Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Reid and Schmitz for whom Cllrs Jenks and Scott substituted.

In respect to item 7, Cllr Jenks identified that he was a ward councillor for Muswell Hill.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 28 January and 18 February.

RESOLVED

·        That the minutes of the Planning Committee on 28 January and 18 February 2013 be approved as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

The erection of 3 single storey dwellings on the site previously occupied by lock up garages.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant planning permission for land rear of 76 St James’s Lane, N10 3RD for the erection of 3 single storey three bedroom houses. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was identified that a previously refused scheme in 2010 had been subject to appeal before the Planning Inspector and had been dismissed.

The Committee expressed dissatisfaction over the format of the report, in particular the lack of inclusion of a table setting out in a clear way the objections received in relation to the application and the subsequent officer response. The Planning Officer agreed to incorporate this feature into future Committee reports. The Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Economy summarised for the Committee officer responses to the objections submitted.

Cllr Bloch addressed the Committee in objection to the application and raised the following points:

·        The bulk and number of dwellings proposed for the site was unsuitable. It was considered that two houses would be more appropriate.

·        The design of the houses would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

·        Concerns were expressed on the feasibility of constructing the new houses within the line of the old garages.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee with concerns regarding the application and made the following points:

·        The site was unsuitable for the number of dwellings proposed due to its size and constrained and undulating nature. There was general agreement that the site would more appropriately support two houses.

·        Concerns were raised on the suitability of the access road to support the development including the risks from the blind corner near the electricity sub-station and access for fire service and refuse vehicles.

·        The development would potentially exacerbate traffic problems in the area through an increase in vehicle movements.

·        The proposed design of the houses was not inkeeping with the adjoining Conservation Area.

·        Disturbance was likely to be caused to residential amenity of the flats bordering the site during the duration of the build.

·        The size of the gardens appeared to be small.

·        A lack of measurements had been provided on the plans.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        The current application addressed a number of the concerns raised from the last application and the subsequent appeal.

·        Although the gardens were non-standard being located to the front of the houses, they conformed to size standards for the size of house.

·        The current site constituted an eyesore.

A motion, which was carried, was put to defer determination of the report due to the lack of clear officer response to objections contained within the report and the absence of measurements on the plans which it was considered hindered Members ability to discharge their duty fully on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Demolition of 3 portacabins trading as shops and erection of mixed use

building comprising a B1 office unit, 3 shops, 2 x one bed flats, 2 x two bed flats and 1 x three bed flat.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 legal agreement.

The Chair advised in light of concerns raised by the Committee prior to the meeting regarding the potential overdevelopment of the site, that it had been agreed to defer consideration of the application to allow officers to work towards seeking a revised scheme.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred to a future Committee meeting.  

Demolition of 33 existing lock-up garages and erection of 4 x 2 storey four

bedroom houses with basement floors and associated landscaping and car parking (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission to replace extant permission subject to conditions

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant planning permission for the land rear of 27-47 Cecile Park N8 for the erection of 4x 2 storey four bedroom houses with basement floors and associated landscaping and car parking. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to replace extant permission subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The application followed on from a previous scheme approved in 2010 and for which the Committee had approved the extension of the implementation period for the extant permission in January 2013. The current application was for an amended scheme.

A number of local residents addressed the Committee and raised a series of objections in relation to the application:

·        The size, height and scale of the new development was of concern in addition to the proximity to neighbouring houses, with the associated risk of loss of privacy and light.

·        Basement excavation works had the potential to damage the foundations of nearby houses as well as causing noise and disturbance to neighbours during the building works.

·        Concerns were expressed regarding the potential for the development to cause an increase in the potential for future flash flooding and that no precautions were in place to mitigate this risk.

·        The plans provided were not accurate in reflecting extensions made to neighbouring houses and the larger footprint of the new houses at first floor level.

·        No provisions had been made for landscaping arrangements on site.

·        The design was not inkeeping with the Conservation Area.

The applicant’s representative, Mr Taylor, addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        The revised application was not a substantial departure from the currently approved scheme granted by the Committee.

·        The spacing between the houses had been increased and the house ridge heights lowered by 1m from the previous plans.

·        Any risks regarding basement works exacerbating flooding in the area was sufficiently covered under construction conditions proposed by officers. 

·        Following a question from the Committee, confirmation was provided that a landscaping plan was being developed for the site including potential improvements to the north flank retaining wall and the access road.

The Committee discussed additional conditions to be added should the application be approved and agreed for two informatives for the developer to consult with the local neighbours regarding the design of improvements to the access road and also to consult local ward councillors on the naming of the development.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report including the two additional informatives detailed above and it was

RESOLVED

·        That permission be granted to replace extant permission for application HGY/2012/1705 subject to conditions and the two additional informatives covering consultation on improvements to the access road and the naming of the development.

 Subject to the following conditions:

IMPLEMENTATION

1. The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Conservation Area Consent for application to replace an extant planning

permission reference HGY/2009/1768 in order to extend the time limit for implementation, for demolition of 32 existing lock-up garages and erection of 4 x 2 / 3 storey three bedroom houses with associated landscaping and 8 parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: grant Conservation Area Consent

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant Conservation Area Consent for the application to replace extant planning permission for the land rear of 27-47 Cecile Park N8. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant Conservation Area Consent subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·        That Conservation Area Consent to granted for application HGY/2012/1707 subject to conditions:

1. The works hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the end of

three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Approval of details pursuant to Condition 4 (Design) attached to planning

permission HGY/2012/2128.

RECOMMENDATION: discharge condition 4 (Design) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to approve the discharge of condition 4 covering the design of the tower elevations attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128 approved by the Committee in January. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to discharge condition 4 (design) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report which detailed the final proposed design of the tower elevations following scrutiny at a series of Design Panel meetings.

Cllr Bevan addressed the Committee, with the permission of the Chair, in his capacity as Design Champion for Haringey to express his support for the high quality of the final design and the significant improvements brought about by the Design Panel process, which he hoped could be extended to other large developments in the future.

Confirmation was provided that members of the Committee would have the opportunity to view the proposed materials for the tower once available.

The Committee requested that an informative be added asking the developer to seek input from ward Councillors in relation to the naming of the tower.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report including the additional informative around naming, and it was

RESOLVED

·        That discharge of condition 4 (design) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128 be approved.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is requested to consult with local ward Councillors and members of the planning sub-committee regarding the naming of the development.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is requested to invite local ward Councillors and members of the planning sub-committee to view the material samples once available/submitted as part of the approval of details of condition 3 attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128.

Section 106: No  

Approval of details pursuant to Condition 5 (external design and appearance of the School elevations) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128.

RECOMMENDATION: discharge condition 5 (external design and appearance of the School elevations) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to approve the discharge of condition 5 covering the external design and appearance of the school elevations attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128 approved by the Committee in January. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to discharge condition 5 (external design and appearance of school elevations) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report which detailed the final design scheme for the school as supported by the Design Panel.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·        That discharge of condition 5 (external design and appearance of school elevations) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128 be approved.

Conditions: No conditions

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is requested to consult with local ward Councillors and members of the planning sub-committee regarding the naming of the development.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is requested to invite local ward Councillors and members of the planning sub-committee to view the material samples once available/submitted as part of the approval of details of condition 3 attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128.

Section 106: No

Change of use from light industrial to residential, demolition of existing

buildings and erection of 1 x three bed house and 1 x three / four bed house (AMENDED PLANS SUBMITTED 28.12.2012)

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant planning permission for land rear of 2-16 Lauradale Road, 85 Woodside Avenue, for the change of use from light industrial, the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 2 houses. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee were advised of an amendment to the report in that the footprint for the new houses would broadly be inline with the current buildings (315m² proposed compared to 318m² currently) and not significantly smaller as stated in the report in error. 

Cllr Davies addressed the Committee in objection to the application and raised the following points:

·        The restricted nature of the access route to the site which was only 4.8m wide at its narrowest.

·        The scheme constituted overdevelopment of the site, with a floorspace 2 and a half times the size of the existing buildings.

·        A full hydrology report needed to be undertaken for the site

·        The Significant Local Open Land (SLOL) designation for the site should not be ignored.

Cllr Newton also addressed the Committee and advised that the site provided a key access route to Lauradale Road and Tetherdown school. The school had recently doubled in size, leading to concerns should the development be approved, on the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, continuing to use the pathway.

Two objectors addressed the Committee and put forward their views on the application:

·        The scheme constituted overdevelopment of the site

·        The second house would be located too close to neighbouring houses and be dominant in height.

·        The basement construction works and potential associated hydrological problems were of concern, particularly as a comprehensive hydrological report had not been undertaken.

·        The loss of SLOL designated land would impact adversely on the local community.

·        The safety of school children using the pathway running through the site to access Tetherdown School was a serious concern and one which was said to be echoed by both school governors and parents alike.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        The site was already developed despite the SLOL designation although the existing buildings had no architectural merit and the site was widely considered to be an eyesore. The design of the proposed scheme would add to the area.

·        Efforts had been made with the current application to take into account the previous applications and objections received such as moving the distance of the houses from the retaining wall following comments from neighbours.

·        The current landuse as a builder’s depot also posed a risk to pedestrians using the pathway through the site, with the proposed scheme therefore constituting a lower risk in comparison through fewer vehicle movements.

The Committee discussed additional conditions to be added should the application be approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The next Committee is scheduled for 13 May.

The next meeting was scheduled for 13 May.