Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Rice, for whom Cllr Adamou was substituting, and from Cllr Schmitz, for whom Cllr Wilson 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 13 below.

There were no new items of urgent business. An addendum report in respect of agenda item 10 had been tabled, and would be addressed by the officer as part of the presentation of that item.

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 Waters declared a personal interest as she was Ward Councillor for the application at agenda item 13.

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 11 January 2011 and the Special Planning Committee held on 24 January 2011.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 11 January 2011 and the special Planning Committee held on 24 January 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 December 2010.

The Committee considered a report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during December 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 13 December 2010 and 23 January 2011.

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 13 December 2010 and 23 January 2011.

In response to a question regarding the property at 146 Wightman Road, it was agreed that the Head of Development Management would write to Cllr Adamou regarding this case. It was also agreed that a briefing note would be provided for the Committee on the process in respect of certificates of lawfulness for HMOs.

NOTED

To advise the Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 11^th January 2011 Planning Committee meeting.

The Committee considered a report on performance statistics for Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 11^th January 2011 Planning Committee.

It was noted that the figures in respect of appeals for December 2010 should be corrected to read:

“29% of appeals allowed on refusals (2 out of 7 cases)

71% of appeals dismissed on refusals (5 out of 7 cases”

The Chair asked for clarification regarding the successful prosecutions referred to Crown Court for confiscation, and it was agreed that the Team Leader, Planning Enforcement, would circulate information on this to the Committee outside the meeting.

NOTED

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. 6 North Hill, N6
2. 29 Cranley Gardens, N10

The Committee considered a report recommending Tree Preservation Orders against trees located at 6 North Hill, N6 and 29 Cranley Gardens, N10. No objections had been received in respect of the proposed TPOs.  

RESOLVED

That the Tree Preservation Orders at 6 North Hill, N6 and 29 Cranley Gardens, N10 be confirmed.

To amend the s106 agreement to allow the playground to be provided after occupation of the new housing development but before December 2012.

TO FOLLOW

The Committee considered a report on a proposal to amend the resolution made at the Planning Committee meeting on 11 January 2011 in respect of the Playground Site adjoining Stainby Road to ensure the provision of the housing estate and playground and estate improvements.

RESOLVED

That the variation of the existing Section 106 Agreement be approved to allow for the playground to be delivered by no later than 31 December 2012 by the Council.

The Committee considered an addendum to the report, seeking approval to extend the date for completion of the Section 106 Agreement from 27 January 2011 to 24 March 2011.

RESOLVED

i)                    That the Agreement referred to in the Committee’s resolution from 11 January is to be completed by no later than 24 March 2011 or within such extended time as the Council’s Assistant Director (Planning, Regeneration and Economy) shall in his discretion allow.

ii)                   That in the absence of the Agreement, planning application reference HGY/2010/2025 be refused for the following reasons:

In the absence of a formal undertaking to secure a Section 106 Agreement for appropriate contribution towards education provision the proposal is contrary to Policy UD8 ‘Planning Obligations’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and SPG10c ‘Education needs generated by new housing’.

Change of use of ground floor from B1 (business) / D1 (non-residential institution) to C3 (residential) comprising 4 x two bed flats and 1x three bed flat.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to Sec. 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, planning history, consultation and relevant planning policy and factors. The Planning Officer presented the report, highlighting key issues, and the Committee had an opportunity to examine the plans.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the Council had no control over whether residents of designated ‘car-free’ developments owned vehicles which they kept elsewhere, but that the restriction on parking in the vicinity of such developments was generally successful. The Committee raised the issue of landscaping, and it was confirmed that a condition would be in place requiring the applicant to submit their plans in respect of landscaping.

RESOLVED

1)     That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2010/2083, subject to a pre-condition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into an Agreement or Agreements with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) and Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 in order to secure:

1.1)           A contribution of £20,000.00 towards educational facilities within the Borough (£10,000.00 for primary and £10,000.00 for secondary) according to the formula set out in Policy UD8 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 10c of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006;

1.2)           A sum of £1,000.00 towards the amendment of the relevant Traffic Management Order(s) (TMO) controlling on-street parking in the vicinity of the site to reflect that the residential units shall be designated ‘car free’ and therefore no residents therein will be entitled to apply for a residents parking permit under the terms of this Traffic Management Order(s) (TMO);

1.3)           The developer to pay an administration / monitoring cost of £1,000.00 in connection with this Section 106 agreement. This gives a total of £22,000.00.

2)     That in the absence of the Agreement referred to in the resolution above being completed by 31^st March 2011, planning application reference number HGY/2010/2083 be refused for the following reason:

In the absence of a formal undertaking to secure a Section 106 Agreement for appropriate contribution towards education the proposal is contrary to Policy UD8 ‘Planning Obligations’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG10a ‘The Negotiation, Management and Monitoring of Planning Obligations’ and SPG10c ‘Educational Needs Generated by New Housing Development’.

3)     In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reason set out above, the Assistant Director (PEPP) (in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission which duplicates the Planning Application provided that:

i)                    there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and

ii)                  the further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Assistant Director (PEPP) within a period of not more than 12 months from the date of the said refusal, and

iii)                the relevant parties shall have previously entered into the agreement contemplated in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Erection of single storey 3 bedroom dwellinghouse with green roof and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, site and surroundings, planning history, consultation and relevant planning policy and factors. Key issues were highlighted in the Planning Officer’s report, and the officer responded to questions from the Committee regarding fire safety, emergency access and current use of the site. It was confirmed that the height of the elevated section of the roof of the proposed development would be 3.7m at its highest point.

Two local residents addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The local residents stated that the proposed house would be very close to the boundaries of a number of properties, and would lead to disturbance to neighbours, particularly when using their gardens, or when they wished to open their windows. It was also reported that the long access drive to the property would increase the risk of crime, as it would offer access to the neighbouring back gardens. Concerns were raised in respect of privacy, overlooking, light pollution, fire risk and emergency access. Residents reported that the existing plot provided a green space linking the gardens of the neighbouring terraces / gardens and contributed to the character of the Conservation Area. The residents concluded that the proposal went against existing Council policy and that, on the basis of the serious concerns they had raised, the application should be rejected.

Cllr Meehan, local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Cllr Meehan stated that he concurred with the views expressed by the local residents and in addition felt that it was a misrepresentation to state that the house would barely be visible above neighbouring fences, when in places it would be significantly higher. Cllr Meehan felt that the location was inappropriate for such a development, and would set a precedent if permitted. The Committee was asked to refuse the application on the grounds that it was inappropriate for this site.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and advised that this was a truly sustainable proposal for a family home on an unused site. It was reported that there was a need for housing in the borough, and that when a family was living on the site, it would in fact improve the security of neighbouring properties. It was reported that this was an application for a well-designed garden house in a garden location, as the proposal was inward-facing around a courtyard and represented how houses should be built in the future.

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant’s agent reported that, in his opinion, the proposal would have no detrimental impact on the conservation area, as it would be virtually invisible; the proposal would not have a negative impact on the amenity of any neighbouring properties as the house would result in no greater overlooking than at present and would not affect the light to neighbouring properties. It was reported that the design was as sensitive as possible and that, although the structure would be visible over neighbouring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday, 14^th March 2011, 7pm.

Monday, 14 March 2011, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 8.30pm.