Issue - meetings

Paul Smith, Head of Development Management, presented the report on the interim draft guidance for applicants in dealing with the submission of planning applications including basement development. Mr Smith advised the Committee that paragraph 1 of the report should be amended to read “For Planning Sub-Committee to consider and note…”. Mr Smith advised that the list of appendices on page 7 of the agenda pack should be amended to include appendix 9 “CPG4 Basements and Lightwells” and appendix 10 “Barnet – Design Guidance No.5”. Mr Smith advised that the report had been amended in respect of the mandatory conditions, such that the Hydrological and Hydro-Geological Condition as set out at paragraph 20, on page 27 of the agenda pack, would apply to applications of Type 2, as well as Types 3 and 4. Mr Smith advised that in relation to cumulative development, on page 29, the definition should read “where two or more basements adjacent to one another, or in close proximity, are proposed or already exist (including a nearby neighbouring street if the construction is close to a corner junction where more than one site in any one street is under construction at any one point in time)”.

The committee asked whether there was any difference in the guidance relating to Basement Impact Assessment (BIA) between Haringey and Camden, when the special condition in relation to monitoring by engineer would be applied, and whether there was any guidance on whether a local authority could be sued in the event that someone’s land was damaged as a result of permission being granted for a neighbouring basement development. Allan Ledden, Legal Officer, advised that the relevant case was that of Murphy v Brentwood District Council 1991, where the House of Lords determined that there was no liability on the grounds that the loss caused was pure economic loss. Mr Ledden advised that the circumstances posited by the Committee were very similar, and that any such claim would be unlikely to succeed on the same basis. There was a range of other legislation in place to protect homeowners. Officers advised that the Haringey guidance was largely based on the Camden guidance, but that Haringey guidance did differ from Camden in respect of the information required at validation stage, as the Haringey guidance only proposed that a BIA was required at this stage for type 4 applications. This was on the risk-based assessment that all attached conditions needed to be satisfied before a development could proceed, and that requiring further information from applicants at an early stage for other types of application would be an additional financial burden on the applicants. Monitoring by Engineer was a condition which could be added where the Committee felt that this was required, and it was noted that this condition had been applied in respect of the Channing School application.

In response to a further question from the Committee, it was confirmed that hydrological and hydro-geological surveys would be based on trial holes on site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204