Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Rice, for whom Cllr Egan was substituting, from Cllr Reece, for whom Cllr Hare was substituting and from Cllr Reid, for whom Cllr Newton was substituting.

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 15 below.

There were no new 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 Schmitz declared a personal interest as he had previously contacted Cllr Winskill to ask for a copy of the representation he was going to make to the Committee in respect of application for Monkridge.

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 Planning Committee held on 13 December 2010.

TO FOLLOW

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair.

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

The Committee considered a report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during November 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 22 November and 12 December 2010.

The Committee considered a report on decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair between 22 November and 12 December 2010.

NOTED

To advise the Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 13^th December 2010 Committee meeting.

The Committee considered a report on performance statistics for Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 13^th December 2010 Planning Committee meeting.

In response to a question from the Committee, it was agreed that information on the breakdown of planning applications outstanding after 3 months, 6 months and 12 months would be provided to Cllr Egan outside the meeting.

NOTED

Report of the Director of Urban Environment to inform Members of Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery up to the third quarter of 2010/11 and to inform Members of the reduction in establishment following an in-year budget reduction.

The Committee considered a report on Planning Enforcement’s progress in maintaining service delivery up to the third quarter of 2010/11 and the reduction in establishment following an in-year budget reduction.

In response to a question from the Committee, Myles Joyce, Team Leader Planning Enforcement, advised that the cases at 1 Bruce Castle Road and 9 Heybourne Road had been referred to court under the Proceeds of Crime Act. It was confirmed that the Council should receive a share of any funds recovered as a result of successful legal action.

NOTED

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. Scout Park, Gordon Road, N11
2. 54 Avenue Road N6

The Committee considered a report recommending Tree Preservation Orders against trees located at Scout Park, Gordon Road N11 and 54 Avenue Road, N6. There were no objections in relation to the proposed TPO at Scout Park, however an objection had been received in relation to 54 Avenue Road.

Mr Keeley, a freeholder of 54 Avenue Road, addressed the Committee in objection to the proposed TPO as the trees were causing damage to the property and would cause further damage as they grew, as well as blocking light to the property.  It was reported that the freeholders of the property would be happy to replace the trees with other species which would not cause the same problems. Mr Keeley answered questions from the Committee.

In response to questions from the Committee, officers advised that a TPO would not prevent necessary work from being undertaken to the trees, but would meant that any work would need the approval of the Council.

The Chair moved the recommendation that the TPO be approved and on a vote of 8 in favour, 1 opposed, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED

That the Tree Preservation Orders at Scout Park, Gordon Road, N11 and 54 Avenue Road, N6 be confirmed.

Enlargement of existing roof areas of main buildings to create 3 x one bed flats and 1 x two bed flat (Building 1) and 2 x two bed flats (Building 2). Formation of 1 x one bed flat within unused garage space of Building 2 incorporating one bedroom from adjacent flat. Demolition of existing garage block to rear of site and erection of 2 x two bed flats. Associated landscaping and creation of 20 car parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, the site and its environment, planning history, consultation and relevant planning factors and policies. The officer gave a presentation outlining the key issues, in particular the differences between the current application and the previously refused application relating to the same site, and suggested that additional conditions be imposed requiring the submission of a parking management plan, and the protection of existing trees during construction work.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the window design had not altered since the Conservation Officer had made their response to the consultation, but that it was felt that the proposed design was an improvement on the previous application and was satisfactory. It was reported that details of how parking arrangements at the site would be enforced would be covered in the parking management plan, and that a fuller plan than the version already submitted would be required by condition, were the application granted. In response to concerns expressed that the issue of hard landscaping was not adequately addressed in the report, despite accounting for a large number of responses to the consultation, the Committee was advised that the presentations made by all parties at the meeting and the responses to questions should also be taken into account when making its decision, and not just the written report.

Two local residents, Ms Hessel and Mr Hoyle, spoke in objection to the application. Ms Hessel outlined the number of schools and community facilities in the vicinity of the site, and emphasised the existing road safety issues which the application would exacerbate were it to be granted, putting local primary school children at risk. Mr Hoyle told the Committee that there was no local support for the development, which would make the existing building more dominating and more dense than at present, and reduce the amount of open space on the site. Mr Hoyle expressed concern that the parking management plan showed that access to the car park would be via the entrance directly opposite the entrance to a busy school. It was stated that the scheme was fundamentally the same as the previous scheme which had been refused and that this development should also be refused permission.

Cllr Winskill, Ward Councillor for Crouch End, addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and showed some photographs illustrating existing traffic problems in the vicinity of the site, which was one of the key objections from local residents. Cllr Winskill reported that the proposals would have an adverse effect on the Conservation Area and should be refused outright, as it was almost the same as the previous scheme which was refused, just with more parking spaces. Concern was also expressed regarding the impact on residents of the loss of front gardens to accommodate the new parking spaces, and the environmental impact of replacing lawn with hard surfaces.

In response to questions from the Committee, the objectors reported that traffic would not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garage block to rear of site and erection of 2 x two bed flats.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which gave details of the application for Conservation Area Consent, the site and its environment, planning history and relevant planning policy and consultation responses.

RESOLVED

That, subject to condition, application HGY/2010/1885 be approved.

Condition:

1. 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 proposal is considered to be consistent with Policy CSV 7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

Section 106: No

Residential redevelopment of playground site adjoining Stainby Road to propose 22 residential dwellings with associated landscaping, boundary treatment, bin store, cycle store and 2 car parking spaces for wheelchair users.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which gave details of the application, the site and its environment, planning history, consultation and relevant planning policies and factors. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key issues, and responded to questions from the Committee.

The Committee asked who the users of the current play area were, in response to which officers advised that the equipment provided was for children aged five and under, but that the space itself was open for anyone to use. Officers advised that, at present, the space was rarely used. In response to questions from the Committee regarding the proposal to change the road from one-way to two-way traffic and the relocation of the play area, officers advised that the proposed location for the play area was better as it was more secure and more enclosed and it was hoped that this would lead to it being more used. It was reported that the introduction of two-way traffic was unlikely to change the overall volume of traffic but might reduce the average speed on the road, which would be beneficial. The Committee asked whether there would be a time when the old play area had been removed and the new area was not yet completed, in response to which it was reported there may be some gap in provision of play facilities on the site. Sandra Lawrence, Housing, advised that it could take 6 months from the granting of the application for new facilities to be in place; consultation with local residents regarding what they wanted in respect of play facilities was ongoing.

Two local residents, Ms Benson and Mr Barnes spoke in objection to the application. Ms Benson told the Committee that residents had not had a sufficient opportunity to engage with the development forum, as they had been told about it at short notice. Ms Benson advised that the current playground should be improved and extended, and that the development was inappropriate as it would put pressure on existing community facilities such as schools, as the additional community infrastructure to support new development was not in place. Mr Barnes reported that he was in favour of the development in principal, but felt that it should include a community facility, such as a training facility for young people in the area, so that residents would benefit from the development.  Mr Barnes felt that any money generated from the development should be reinvested in community facilities for local residents.

In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Benson advised that she was opposed to the relocation of the play area, as the proposed new site was one of the only open green spaces in the vicinity, which would be lost. She also felt that the issue of overdevelopment in the area was a key issue. In response to further questions from the Committee, Ms Benson reported that the issue of lack of community facilities was more of an issue than any potential improvements to the streetscape, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

The Committee asked for an update on the request at the previous meeting that the rules regarding visitor permits in Controlled Parking Zones be reviewed. Malcolm Smith, Transport, reported that it had been agreed that residents of defined car free developments within CPZs would be allowed to apply for visitor parking permits, but would not be allowed resident parking permits.

Special, Monday 24 January 2011, 7pm.

Monday, 14 February 2011, 7pm.

Special Planning Committee, Monday 24^th January, 7pm.

Planning Committee, Monday 14^th February, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 21:40hrs.