Agenda and minutes

None received.

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 21 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Cllr Hare declared an interest in item 11, as he had been involved with the application since 2001 and had addressed the Committee to object to the application when considered at the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 September 2008.  Cllr Hare advised that he would leave the meeting when this item was considered.

To consider receiving deputations and/or petitions in accordance with Part Four, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None received.

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on 25 September 2008 and the Planning Committee held on 6 October 2008.

The Committee was asked to agree the minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on 25 September 2008 and the Planning Committee meeting held on 6 October 2008.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on 25 September 2008 and the Planning Committee meeting held on 6 October 2008 be agreed and signed.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decision determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during September 2008

The Committee was asked to note the outcome of 10 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during September 2008 of which 6 (60%) were allowed and 4 (40%) were dismissed.

The Committee was particularly asked to note that of the 6 appeals allowed,  one appeal, a place of worship, was approved on the basis of the time period involved.  However, the principle of the case was dismissed therefore, the case was lost by the applicant. 

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To inform the Committee of decision made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North & South) and the Chair of the above Committee between 15 September 2008 and 12 October 2008

The Committee was asked to note the decisions made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North and South) and the chair of the Planning Committee determined between 15 September 2008 and 12 October 2008.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 6 October 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the 6 October 2008 Committee meeting.

The Officer drew the Committee’s attention to page 70 of the agenda.  All major applications (3) were 100% determined within 13 weeks.  Of the minor applications 81% were determined within 8 weeks, 4% below the Haringey target but well above the Government target.  In respect of other applications 92% were determined within 8 weeks, 2% above the Haringey and Government targets.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

That the Planning Committee agrees to the designation of a new Conservation area.

The Committee was informed that on the 11 February 2008 the Council approved and adopted the second phase of the ongoing programme of Conservation Area Character Appraisals.  This involved the following three conservation areas; Muswell Hill (No.4), Wood Green Common (No.10) and Trinity Gardens (No.12).

The houses in this area were built in a wave of development of the Muswell Hill area between 1909 and 1914, predominantly containing fine examples of Arts and Crafts inspired houses of conservation area quality.  Based on its predominantly Arts and Crafts style and distinct character the area was considered to be of suitable, but independent, conservation area quality to the adjoining Muswell Hill Conservation Area and Alexandra Palace and Park Conservation Area and should, therefore, be designated as a new conservation area.   The Committee was asked to agree to the designation of a new conservation area.

Members enquired whether there had been a consultation and in response were informed that in the consideration of the new conservation area the Council’s conservation officers had taken into account all the comments received as part of the consultation carried out between 29 June and 10 September 2007 and agreed on 11 February 2008.

RESOLVED

That the designation of a new Vallance Road Conservation Area be agreed.

To inform Members that Furnival House has been Listed as a building of Special Architectural and Historic interest and to advise of the implications of this for dealing with the current Planning and Listed Building Consent applications.

The Committee was informed that this was an information item.  Members were advised that at the Planning Committee meeting of 25 September 2008, Members had considered the report on a planning application to do works of conversion and extension to Furnival House.  It was resolved to grant permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement covering affordable housing, education and highways contributions.

Prior to the signing of the agreement and the issue of the decision, the Council were notified that the building had been made a Grade II Listed Building, following an inspection by English Heritage.  The listing of the building now became a material consideration for dealing with the planning application.  It also meant that a Listed Building Consent was required for alterations to the building and that the applicants had already submitted an application for Listed Building Consent.

English Heritage had visited the property and advised the Council that they had concerns about the details of the scheme submitted as part of the planning application. 

Given the above the Council was not in a position to issue the Planning permission.  It was the intention to bring both planning and listed building applications to the Committee at the same time.  Members were asked to note the current position with regard to proposals for Furnival House, in light of the Listing of the building as being of special historic and architectural interest.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To seek Members agreement not to include a requirement for the new development on the above site to be ‘car-free’.

The officer presented the report and advised that the Planning Committee had at its meeting on 8 September 2008, resolved to grant permission for the building of five flats at 235-237 Archway Road N6, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.  The Section 106 Agreement sought an education contribution and included provision for the scheme to be car-free.  The applicants had declined to sign the Section 106 Legal Agreement because they considered there were no grounds for the scheme to be car-free.

Given the applicants were unwilling to enter into the Section 106 agreement the Council would therefore have to refuse the application on the grounds of inadequate parking provision for the development.  This decision could therefore, in turn, be subject to a planning appeal and it would be for the LPA to demonstrate that the proposal would adversely affect parking conditions within the immediate vicinity of the site and amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

It was particularly noted there was a parking bay area, which could provide parking for four cars, immediately next to the side frontage of the site.  It was further considered that the on-street car parking generated with the proposal could be accommodated within the immediate vicinity of the site without adversely affecting the parking conditions of other local residents.

Given the specific nature of the site, the comments contained in the previous appeal decision and the existing level of public transport use, it was considered that the request for this scheme to be car-free was onerous and one which would be difficult to successfully justify and defend on appeal.

The Committee was asked to confirm their decision of 8 September 2008 to grant permission for the development of the site, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement without the request that the scheme be ‘car-free’ and therefore without any need for an amendment of the Traffic Management Order.

The Chair moved a motion to agree the recommendation that the Section 106 Agreement for this development should not include the clause requiring the development to be ‘car-free’.  On a vote there being 1 against and 7 in favour the motion was carried.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted planning permission, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement without the clause requiring the development to be ‘car-free’ be agreed.

Outline application for the erection of 9 x 3 storey, four bedroom townhouses with associated parking and access.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant outline permission subject to reserved matters and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement

The Officer advised the Committee that this application was deferred from the last scheduled meeting of the Planning Committee on 6 October 2008, in order for a consultation to take place with the Governors, Head Teacher and parents of the adjacent Rokesly School.  It was now understood that the applicants had met with the representatives of the school on 26 October 2008.  The application was now returned to the Planning Committee for Members consideration and decision.  The Committee was reminded that the development was an outline application for the erection of 9 x 3 storey, four bedroom townhouses with associated parking and access.

Two representatives from Rokesly addressed the Committee and objected to the application, following the consultation with the applicant on the following grounds:

• That the development would have a serious detrimental effect on the character of the area.
• Concerns regarding the safety of the children in Rokesly school.
• Loss of amenity.
• Intrusion
• Over shadowing
• Concerns regarding highway and pedestrian safety

The road layout was a concern as children would find it difficult to cross the roundabout and was considered to be an accident waiting to happen.  In respect of the application the refuse collection arrangements were considered to be unsatisfactory and located too far from occupants’ front doors.

The proposed development was further considered to be visually intrusive as  the 3 storey building would loom over the playground.  The children would be penned in the playground surrounded by high garden walls.  The proposed arrangements for the windows and balconies would create further overlooking onto the playground.  The flat roofs would be used by residents as terraces and they would be able to see into the south facing classrooms.  The development would further cause considerable over shadowing of the playground, significantly throughout the day, which was heavily used in the mornings and at playtimes. 

Cllr Santry entered the meeting at 7:40pm.

Members enquired of the objectors whether they had been consulted by the applicants.  The Committee was informed that the objectors had met with the applicants and the issues were discussed in detail however, on reflection it was felt that the application did not address the issues raised.

Cllr Gorrie addressed the Committee to receive confirmation on the following three points:

1. That the applicants had consulted with Rokesly School and that feedback from the school had been received.
2. Whether officers felt that the site was suitable for residential development.
3. To clarify the responsibility of the Council in terms of the process to be followed, bearing in mind that the application was for outline permission.  How the application would be reviewed and discussed with stakeholders and any changes to the scheme would need to be consulted and managed by the school.

The planning officer confirmed that in the UDP the site was identified for mixed use residential and retail development and was considered to be suitable as an analysis had been carried out previously to arrive at this decision.  In terms of the outline application, the Committee could add conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 289.

Erection of a Secondary School arranged over three to five floor levels (gross floor area 10,930 sq metres), for approx. 1,100 students; formation of pedestrian access in wall facing Wood Green Common, and vehicular access from Western and Station Roads; provision of 39 car parking spaces, 80 cycle spaces, hard and soft landscaping, multi-use games areas, 1 roof-mounted wind turbine, new fencing to Station Road and Wood Green Common; installation of LED media screen to North elevation of South wing.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions; noting that the application will have to be referred formally to the Greater London Authority (GLA)

The planning officer addressed the Committee and stated that there were changes to some of the conditions outlined in the report as follows:

Condition 2.      The development approved plans should have included that   the dwellings would be in accordance with remedial sites.

Condition 12.    The level of noise emitted from the wind turbine should read as singular as there was only one.  The air handling units should be 10 decibels as detailed in the noise consultant’s report which they confirmed that could be achieved.

Condition 19.    The Green Travel Plans should be submitted three months after the school was occupied.

Condition 20.    The Highway works would be done at the entry of the site.  Traffic signal installation would be carried out  within three months of the date of this submission.

An extra condition. The advertising hoarding along the site should be removed before the occupation of the school building.

The Committee was informed that this site was located in the northern part of Haringey.  The site was bounded on the west side by the main east coast railway line.  The site was 2.5 hectares in size and had a mix of current uses which included; commercial use (storage, builders yard/scaffolding), a wooded scrub section and an access road along the west boundary of the site.  There was limited built structures on the site, with over 50% of the site consisting of hard surfacing.

The application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment which covered a wide range of areas.  The applicant had also carried out a consultation over a nine month period before submitting the planning application.  There was an identified need for a new secondary school in the centre of the Borough, to accommodation a growing school population; the proposal met the Heartlands Policy Framework.  The school would cater for 11 – 16 year olds.

The design concept was to provide a  main core building parallel to the railway, effectively three storeys high, containing a main assembly hall, sports hall, dining area, resource centre and circulation space (The Forum).  The two wings on the eastern side, separated by a landscaped courtyard were respectively four and five storeys high when viewed from Wood Green Common. 

The building would be flat roofed with green roofs.  The staircase towers would be clad in terracotta rendered panels, stock brick to both sides of the elevated wings and white render to the main core building.  The rear wall of the main building facing the railway would be an acoustic wall of concrete with insulation, but clad with trellis and climbing plants to form a Green Wall.  The embankment would be punctuated by new buildings and there would be the need to remove a number of trees however, this would be mitigated by the provision of new landscaped areas and by the planning of 176 new trees in different parts of the site.

The Committee was asked to grant permission subject to conditions; noting that the application would have to be referred formally to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 290.

Erection of 2 x single storey buildings at the school’s frontage to provide a new administration block and learning resource centre, and create a new main entrance.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Construction of three floodlit porous macadam tennis courts and associated access pathways (additional information supplied in support of application including suggested planning conditions).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions

The Officer informed the Committee that the subject site consisted of grassed recreational land adjacent to Coolhurst Lawn Tennis Club.  The site lay in the south-eastern corner of St Aloysius College Sport Field.  The site was designated as Significant Local Open Land (SLOL) and is in the Crouch End Conservation Area.

The proposed courts were for sporting use and were considered to be ancillary to SLOL’s current use as a sports field.  The proposal courts were small in scale, occupying approximately 3% of its area.  The proposed would bring hard surfacing , floodlights and fencing to the SLOL.  It was further considered that these would not detract from its open nature and character. 

The courts and floodlighting would expand the existing tennis facilities and accommodate more players, including juniors from local schools, thereby making such facilities available to the wider community.  It was also considered that the light from the proposed floodlight columns would fall to a maximum of 20 metres away from the courts. 

The proposed pathway in Hurst Avenue would not allow access to the courts and is separated by a high fence, with a locked self-closing gate which would not be available for use after 20:00pm.  There would not be any significant traffic that would have a noticeable adverse impact on the adjoining road, or a significant negative impact on public or private transport networks, including highways or traffic conditions.  The applicant had proposed 12 cycle spaces.

A local resident addressed the Committee and objected on the grounds that the report had not taken into account the objections raised.  There was only one local resident in support of the application whose residence backed onto the site.  In relation to the floodlighting it was proposed to operate until 10:00pm.  The objector requested the Committee to limit the hours of operation to 8:30pm as the lighting would be intrusive.

The applicant addressed the Committee and advised that the proposal would provide a proper and fit use for a playing field.  The detailed report had been prepared and looked at by professionals.  The Police had confirmed to the Council that the fence and footpath would increase and not decrease security.  The relationship between Coolhurst and St Aloysuis was shared and it was proposed to jointly develop the tennis courts.  The courts would be made available to other schools in the area.

The Committee questioned whether it was possible to have tree planting along the field site of the Courts and the height of the floodlights.  In response the Committee was advised that tree planting was included in condition 4 and that the height of the floodlights was 10 metres from garden level and the total height would be 14 metres.  Members requested a condition that the nearest tennis court to residential properties would close at 8:30pm during Winter months until the screening was in place.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions and a further condition that the nearest tennis court to residential properties would close at 8:30pm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 292.

Change of use and Refurbishment of derelict storage building into Day Nursery Use Class (D1)

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Erection of a two storey building to provide new sixth form study and common room space, and training space.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subjec to conditions

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Erection of 3 x 2 storey extension on first, second and loft floors to create 3 x one bed and 6 x two bed flats.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Approval of reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance and landscaping) pursuant to outline planning permission HGY/2005/1439 for 70 bed care home.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve reserved matters and vary schedule 3 of the Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline permission.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Special Planning Committee ~ Thursday 17 November 2008

Special Planning Committee ~ Monday 17 November 2008

The meeting concluded 10:15pm.