for a famous rich person and entirely different ones for ordinary applicants? How is the council showing it is avoiding making catastrophic errors with long-term impacts at this juncture and acting in a way that fulfills its Vision 2030 policy objectives given the climate and biodiversity crises? What does this say about the activities of the planning function and their effective oversight by councillors? How will the council senior leadership team and the councillors give reassurance to residents about its processes and governance in the face of these obvious failings? It shouldn't require residents bringing legal action. We call on the councillors to reject this scheme for the many reasons outlined above and in previous submissions by many residents and Jeremy Corbyn MP submitted both this year and last. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much indeed. Are there any questions from members? Councilor Noor? I just want to offer this if possible. Objectives raised a number of queries about procedure particularly in terms of how representations were considered. I know that as members of the committee we receive copies of all representations but could you just reassure us in terms of how you've considered all those representations received? Absolutely. As we do with any application and in accordance with national legislation and our own statement of community involvement we've been through every single representation we've reviewed the points raised in those we've looked at them we've assessed the scheme against planning policy against all relevant guidance and come to a balanced decision so we've treated them the same way we would with any representation. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members? Thank you. In that case we now go to the applicant you may wish to pick up on the points that have been raised by objectives. If you wouldn't mind switching off that's lovely thank you very much indeed. Can you hear that? Yeah. So George Mathers from the architects difficult architects. So when we were designing the building we did consider the reuse of the building we're specialists in working with existing buildings that recently won AJ House of the Year for renovating a cow shed in the south west. We considered demolition for the building justified because the existing property is of poor quality it's not of any local or national importance it has quite a deep floor plan and very little natural light can get into the property as it is so it's very unsuitable for renovation. So we worked hard to ensure that a new building is an improvement so after consideration of possible options including extensive consultation via two pre-planning apps and one pre-planning consultation with neighbours we've designed a property that we think meets all of Islington's planning criteria we ensure exceptional quality and we'll sought to improve on the site available green immunity so improving the amount of green space the replacement is meant to be more energy efficient than the current one we're at 83% over the London sorry the London plan target is 45 improvement on the baseline of CO2 we're at 83% and we wanted to retain as many trees as possible actually when we were designing the building but found that the trees themselves are very poorly located for their species they're large they're not meant to be planted next to buildings and therefore they are due to be removed they wouldn't survive demolition removing the building trees roots tend to sort of undercut buildings and the removing of those pieces tends to mean that they would likely fall over or not last very long such as the Indian bean tree which is too close to the front wall and the fig tree which is actually leaning on the existing house at the back this meant that the four living trees in question wouldn't survive the Japanese maple as you mentioned is already dead we find this unfortunate but we also know that they can't really remain and grow healthily in the long term the necessary regular maintenance to sort of constrain the crown of the tree as it stands is also causing damage to the trees as they are and that's to try and keep them from damaging the property but it's also harming them conflict so as per the policy our first action was to re-provide the trees on site which we've planned to we're providing them on two to one so that's a loss of four trees an increase of eight trees to a total of three and then with a further three planted in the ward which paid for and the maintenance is paid for by the applicant the new garden is designed to be robust deliverable and appropriate to the site so we're working with landscape designer dan pearson the new tree species which will be mature upon planting and approved by condition they're to be selected and located to be an appropriate location so that the proposal will allow their canopies and root zones to grow as they mature this means that they'll remain healthy and won't require the sort of regular pollarding and maintenance that the existing ones do and they'll have like decent canopies the design will have a larger garden than is existing so it was or it currently is 249 square meters up to 387 square meters so increasing the biodiversity of the site and that isn't including the extensive green roof which is going to be approved by condition as well the new trees will improve the increase the overall canopy of cover of the site by approximately 80 square meters in 10 years time noting that one of the trees that's included in the calculation is already dead and our design also repositions the house to allow the gardens to reach around the sides of the building so while the Indian bean tree is the only sort of green feature visible at the minute we're hoping that there's more trees there'll be two in the front courtyard and some visible from in the back garden from the street also all in all we hope this would improve the character of the preserve the character of the conservation area and outweigh the loss of the trees by enhancing the biodiversity and landscape value of the site so I'll use that for the remaining time I'm David Conn from the architects I think George has covered a lot in detail I'll try and be a bit more specific about the comments that were made earlier I think it's important for everyone to appreciate that we've been working on this project for over three years and our client is very assiduous he's employed one of the best landscape architects in the country and with that landscape architect on the team we did two pre-applications that is not a requirement we did that of choice that was an opportunity to present the scheme twice to the planners and conservation officers on both occasions there were considerable changes to the design in order to make concerns and I should point out all of this was presented at a planning application six months ago much better weather I remember nice and sunny we sat across the way from the same people and heard the same arguments six months ago we'd been working on it for nearly three years then and we'd gone through two pre-applications we also I said last time invited all the neighbours to the house that was our choice it wasn't a requirement we presented the scheme to them they fed back some concerns so for example you know I don't think it's necessary for me to go back over this but for anyone that wasn't there six months ago our client gave up a portion of his land to the public highway which is going to be adopted by the council in order to widen the footway and I should point out that many other houses I'm not sure whether our friends across the way actually live in them have pavements as narrow as out the front of our clients and I would ask them to consider whether they would willingly give up some of their forecourts as he has done in the public interest the council has agreed to take it on we did offer to plant trees on the public highway in front of the building the council chose not to accept that and ask that our clients give money to the council to plant three trees elsewhere in the borough and pay for them to be maintained for the next three years so you know I think there's this impression given that there hasn't been a due process I would say it's been the most rigorous of processes I could imagine there's not been a stone unturned and I think all of the information that George gave earlier demonstrates that in fact we are doing our utmost to both replace a single-family dwelling with another single-family dwelling that is smaller in plan than the previous with a considerably larger garden that's increasing from 249 square meters to 387 square meters of garden with considerably more trees with a much larger canopy in 10 years time which is the length of time that the policy suggests ought to be considered when thinking about canopy size those trees are positioned in such a way that they are visible from the public highway there is a forecourt with a gate that you can see through with two trees in it and the other trees are positioned in a garden that you can see from the street so the general amenity is improved from a biodiversity point of view there's a considerable area of green roof on the roof which has been designed to increase habitat you know there are solar panels as George said generally the building is outperforming requirements for new builds in Islington by a factor of three but a lot of these things were debated six months ago and this group found in favor of our client to allow the house to be built so I think the only substantive issue that we are here to talk about this evening is about is the tree cover and presence of greenery in the community better or worse and I can say categorically it is better and that's on the advice of one of the leading landscape architects in the country on the advice of the council's own planning officers and the various professional advisors that the council also chose to double triple check that this is fair and that has all happened over three years thank you thank you very much does the committee have any further questions at this stage councillor Hamdash thank you for that so I heard in your summation you mentioned the Indian bean tree and the fig tree and the closeness to the property on the other trees I didn't hear as much of a justification so I mean the ash tree is the one that's furthest away there's two literally so are the same issues that you're listing applicable to the trees here so we have I mean I'm not sure whether you have a project the ash tree is going to be retained and they've got a tree protection plan in that place to retain it so the Japanese maple is dead already the tulip tree is quite a lot it's a category B it's a large canopy tree and it is also you know it might seem in the plan further away from the building but because it is such a large canopy tree it is getting pollarded heavily to maintain it in its location so it requires a yearly maintenance and buildings demolished as well thank you if there are no further questions I invite the committee to start to discuss the recommendation in front of us and you know we will need to balance the need to be consistent with our previous decision previous resolution in reaching our conclusion this evening would either of you like to yeah thank you Councillor Handrush thank you and I think in line with my decision at the last meeting I'll be approaching to reject the proposals in front of us and I think the material benefit is far outweighed by the harm in terms of biodiversity loss in terms of impacts on light in the neighbouring garden and I also think perhaps this case highlights a lack of ambition in our local plan and I think about the 2030 target that we have in the council a 10 year canopy plan restoration doesn't feel ambitious enough to me and the fact that there's a flat fee rather than a progressive fee and for not meeting entirely net zero targets and I think these are things that I'll do just to look in the next iteration of the local plan and but for all the reasons from before I'll be voting against. Thank you sorry could I ask the applicant to switch their microphone off thank you Councillor North Thank you chair as has been noted we did spend quite a while at a previous committee going over a range of these issues and I'm quite struck by the fact that nothing material has changed in the application before us albeit it's welcome we've got more detail about the victory issue. Thank you. I think that it's not in our gift as a planning committee to redesign schemes in front of us so we do have to consider the application as it is before us and I felt at the last committee meeting that there weren't reasons to refuse it we have to make decisions based on our existing policy as it is and I believe that this proposal is in line with our existing policies as set out in the officers report for both this evening's meeting and the previous committee hearing so I will be voting. Thank you very much yes I mean I'm mindful that we've had further detail about how the application is consistent with our policies and I move to a vote on the application. Can I see those in favour of the officers recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in appendix one and conditional on prior completion of a deed of planning obligation. Thank you very much and those against. Thank you. In that case the application is approved as per the recommendation. Thank you very much for your attendance councillor North to enable us to take this item this evening and I invite the other two councillors to return to the table for the fresh application. Thank you. Thank you. Okay if people are ready can I invite the planning officer to introduce this item please. Thank you. Thanks Chair. This is the presentation for item B2 of the evening. So this is the site location relates to the Sherling Way Estate. It's an Islington owned residential estate located off North Road with pedestrian access to Caledonian Road. This is an area view of the site. This is an area view of the site and I've added an arrow there to show that the proposal relates to the north eastern corner of the estate. The estate. This area in particular is an area. This area in particular is access from Manger Road and consists of a gated concrete ball court and a pedestrian access way which leads down to Caledonian Road. So this is a view of the estate. So this is a view of the estate looking down at Manger Road and then this one is a footpath which connects Manger Road to the north eastern corner. So this is an area looking from west to east. And again this is a second image stood in the ball court looking the other way. So, so, so, so, yeah, just a note on the ball court it's currently locked in out of use to the public primarily due to its poor physical condition and also previous antisocial behaviour reports. So, next slide. And this is just an image of the communal walkway which connects the estate to Caledonian Road and that's just an image from Caledonian Road looking up the access way. So, so, so, so this is the proposal. It would involve the existing ball court and part of the communal area being converted into an area of landscaping and play equipment and the image shows an overview of three main areas. So, so, so this first area is the existing communal area. It would be primarily retained as a walkway but with new landscaping and also inclusive play equipment. This area too is the parklet space and it would take up the majority of the existing ball court area and again it's included a mix of hard and soft landscaping and also inclusive play equipment. And the final section is the community garden space, located further towards the north-eastern corner of the Ballport. And this would consist mainly of soft landscaping, but also features, emphasis on sensory features and communal activities as well, such as food growing. And just a note, in general, conditions have been included to get the details of all landscaping and play equipment subsequent to the... And just to finish, just an existing and proposed comparison of the existing image and proposed design there. And it's recommended that Planning Commission is granted subject to conditions. Thanks. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the committee? No? Thank you very much. In that case, do we have anybody who's here to object to this proposal? No? Do we have the... Anyone to speak? Yes, Councillor Ward, are you wishing to speak? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Clout. Thank you, Chair. In 11 years as a Councillor, this is the first time I have ever spoken at Planning Committee. It gives me great pleasure to introduce this application, along with my Holloway Ward colleagues, Councillor Jason Jackson and Clare Zammett. All three of us are here tonight because we feel so passionate about this project. It is the culmination of many, many years of hard work. The space at the bottom of Shirling Way, there was a walkway which was potentially dark and potentially dangerous and the whole space was just unloved. The ball court was unusable and locked up. In 2020, we put in some new lighting along the walkway and a new wall just to make the space a little bit more usable and a little safer as well. But in 2022, we promised to go further. We made a promise to the people of Holloway, and in particular the people of the Shirling Way estate, we would transform this unloved patch into a community space. So we come tonight with plans for a new communal gardening space and play area. The ideas have been shaped by the residents of the estate themselves. As well as a survey with the residents, we also held a drop-in at the Goodings Community Centre, where residents could speak to the team and also speak to their local councillors about what they want to see in this space. And the results are what you see in the application this evening. It is a really exciting place for kids to play with a climbing wall, a bird's nest swing in the park area, as well as in the garden area, stepping logs, a balance beam, and a wobbly bridge. There is also a picnic table, a table tennis table, sitting pebbles, and there are food-growing beds and planting as well. And there will be two new trees. There is something for everyone here. This is about making a wasted space into a much-loved community place. Thank you very, very much, Chair. We're very excited about this. Thank you, Councillor Ward. Are there any questions from the committee? This could be a much shorter item, I think, than the last one. We move in that case to our deliberations. Who would like to start? Councillor Clout, thank you. Thank you, Chair. As Councillor Ward said, it's obviously been a great deal of work that's gone into this scheme, and it looks as though it's been worked through very carefully to provide the best, the most appropriate, and a good range of facilities. I think it's entirely to be supported, and I'm happy to go to play with it. Thank you, Councillor Clout. Are there any other, do any other members of the committee wish to speak? Councillor Manda. Just to thank members from the Holloway Awards for coming and giving us their assessment of appraisal. That's helpful to us in coming to a decision. Thank you very much, yes, and it's always very helpful to understand the consultation that's gone on before recommendations come to us. If there are no other contributions, I'd suggest we now move to a vote on this item. We're being asked to resolve to grant Planning Commission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1. Can I see all those in favour? Thank you very much, and thank you very much to all the Holloway Councillors for taking the time to come along this evening and to give us, as Councillor Manda has said, a background to this application. Thank you. We now move to the next item on the agenda, which is item B1, which is the Archway Leisure Centre. I'll just give people a little bit of time to move. Okay, can we move to the Planning Officer to introduce the item, please? Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So this one is item B1 of the evening, and it's Archway Leisure Centre. Let me just get the next slide, please. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, just a brief update since the publication of the report. It's since been confirmed that there's two external buffer vessels that have been proposed, but it's been confirmed that these would serve the air source heat pump rather than the water source heat pump, as the report notes. But this is the only update we've had since the report. So moving on to the site, this is the location plan, and it relates to Archway Leisure Centre. It's a council-owned and operated swimming pool and gym facility. So it's located in Archway Town Centre, and you've got McDonnell Road on the west and Rawley Road to the south. Thanks. This is just an image of the building from McDonnell Road, which is the main entrance, and the next again. And this is from Rawley Road, and this is the elevation to which the proposal relates. So this is an aerial view of the building, so it's showing its overall footprint. And then this is the proposed roof plan, and as I mentioned, it's that section of the building there, shown by the arrow where the air source heat pump would be located and the associated, and so the equipment. And then these just show some images of what the air source heat pump would look like. So you've got an acoustic screen there, a rail surround, and also those buffers that I mentioned can be seen in green there. Next slide please. This is again just showing the buffers I mentioned, and where they'd be located. And then finally, this is just a section of the water source heat pump, but it would all be internal. Those works, so you wouldn't actually see any parts of it from the public realm. So it's recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions. Thanks. Thank you very much. Are there any questions to officers from the committee on this? Council Clute. Thank you. Just a slight sort of apprehension that I sort of recall from not that recently, but air source heat pumps are prone to be quite, were at least prone to be quite noisy. Are we confident that the arrangement that's been shown with the pumps and then the acoustic screen around it will actually mitigate the sound to that, to the extent to achieve the condition for 5TB? But is it, has that actually been rehearsed with the applicant and the suppliers to say, yes, we do think it will work? Yes, so we had a noise assessment submitted as part of the submission documents. And we have that reviewed by my environmental health officers who didn't raise an objection based on the review of the report. And also just to note, because there's currently a live residential application that's next door to the site and the comments from the environmental health officer also incorporated that residential development. So yeah, in answer to your question, we are confident that it's acceptable. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions questions to officers? In that case, is there anyone here who wishes to object to this proposal? No. In which case, can I hear, is there anyone else speaking from the applicant? My name is Marissa Mark. I'm from Vital Energy. Maybe just to touch on your points about the noise, what we've done to make sure that we meet the requirements. We've gone through a multi-stage process. The first stage is to have proposed locations. Based on those proposed locations, we go out to a specialist who then take microphones to sites. They monitor the background noise for 24 hours. They then, based on noise level, they get their performance calculation. And they then say, based on this noise level, we remove between 5 and 10 DVA. And that's the criteria that we need to meet with our air source heat pump on the roof. Based on that, we have an enclosure that goes over the entire air source heat pump. So that means in any direction, we have noise attenuation. We then have a second stage of noise attenuation in the form of the screen. That acoustic screen is a much more dense material than the enclosure itself. The enclosure is designed to both do noise attenuation and allow air to flow into the unit to make it operate as efficiently as possible. Whereas the screen is specifically designed to prevent noise traveling in that direction. So that stops all noise in terms of line of sight. So if you were able to see the air source heat pump, that screen blocks that, and then there's minimal noise that could reach you. Part of the assessment is we've considered Voirley Road. We've looked at where the communal spaces are, where the residential spaces are, etc. And we've taken into consideration how can we attenuate noise based on that. As part of that, the height of the screen was increased so that more of the residents is completely covered by the screen itself. And we've taken all the regulations into account when we've done this assessment. And part of the feedback we've gotten from Voirley Road is we've taken a more rigorous view on what we've done. And we are confident that we've met all the criteria. Thank you very much. That was very helpful information. Are there any other questions from the committee? In which case, we move to deliberation. Who would like to? Councillor Hamdash. Thank you. Obviously, we will be supportive of this scheme. I understand why it's come before committee tonight, but I'm hoping that we will have so many water heat pumps and air pumps, we might need to think of a fast track process for these in future, so they don't have to come to committees like this. But yeah, I will be supporting. Thank you. Councillor Flute. Just to reflect that it's a committee because it is the council's own application, that we have to be so glad to assist as well. Thank you. Any other contributions? Otherwise, we will need to vote. Councillor Amanda, yeah. Just to add that it's great to see the consideration of the environmental benefits of the scheme and also that public consultation, it sounds like it's been carried out. Thank you. In the light of that, we will move to a vote. Can I see all those in favour of granting planning permission subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1? Thank you very much. That's lovely. And now we move to our next item, which is item B3, which is the penthouse flat in Coleman Fields. So again, I'll just allow a little time for people who wish to leave to move. And thank you for that. Thank you. Lovely. Thank you very much, everybody. And can I ask the planner officer to introduce this item, please? Thanks, Chair. This is item B3, 14 to 22 Coleman Fields. There's the site location plan. On that, you can see that while, and I'll show you the aerial image as well. Yeah, the site is that curved penthouse flat atop that building in the middle there. As you can see, while it is in a conservation area, it is well set back from the street and so is quite obscured from the public realm. This is a view from the other angle. In this, you can see the two courtyards that are to be infield, where the gap in the roof is, and you can see the main roof terrace that is to be extended. But also note that, let me go back, this is very fidgety, that the distance between a lot of the dwellings around the penthouse flat in relation to the terrace, although you can clearly see that quite close to the main roof terrace is number one, the Meuse, which we have considered. These are a couple of photos of the two courtyards that are to be infield. I put these in because it sort of shows that the quality of these courtyards is relatively low. They're quite closed in and there's not a lot of natural light. This is the photos of the existing courtyard, which is in a better state and has far more natural light and a bit more space, which is to be extended. Yes, the proposed development is to infill those two internal courtyards and an extension of the existing external terrace and the installation of two roof lights at the second floor level to the penthouse flat. Here's the existing floor plan. On this, you can see the courtyards that are to be infilled as well as the main roof terrace that is to be extended. I'd note on this plan too that the existing external terrace that's to be extended doesn't have any access internally from common spaces. It only has access from bedrooms. Here's the proposed floor plan. You can see the internal courtyards that have been infilled. They provide a bit more functionality internally for the occupants. You can also see the main roof terrace that has been extended. It now has access internally from main common areas. We've also included a measurement on the plans, which you can see shows the distance from where the wall screening of the roof terrace is to be extended and the distance that's set away from the boundary with the closest neighbour. Here's a copy of the existing roof plan, which shows in comparison to the proposed roof plan. I think this shows that the new form of the roof is more consistent and covers a full curve around the roof. This is the existing and proposed north-eastern elevation. You can see where the roof terrace wall screening is to be extended. There were comments made to the council about two windows on this elevation on the existing that potentially were supposed to be obscured that potentially have not been obscured. And the revised design shows that these windows have now been moved and then would be completely, they would have no views because there's the wall screenings in the way now. So we think that's an improvement. This is the southwestern elevation. There's no change to this elevation. The southeastern elevation, the only difference is the infilling of that roof with a replacement with a roof light. And the same thing on the north-eastern elevation. There's just the infilling. Just to summarise, we've considered both the impacts to the conservation area as well as the impacts of neighbours. And in our view, the proposal is acceptable and we would recommend planning which should be granted subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Are there any questions to the officer on this application? Councillor Twink. So just to check, I've understood this properly. The infilling of the two courtyard areas actually just continues the extension of the existing roof line. It doesn't add any, effectively doesn't add any mass to the building. Yeah, that's correct. It stays in the existing boundaries. It just covers over what was exposed with roof. There's only like a minor increase in the footprint of the total courtyard space. So actually the only visible change from the surrounding area of the building is the that extension of the roof terrace, the screening of the roof terrace. That's the only physical change that you can actually see. Yeah, and that view is quite limited because of where it's positioned. From that angle, you can't really see it from the public realm at all. But all of the roof terrace area is effectively screened. So if anybody's like anywhere on the roof, the occupiable roof terrace, they will be behind the screen anyway. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Is anyone here to object to this proposal? No. In which case, would the applicant like to speak? Yeah, we're here mostly just to answer any questions that are raised. But as you've already surmised, it's not adding any massing. The roof terrace is extended, but it's almost relocated the roof terrace as to where they're actually a bit more appropriate and you can attend the roof terrace from the living area. And it's set back to not obscure any daylight to number one muse. But yeah, mostly we're just here to answer any questions. Thank you very much indeed. Any further questions from the committee? Are we moved to deliberation? Councillor Clout? Chair, I think this is completely uncontentious. I don't have any concerns about it at all. Thank you. Does anyone else want to come in or shall we move to a vote? Okay, in that case, I propose that we move to a vote based on the recommendations in the report as listed in the agenda. Can I see all those in favour, please? Thank you very much. Sorry, that concludes that item. Just formally, I can confirm that under item C, there are no urgent non-exempt or exempt matters. So I now declare the meeting closed and thank you for your attendance. Thanks. Thank you.