Decision details

RESOLVED

That the decisions of the Sub Committee on the planning applications and related matters, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes, be approved or refused, with the following points noted:

1.                     725-733 Lordship Lane N22

The planning officers introduced this item and explained to members that, despite the 7 storey design, the application fell within London Plan density levels. Due to the height of the adjoining cinema, the development could be considered within the streetscape. There was no adverse conservation area impact. 

An objector spoke on behalf of the Local Residents’ Association and the Executive Member for Social Services and local resident, Cllr Kate Wynne reinforced his concerns about the lack of quality of life for existing and new residents; that the application contravened SPG 3A; that the proposed health centre was allegedly a ‘red herring’; that insufficient consultation had been carried out; the lack of play space for children; poor lighting due to north and west facing aspect and that the development would face the adjoining cinema wall where buses wait and therefore presented a potential pollution risk. 

The applicant spoke in support of his application and stressed to members the importance of providing health services in the borough, ie dentist, chiropodist and well-man clinic.  The application had been to the DC Forum in October and feedback had been discussed with planning officers and their comments taken on board.  As a result of this; the revised scheme reduced the number of dwellings, the development had been set back further and an amenity terrace had been provided.  They felt that the design and materials were of an appropriately high and sympathetic standard, with large windows to counteract any potential lack of light.  They were committed to employing local tradesmen and  agreed to work with the local authority on further ecological enhancements and the use of renewable energy.  A local resident also spoke in support of providing a new health centre. 

Members were concerned about the validity of the proposed health centre use but the applicant explained that they needed planning permission before they could obtain agreement to this.  They had been in negotiations with the PCT but confirmed that such an agreement had not been minuted in any PCT Board Meetings.

Members decided to refuse the application on the grounds of mass, bulk, scale, density, design, streetscape, public realm issues,  frontage, public safety from the car park entrance, no provision of social rented housing and lack of section 106 agreement.  There were 6 votes against, none voted in favour.  Cllrs Bevan and Adamou  abstained.

2.                     40 Coleridge Road N8 (including Conservation Area Consent)

                     Officers introduced this item and advised members that there was no architectural merit in the building proposed for demolition.  The density of the proposed development was within the revised UDP and subject to a 106 agreement.   No objectors were present.    The application was agreed with an extra condition asking for further elevational drawings to be submitted to the planning office, inclusion of the standard recycling condition and an informative on the use of materials for the hardstanding. 

                     Cllr Hare suggested that the 106 agreement include an environmental contribution.  However, offcers stated that there were no particular environmental schemes in the immediate area, and that the educational and highways contribution was already quite high in this case.

3.                     Land at Winns Mews N15 (including Conservation Area Consent)

Agreed to defer to a site visit as members were not able to gain access to the site without the applicant being present.

4.                     Treehouse School, Woodside Avenue N10

               Members were advised that this application had first been submitted 2 years ago.  Members were now being asked to consider a revised scheme, with a reduced footprint and energy efficient proposals, which were not included in the original application.  Further minor amendments to the plans has been submitted for members to consider at this meeting.   The Governors of Tetherdown School had written to officers and members setting out their concerns about interim arrangements during the construction period.  Officers advised that this was best dealt with by an informative, not condition, as it would be difficult to enforce on planning grounds.  Members noted that the high number of parking spaces was due to the high ratio of teachers to pupils as the school was for Autistic children.  With regard to archaeological concerns, officers advised that negotiations were still open between the local archaeologists and English Heritage.   The applicant explained to members the value of the ecological ‘bog’ garden which harvested rainwater and housed indigenous trees,  bulrushes and frogs and the fact that they had chosen the most biologically diverse type of sedum roofing.

               The application was agreed with the amended plans, and an extra informative about the phasing of the construction works and the submission of a method statement. 

5.                     Former Hornsey Waterworks, High Street N8

Officers presented this application and advised members that although the size of the units were slightly below policy requirements this development was part of a larger development and therefore members were being asked to consider it on merit.  A local resident, who had purchased one of the phase 1 units, spoke of her concerns about the size of the units in the second phase of the development.  She considered phase 1 to be very small, with hardly no storage space, so was even more concerned about the quality of life of future inhabitants to phase 2.  It was alleged that the management company had performed unsatisfactorily at times and therefore a second phase would place them under further pressures.

The applicants spoke in support of the development and explained to members that this was an experimental phase to provide affordable low cost market entry units; designed for single occupation, carefully designed with space efficient appliances.  A podium landscaped community area was proposed and all studios would have balconies.  Sufficient parking was provided but on a ‘right to buy’ basis.   Members were concerned that the development did not address family housing needs, it was not disabled friendly and the fact that it was ‘experimental’.

Members refused the application on the grounds of over-intensive use of the site, that the development was 25% below the minimum UDP size and lack of a section 106 agreement.  There were 7 votes against, none voted in favour.  Cllr Bevan abstained.