Issue - meetings

Refurbishment of existing listed building to retain the existing pub use on ground and basement levels, and the redesign of the non-self contained residential units at upper levels to provide 3 self-contained residential units. Demolition of rear later addition to listed building and redevelopment of the rear of the site to provide 4 x 4 bed houses and 2 x 2 maisonette units (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which gave details of the application, the applicant’s case, the site and its environment, planning history and all of the relevant planning factors and policies.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report. It was reported that the application before the Committee was for Planning Permission and that a further application for Listed Building Consent had also been submitted but had yet to come to the Committee for consideration. It was reported that drawings 2, 3 and 4 had been revised and were available for the Committee to consider.

Alison Armour, representing the Tottenham CAAC, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. It was reported that the Grade II listed building was an important building and major attraction in the area, and the CAAC objected to the proposal to cut a large hole in the fabric of the building. Ms Armour also expressed concern regarding overdevelopment in an area of high density and that the development was inappropriate in its location on the edge of Tottenham Wood. Ms Armour also expressed concern that more recent drawings showed the proposed opening as rectangular rather than an arch shape. The Planning Officer reported that the Conservation Officer had suggested that a rectangular shape would be preferable to an arch, but advised that the Committee could reinstate an arch as had been originally proposed.

The Committee expressed concern that the development might set a precedent for the development of other rear gardens, particularly in an area with a deficiency in open space. The Planning Officer reported that the proposal represented a reduction in the footprint of the existing buildings and would lead to an increase in the level of green space.

Marc Dorfman expressed concern that the Listed Building Consent was not being considered at the same time as the application for Planning Permission, and it was proposed that the application be withdrawn and re-submitted for consideration by the Committee at the same time as the application for Listed Building Consent to enable all the issues and concerns raised to be addressed at the same meeting.

The motion was put to the vote and the results were as follows:

For: 5

Against: 3

Abstentions: 0

RESOLVED

That application reference HGY/2009/1695 be withdrawn and brought back to the Committee at such time as the application for Listed Building Consent in relation to the same site could be considered by the Committee.