Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

RESOLVED

·         That the Chair’s announcement regarding the filming of the meeting for live or subsequent broadcast be noted.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2016. A factsheet covering some of the key points within the protocol as well as some of the context for Haringey’s planning process is provided alongside the agenda pack available to the public at each meeting as well as on the Haringey Planning Committee webpage.

The planning system manages the use and development of land and buildings. The overall aim of the system is to ensure a balance between enabling development to take place and conserving and protecting the environment and local amenities. Planning can also help tackle climate change and overall seeks to create better places for people to live, work and play. It is important that the public understand that the committee makes planning decisions in this context. These decisions are rarely simple and often involve balancing competing priorities. Councillors and officers have a duty to ensure that the public are consulted, involved and where possible, understand the decisions being made.

Neither the number of objectors or supporters nor the extent of their opposition or support are of themselves material planning considerations.

The Planning Committee is held as a meeting in public and not a public meeting. The right to speak from the floor is agreed beforehand in consultation with officers and the Chair. Any interruptions from the public may mean that the Chamber needs to be cleared.

RESOLVED

·         That the details of the process to be followed for the meeting be noted. 

Apologies were received from Cllrs Mallett and Waters.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 13 below.

None.

With reference to item 7, Keston Centre, Cllrs Bevan, J Mann and Mitchell advised that they had attended a fact finding visit to a Pocket Living scheme in Lambeth in August 2016 prior to the submission of the current application. Cllrs Bevan and Carroll advised of their attendance at a similar visit in Islington in 2015. It was confirmed that officers had been in attendance on both occasions. Cllr Carter also identified that objectors to the Keston Centre scheme had circulated a mail shot for lobbying purposes to all councillors. The Chair further added that he had met with a number of objectors to the application. 

Demolition of existing buildings and re-provision of two-storey building to accommodate a nursery (with associated external amenity play space) and community centre (Use Class D1); provision of 126 new residential units (16 x 3-bedroom part two/part three storey townhouses, and 110 units (93 x 1-bedroom and 17 x 2-bedroom) in 4 x blocks of flatted accommodation ranging from three to five storeys in height); associated landscaping; car parking; widening of vehicular access to site; and provision of new pedestrian access routes to Downhills Park.

RECOMMENDATION:grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and re-provision of two-storey building to accommodate a nursery (with associated external amenity play space) and community centre (Use Class D1); provision of 126 new residential units (16 x 3-bedroom part two/part three storey townhouses, and 110 units (93 x 1-bedroom and 17 x 2-bedroom) in 4 x blocks of flatted accommodation ranging from three to five storeys in height); associated landscaping; car parking; widening of vehicular access to site; and provision of new pedestrian access routes to Downhills Park. 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 and subject to s106 Legal Agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out details of additional representations received since the publication of the agenda, an additional s106 Heads of Terms and amendments to a number of conditions.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The need for new housing in the borough was recognised but that development needed to be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area and avoid encroaching on the park.

·         The 5 storey height of the scheme would be out of keeping with the surrounding 2/3 storey terraced houses breaching the Council’s urban character study. The municipal buildings historically onsite had been low level.

·         The scheme would not protect or enhance the Metropolitan Open Land of Downhills Park as required by policy but have a detrimental impact in being visually dominating, spoiling the look and feel of the park and the loss of historic park boundaries to the benefit of a private developer.

·         Current open views of the park enjoyed from the windows and gardens of properties on neighbouring streets would be blocked.

·         The housing mix proposed was inappropriate when referenced to the identified housing need in the borough with the over domination of 1 bed units and a lack of social housing. The affordable pocket units would be unaffordable for residents in the east of the borough based on average income levels.

·         Concerns were raised over the likelihood of the pocket 1 bed units being occupied by couples instead of the single occupants they were marketed for and the impact this would have on the density of the scheme, potential overcrowding and increased pressures on local services including school places etc.

·         The scheme would increase parking demand in the area and exacerbate the level of traffic on already congested roads in the area. 

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the representations:

·         An explanation was requested on the reason for divergence from the Council’s site allocations document which identified 70 units for the site. Officers advised that the number references was a minimum only and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 80 residential units (C3 use), comprising: 69 flat apartments across 3 building blocks rising from 3 and 4 storeys to part 5 and 6 storeys and 11 houses, rising from 2 to 3 and a half storeys, together with associated infrastructure, vehicular and cycle parking (subterranean and ground), public realm and landscaping works

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s.106 and s.278 Legal Agreements.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 80 residential units (C3 use), comprising: 69 flat apartments across 3 building blocks rising from 3 and 4 storeys to part 5 and 6 storeys and 11 houses, rising from 2 to 3 and a half storeys, together with associated infrastructure, vehicular and cycle parking (subterranean and ground), public realm and landscaping works. 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 and subject to s.106 and s.278 Legal Agreements.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application:

·         The principle of the development of the site was accepted but the design was unsatisfactory in terms of scale, height and the lack of retention of local historic features including demolition of the administration building.

·         Responses submitted during the consultation period had not been given sufficient consideration.

·         The scheme would not preserve the important local heritage of the site, and diverged from the previous permission granted in 2009 which secured the retention of the administrative building onsite. The clock tower removed for preservation purposes should also be reinstated.

·         The 6 storey blocks would be out of character with the surrounding area.

·         The parking provision on site was insufficient and would exacerbate existing pressures in the area, particularly on Osier Crescent, in light of the low public transport accessibility of the site. A planning application for a new development on the opposite side of the road in Barnet proposed a higher ratio of parking space provision in reflection of the challenges of the location.

·         There was insufficient primary school place capacity within the local area to support the additional children to be housed in the development.

The Committee raised the following questions in discussion of the representations received:

·         Further clarification was sought from the transport officer on concerns raised regarding car parking provision onsite. The officer outlined that the high car parking pressures in the surrounding area had been taken into account, resulting in a maximisation of the number of car parking spaces onsite in excess of that required under the Council’s parking standards in order to reduce the impact of displacement parking. Provision was considered to be appropriate for the area and reflected projected demand.

·         Assurances were sought over the management of pressures on primary school spaces in the area. Officers advised that the 2016 school place planning report identified surplus capacity in the primary schools in the area and plans being developed to deliver sufficient secondary school places.

·         Concerns were raised over the potential overdevelopment of the site, with the number of units proposed exceeding that set out within the site allocations policy. Officers reiterated that a minimum level for the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Outline application for development of the site to create 54 affordable residential units (Class C3) (12 x 1 bed, 24 x 2 bed and 18 x 3 bed units) in three blocks ranging in height from 4-stories to 5-stories (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved)

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant outline planning permission for the development of the site to create 54 affordable residential units (Class C3) (12 x 1 bed, 24 x 2 bed and 18 x 3 bed units) in three blocks ranging in height from 4-stories to 5-stories (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved). 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 and subject to s106 Legal Agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

An objector to the scheme addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         The overshadowing report had been based on 3 and 4 storey blocks when the proposed blocks would vary from 4-5 storeys in height.

·         Concern was raised that 11 neighbouring dwellings would be negatively impacted by the development in experiencing a loss of daylight and sunlight to habitable rooms below BRE standards. Overshadowing would also result to the gardens of a number of neighbouring properties.

·         The scheme would be overbearing, with a scale out of character to the surrounding predominantly 2 storey housing and which would cause overlooking to the rear gardens of neighbouring properties.

·         A wall and established vegetation currently served as a buffer to traffic noise from Monument Way and which would be removed with the building of the scheme.

The Committee sought clarification from officers regarding the objections raised to the sun and daylight impact of the scheme on neighbouring properties. In response, it was advised that BRE standards were based on suburban, low density development patterns and as such were challenging to achieve in an urban context, particularly London, as recognised under the Mayor’s Housing SPG. Five neighbouring properties would experience noticeable losses in terms of sun or daylight but that this was considered acceptable including as the properties in question were dual aspect. 11 properties would experience a loss of sunlight to rear gardens.

In response to a question, officers advised that a detailed noise assessment would be secured by condition to ensure appropriate noise mitigation was implemented.

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The site was a sustainable location for residential development as it adjoined the new town centre boundary.

·         The QRP were broadly in support of the scheme.

·         The development would be car free, with current parking spaces on site reprovided.

·         The impact of the development on a number of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of day and sunlight was acknowledged but considered acceptable and minimised wherever possible.

·         The scheme contained a smaller number of units than that proposed within the wider masterplan for the area in response to feedback received during the consultation to allow the scheme to feel part of the existing estate.

·         Consideration would be given to noise mitigation in relation to boundary treatments.

The Committee raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolition of the existing car wash, construction of a new office block including, covered bin, cycle store and parking.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement. 

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing car wash, construction of a new office block including, covered bin, cycle store and 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 grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement. 

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

The Committee sought further details on concerns expressed by the QRP regarding the roof design and curved frontage. Officers advised that the comments referred to the original plans which had since been revised to a simpler repeated gable design. Materials to be used would be secured under condition.

Clarification was sought on how the financial contribution to be provided by the applicant towards employment and skills training would be allocated. Officers advised that this would go towards the employment support programme led by the Council’s economic development team.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2016/2232 be approved and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a s106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

·         That the s106 Legal Agreement referred to above is to be completed no later than 28 February 2017 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

·         That, following completion of the agreement referred to above within the time period provided for above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

1.    The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission shall be of no effect.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the s91 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

            DRAWING NUMBERS

1.    The approved plans comprise drawing nos. (3006 PL L01,  3006 PL 11J, 3006 PL 12M, 3006 PL 13M, 3006 PL 18.1, 3006 PL 18.2, 3006 PL 18.3, 3006 PL 18.4, 3006 PL 18.1A, 3006 PL 19.1, 3006 PL 19.2 and 3006 PL 19.3). The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans except where conditions attached to this planning permission indicate otherwise or where alternative details have been subsequently approved following an application for a non-material amendment.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

MATERIALS

2.    Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall take place until precise details of the materials to be used in connection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To advise of major proposals in the pipeline including those awaiting the issue

of the decision notice following a committee resolution and subsequent

signature of the section 106 agreement; applications submitted and awaiting

determination; and proposals being discussed at the pre-application stage.

Owing to time constraints, this item was deferred. The Chair asked the Committee to direct any questions to officers via email.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications

taken under delegated powers for the period 28 November and 27 January.

Owing to time constraints, this item was deferred. The Chair asked the Committee to direct any questions to officers via email.

None.

13 March.

·         13 March.

The Chair passed on the Committee’s thanks and best wishes to the Committee Clerk who was leaving the Council to take up a new role.