Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Rice, for whom Cllr Adamou 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 14 below.

There were no new items of urgent business, however an amended version of the minutes of the 14 March 2011 had been circulated for approval in relation to agenda item 5, and three additional pieces of correspondence in relation to agenda item 11 had been tabled for consideration by Committee Members.

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 publicly stated that he was a member of the Ladder Community Safety Partnership, who were formal objectors to the planning application at agenda item 11.

Cllr Adamou declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 11 as a member of  the Ladder Community Safety Partnership.

Marc Dorfman declared a personal interest in agenda item 11, as he had previously worked at London Borough of Ealing at the same time as Lainya Offside-Keivani, who was now Chief Executive of the Bridge Renewal Trust, although in a different department.

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 14^th March 2011.

RESOLVED

That the amended minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee on 14 March, as tabled at the meeting to include the conditions for planning application HGY/2011/0033, be approved and signed by the Chair.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during February 2011.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during February 2011 of which 2 (33%) were allowed and 4 (67%) were dismissed.

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 21^st February 2011 and 20^th March 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 21 February and 20 March 2011.

NOTED

To advise the Committee of performance statistics on Development Management and Planning Enforcement since the 14^th March 2011 Committee meeting.

The Committee considered a report on decisions taken within set time targets by Development Management and Planning Enforcement since the 14 March Planning Committee. It was noted that details of the planning contravention notices served had been unavailable at the time of compiling the report, and details of these would be included in the next report to the Committee.

NOTED

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Order:

1. 35 Stanhope Gardens, N6

The Committee considered a report recommending confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at 35 Stanhope Gardens, N6. It was noted that the arboriculturalist supported the TPO, and that no objections had been received.

RESOLVED

That the Tree Preservation Order upon the tree located at 35 Stanhope Gardens, N6, be confirmed.

Change of use from (A3) to D1 (Pharmacy) and external alterations to create new entrance.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation responses, assessment of the application and recommendations. The Planning Officer presented the report, and noted that Members of the Committee had been provided with a hard copy of the consultation responses in full for their information, as well as additional correspondence tabled at the meeting from Circle 33, from Planning Aid for London and from Andrea Holden. In response to the correspondence from Circle 33, the officer confirmed that, as owners of the property, they would have been notified regarding the application; with regards to the issue of whether the proposed pharmacy was ancillary to the health centre as raised in the letter from Planning Aid for London, it was confirmed that the Council’s position was that the site consisted of a single planning unit, with the café and the proposed pharmacy ancillary to the D1 health centre use. In response to the concern raised in the letter form Andrea Holden regarding whether the Bridge Renewal Trust were acting in the spirit of its funding body the Seven Sisters Bridge NDC, it was not felt that this was a material consideration in the determination of the application by the Committee.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Planning Officer confirmed that the issue of whether the site formed a single planning unit was a matter of fact and degree, and that the Committee had to consider the application on its merits. The Committee noted that, while the premises was located just outside the Seven Sisters Bridge NDC Area of Change as stated in the report, the premises had been built with contributions from NDC, and asked whether this meant that policy AC4 should be applicable. It was confirmed by the Planning Officer and Legal Officer that policy AC4 was not applicable to the site, as it was located outside the defined area indicated on the proposals map. Officers advised that the use of NDC funding for the construction of the health centre was not an issue relevant to the Committee’s decision regarding this application, and advised members that any attempt to apply policy AC4 to a premises outside the defined area would be open to legal challenge. In response to questions from the Committee regarding the impact on the Conservation Area and traffic, it was felt the minor changes proposed to the entranceway of the premises would not impact the Conservation Area, and that potential traffic impact had been assessed in relation to the proposal and it was felt that traffic for the pharmacy would be broadly the same as existing traffic for the health centre.

Cllr Brabazon, Ward Councillor for St Ann’s, addressed the Committee in objection of the application on behalf of all three Ward Councillors. Cllr Brabazon told the Committee that the application represented a material change of use and should be treated as such. It was reported that the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Planning permission sought for HGY/ 2011/0193; the demolition of 1940s extensions to listed villa and replacement with new single storey extension; repairs to fabric and re-planning of interior; extension of terrace to Archway Road to accommodate 4 self contained flats; erection of a detached 4 bedroom residential unit to front onto Cholmeley Park with an associated off-street car parking space; removal of specified trees and planting of new trees and hard and soft landscaping to the site.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and subject to Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation responses and recommendations. The planning officer presented the report, and advised the Committee that the proposal had been amended to remove the wording “with an associated off street car parking space”, that the wording of condition 8 to recommendation 4 in the report be amended to remove “to Schedule 2” and that under the planning history, applications HGY/2010/1652 and HGY/2010/1653 had both been withdrawn, rather than ‘not determined’ as set out in the report. The relevant Traffic Management Order would be amended to reflect that the scheme would now be car-free, with free membership of the car club for the first year. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement.

The Committee asked questions of the officer. In response to a question regarding the height of the proposed new building in relation to the properties on Southwood Avenue, it was reported that the gardens of these properties was significantly lower than the site. The Committee asked about the design of the proposed new building in the context of the Conservation Area, in response to which it was reported that the design was largely determined by the site constraints and that there was a wish for the new building to be subordinate and to respect the openness of the site. It was felt that the proposal was sympathetic to its surroundings, although being modern in design.

A local resident, Keith Gold, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr Gold outlined the planning history of the site, and advised that local residents did not object to the proposals for the extension of the terrace on Archway Road, nor the refurbishment of the listed building, but that the Cholmeley Park proposal was a concern as it would infringe local residents’ privacy and overlook the gardens of properties on Southwood Avenue. At the very least, the Committee was asked to reduce the height of the proposed new building by 2m. On the basis of the impact the proposal would have on local residents, the Committee was asked to reject the application.

Cllr Allison, Local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and asked them to reject the application on the grounds of the design of the proposed new building. It was felt to be too high, too wide and with no features of merit. Cllr Allison reported that the design failed to address the concerns put forward by English Heritage and was unattractive. There were no objections to the two other elements of the application. Cllr Hare, Local Ward Councillor, also addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed new building. Cllr Hare reported that the design related poorly to the landscape, took no account of the comments of English Heritage and was not of sufficient quality for a Conservation Area. The Committee was asked to reject the application.

In response to a question from the Committee,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

Listed building consent is sought for HGY/ 2011/0194; the demolition of 1940s extensions to listed villa and replacement with new single storey extension; repairs to fabric and re-planning of interior; extension of terrace to Archway Road to accommodate 4 self contained flats; erection of a detached 4 bedroom residential unit to front onto Cholmeley Park with an associated off-street car parking space; removal of specified trees and planting of new trees and hard and soft landscaping to the site.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, regarding an application for Listed Building Consent. The report set out the application, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy and recommendation.

It was moved by Cllr Schmitz and seconded by Cllr Reece that the application be rejected on the grounds that the proposed development to the rear of the site, by reason of its siting, design and footprint represented a cramped form of development which would have an unsympathetic relationship with the listed building and adjoining properties, furthermore the introduction of such a development to this part of the site would not preserve the character or the appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to CSV1. On a vote it was:

RESOLVED

That application HGY/2011/0194 be refused on the grounds that the proposed development to the rear of the site, by reason of its siting, design and footprint would represented a cramped form of development which would have an unsympathetic relationship with the Listed Building to the detriment of its character and setting. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy CSV2 ‘Listed Building’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and supplementary planning guidance SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology'.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday, 16^th May 2011, at 7pm.

Monday, 16^th May 2011 at 7pm.

The meeting closed at 22:15hrs.