Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Reece.

Cllr McNamara advised that although he had not attended the organised site visit, he had visited each of the sites separately in advance of the meeting.

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 16 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

There were no deputations or petitions.

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the special Planning Committee held on 26 October 2010 and the Planning Committee held on 8 November 2010.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Special Planning Committee on 26^th October 2010 and the Planning Committee on 8^th November 2010 be approved and signed by the respective Chairs.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during October 2010.

The Committee considered a report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during October 2010.

NOTED

To inform the Committee of decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the above Committee between 18 October 2010 and 21 November 2010.

The Committee considered a report on decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the Planning Committee between 18 October 2010 and 21 November 2010.

NOTED

To advise the Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the  8 November 2010 Committee meeting.

The Committee considered a report on performance statistics for Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement.

In response to a question from the Committee, it was reported that the Committee would receive an update as part of a future statistics report on the premises at Eldon Parade, further to the Enforcement Notice having been served.

NOTED

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Order:

1. 66 Shepherds Hill, N6

The Committee considered a report recommending Tree Preservation Orders against trees located at 66 Shepherds Hill, N6. It was confirmed that no objections had been received in regard to the TPOs.

RESOLVED

That the Tree Preservation Orders be confirmed.

Demolition of existing structures / buildings and erection of part 3 / part 4 storey residential development to provide 29 residential units with associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission, subject to conditions and subject to s106 and s278 Legal Agreements.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all the relevant planning factors and policies.

Cllr Rice entered the meeting at 7.20pm, and did not participate in the vote on this application.

The Planning Officer gave an outline of the report, highlighting the key points. It was reported that the layout of the site had been updated further to that described in the report; the improved layout was available for inspection by the Committee when they consulted the plans.

The Committee inspected the plans. In response to questions regarding the risk of flooding at the site and its history, it was reported that the Environment Agency had taken the view that the risk of flooding was negligible. The Planning Officer advised that the proposed additional condition set out in the report in relation to the submission of a drainage impact assessment needed to be added to the conditions for the application.

Concern was expressed that the number of car club spaces proposed was not specified in the report, in response to which the Committee was advised that this would be two on-street car club spaces. It was confirmed that the number of car club spaces and the issue of parking would form part of the section 106 agreement and would be worded appropriately.

The Committee expressed concern that, as a car-free development, residents would be unable to apply for visitors parking permits under the terms of the CPZ. It was suggested that this issue should be looked at by the Council on a borough-wide basis. Concern was also expressed that there had been some inconsistency in the advice Members had received regarding this issue in the past. It was agreed that the Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy and the Chair of the Planning Committee would meet with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration to discuss the wider policy issue of visitor parking permits not being allowed for car-free developments and to consider whether this could be reviewed; the Committee strongly endorsed this.

It was clarified that the section 106 contribution would be payable on implementation.

RESOLVED

That, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the additional condition regarding the submission of a drainage impact assessment and further details of a surface water discharge strategy and subject to a section 106 agreement, to include the provision of two car club spaces, application HGY/2010/1428 be approved. The wider issue of visitor parking permits for car-free developments would be taken forward for discussion with the appropriate Cabinet Member.

Conditions:

IMPLEMENTATION

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 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The development hereby authorised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Demolition of existing building and erection of new 3 storey building comprising 7 x two bed and 1 x one bed flats. (Revised drawings)

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

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all relevant planning factors and policies.

The Planning Officer gave an outline of the report, highlighting the key points, and responded to questions from the Committee. In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that the requirement for the provision of affordable housing was triggered by applications of 10 units or more.

The Committee questioned the assessment that the site had a low level of public transport accessibility, and asked why private parking was permitted at this site and not other proposed developments. The Transportation Officer advised that this site was not appropriate for a car-free development as it was not in a CPZ, and that the Transportation team had no objection to the proposals, as the site could accommodate off-street parking without the need for any on-street provision. It was confirmed that the method for calculating the level of accessibility by public transport was based on the number and frequency of nearby routes, and that a site such as this was very different in terms of accessibility than a site close to a transport hub such as Tottenham Hale.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the automated gate and whether cars waiting to access the site would disrupt traffic while waiting for the gate to open, it was confirmed that there was sufficient space for a car to wait off-street for the gate to open without disrupting traffic.

Mr Tillotson, a local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr Tillotson advised that the proposed building was much larger than the previous building on the site, and would be a dominating structure which would overlook neighbouring gardens and the private close. The Committee were invited to consider some photographs to demonstrate the difference in size between the proposed block and the previous building, and the impact this would have on the local amenity. Vehicular access to the premises could cause problems.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Tillotson confirmed that the previous building on the site had been two-storey and that the main concern for local residents was the excessive bulk of the proposed block. It was felt that an application that was more in sympathy with the surrounding area would be preferable.

The applicant’s agent, Mr Laverick, addressed the Committee. It was reported that the scheme had been adapted in consultation with the Council’s Head of Development Control to address the various issues raised by Council officers and local residents. Although the proposed block was three storeys in height, it was in fact lower than the neighbouring two storey houses, and was designed in sympathy with the nearby nurses home. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Laverick advised that there was sufficient evidence that the mixture of flats in the development would be acceptable in this area. The Committee inspected the plans.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Demolition of existing mixed use building (North Road, No. 26) and adjoining single storey structure with basement under; change of use (No. 28 North Road) from residential building to ancillary medical centre for Highgate School; demolition of existing pitched roof (Garner Building); erection of four storey and lower ground (School Building); erection of roof extension (Garner Building) of 1 storey; forming a new entrance into the existing science building and relocation of external steps.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all relevant planning policies and guidance. In addition the Committee considered the accompanying Conservation Area consent and Listed Building applications.

The Planning Officer gave an outline of the planning application, highlighting the key points. The Officer outlined that conditions 2 to 10 of the CAC and Listed Building applications needed to be deleted as they should only apply to the planning consent. The Officer highlighted that a standard condition preventing demolition works until there was a signed contract for the implementation of the scheme needed to be imposed on the CAC consent. The Officer responded to questions from the Committee.

In response to questions regarding comments submitted in writing by Mr MacBryde, an objector to the proposal, the Planning Officer advised that he disagreed with the assessment that the design was not sensitive, and judged that the proposal fitted the context of its environment. The Committee asked about the impact on neighbouring properties in respect of light, in response to which it was reported that there was an impact on one first-floor window in a property in the almshouses, but that the overall impact was not felt to be significant.

The Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy advised the Committee that the scheme had gone through a pre-application process, resulting in the application in its present form, which addressed issues raised by the Council. In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether officers agreed with the objectors’ assessment of the degree of overlooking to the almshouses which would arise from the proposal, it was confirmed that officers did not agree with this assessment, as it was their view that the existing high wall facing the almshouses prevented the proposed new building from affecting these properties further.

Two local residents, Mr MacBryde and Ms Goudy addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of a number of other local residents. Mr MacBryde explained that he was an architect and planner who had formerly worked for the Planning Inspectorate. Mr MacBryde had submitted a written statement objecting to the application, expressing a number of concerns, the main issues being the impact on the amenity by loss of light, noise and disturbance caused by traffic on the access lane and failure to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. Ms Goudy advised the Committee that she was a resident of the Island site, where local residents felt that the proposals were disproportionate and would loom over residential properties. Ms Goudy also expressed concerns that the proposals would exacerbate existing issues of traffic and parking, and that the back lane was unsuitable for vehicular access to the site. Ms Goudy read out a letter from a resident of the almshouses who was alarmed to hear of the proposals due to concerns about loss of sunlight, as sitting in her garden, which was her pride and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Listed Building Consent for demolition of existing mixed use building (North Road, No. 26) and adjoining single storey structure with basement under; change of use (No. 28 North Road) from residential building to ancillary medical centre for Highgate School; demolition of existing pitched roof (Garner Building); erection of four storey and lower ground (School Building); erection of roof extension (Garner Building) of 1 storey; forming a new entrance into the existing science building and relocation of external steps.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Listed Building Consent, subject to conditions.  

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the Listed Building Consent application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and the relevant planning policies and guidance.

The Committee was advised that only condition 1 of the conditions set out in the report applied to this application, and the rest should be disregarded. An additional condition should also be imposed to state that full implementation could only be undertaken once a contract had been signed.

RESOLVED

That, subject to the conditions as amended, including the additional condition that full implementation could only commence once the necessary contract had been signed, Listed Building Consent application HGY/2010/1889 be approved.

Conditions:

IMPLEMENTATION

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 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The reasons for the grant of conservation area consent are as follows:

(a) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason: The design, form, detailing and facing materials of the replacement building is considered acceptable and will not have any detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area or Listed Buildings.

(b) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan (July 2006); in particular the following CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas', CSV2 'Listed Buildings', CSV5 'Alterations and Extensions in Conservation Areas', CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas', CSV8 'Archaeology' and SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology' of Haringey Supplementary Planning Guidance (October 2006).

Section 106: No

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing mixed use building (North Road, No. 26) and adjoining single storey structure with basement under; change of use (No. 28 North Road) from residential building to ancillary medical centre for Highgate School; demolition of existing pitched roof (Garner Building); erection of four storey and lower ground (School Building); erection of roof extension (Garner Building) of 1 storey; forming a new entrance into the existing science building and relocation of external steps.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application for Conservation Area Consent, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all relevant planning policies and guidance.

The Committee was advised that of the conditions set out in the report, only condition 1 was applicable to this application, and the remainder should be disregarded.

RESOLVED

That, subject to the conditions as amended, Conservation Area Consent application HGY/2010/1890 be approved.

Conditions:

IMPLEMENTATION

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 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works for redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.   

Reason: In order to ensure that the site is not left open and vacant to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of the locality.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The reasons for the grant of conservation area consent are as follows:

(a) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason: The design, form, detailing and facing materials of the replacement building is considered acceptable and will not have any detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area or Listed Buildings.

(b) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan (July 2006); in particular the following CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas', CSV2 'Listed Buildings', CSV5 'Alterations and Extensions in Conservation Areas', CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas', CSV8 'Archaeology' and SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology' of Haringey Supplementary Planning Guidance (October 2006).

Section 106: No

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

7pm, 11 January 2011.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 22:00hrs.