Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Beacham. 

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 10 below.

New items of exempt business will be dealt with at item 10 below. Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear.  New items will be dealt with at item 10

In accordance with standing order 32 (6) no business other than that listed shall be transacted at the meeting.

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 judgement of the public interest.

Cllr Peacock declared a personal interest in the decision to be taken under agenda item 12, points 1 and 2.  “I believe that the application for planning permission significantly affects the interests of the same organisation that has made a donation to a charity that I have been involved in, in my capacity as secretary of the Tottenham Carnival.  This donation has not benefited me financially in any way but I thought it proper to bring them to the attention of this committee.  Although I am confident that I would be able to come to a decision on the question solely on the basis of the planning arguments this could also be considered a prejudicial interest.  I have decided in the interests of maintaining the highest standards of probity on these issues, to absent myself from the meeting when this item is considered”.

Cllr Bevan declared an interest in agenda item 12, points 1 and 2.  “I am the joint Treasurer of a local voluntary group; a known contributor to this group is involved in this application.  My position is that I genuinely believe that I only have a “personal interest” and have been advised as such.  However, as this is a particularly controversial application, this being the third time it has been before the full planning committee, I will not take any part in this application.  This as a matter of caution and to avoid any possible controversy concerning public perception on this occasion”.

Cllr Winskill declared a personal interest in agenda item 12, points 1 and 2 in that his partner’s family live in the flats which over look the site.

Cllr Peacock proposed that in the absence of herself and the deputy chair that Cllr Dodds should chair the meeting for this item.  The meeting agreed.

To consider receiving deputations and/or petitions in accordance with Standing Order 37

None received.

To confirm the Minutes of the PASC held on 26 June 2006.

Members were asked to note that under PASC 25, item 4 (40 Coleridge Road N8) it had been agreed that the Highways improvement contribution would include works to the car park if deemed necessary.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Applications Sub Committee held on 26 June 2006 be agreed and signed subject to the above amendment.

Appeal decisions determined during June 2006

Members were asked to note that there had been a number of appeal decisions taken over the last few weeks.  The report detailed two appeals on telecoms.  These were unpopular with the public however, one was upheld and the other dismissed. 

On page 24 of the report there had been a lengthy public enquiry on the London Concrete Planning appeal.  This was eventually allowed however, the inspectors had attached numerous conditions which the operator was required to adhere to.

Page 26.  The Odeon Cinema public enquiry the inspectors had agreed with the Council that it was an inappropriate development and therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Members raised concern over the number of appeals (46%) which had been allowed.  Officers advised that they were attempting to achieve a better percentage, however, June’s figures may have been affected by the introduction of the new UDP.

Cllr Dodds requested a copy of the appeal decision for 725 -733 Lordship Lane as there had been a significant loss of Section 106 money.  The Legal Officer confirmed that this had been obtained in full.

RESOLVED

1.            That Officers provide Cllr Dodds with a copy of the appeal decision for 725-733 Lordship Lane.

2.            That Members note the report.

Decisions made under delegated powers between 12 June 2006 and 9 July 2006.

Members were asked to note the decisions taken under delegated powers between 12 June 2006 and 9 July 2006.

Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action.

Members were asked to note the decisions taken within set time targets by Development Control and Planning Enforcement work since the Planning Application Sub Committee held on 26 June 2006.  

To review planning enforcement current performance.

The Assistant Director, Enforcement Services presented the report by advising the Committee that Enforcement Services started at the end of 2003 and that he had taken over Planning Enforcement in early 2004.

The report detailed the following:

·        A breakdown of the activity on a number of cases since 2002.

·        Details of the closures activities.

·        Analysis of the types of enforcement work carried out.

·        Analysis of the work on enforcement appeals.

·        Achievements on work on HMO’s, Tower Gardens and Conservation issues; wardens and estate activities, fly posting, public eyesores programme which operates through the better Haringey programme.

·        Work around Licensing and the 2003 Licensing Act.

·        General Improvements in the levels of work.

In point 5.1 of the report Members were advised there had been a 72% increase in case closures and 1432 had been resolved.  10% of the cases went back as far as 2001.  Therefore the Committee was asked to draw a line and close old cases registered before the end of December 2003.

The majority of complaints received were about house conversions (20%), followed by development extensions (15%) and departure from approved plans.  The report sets out considerable effort in resolving outstanding cases, to move forward with agreement to close old cases and to be able to then concentrate on priorities for seeking remedial actions.

Members raised the following concerns:

1.            That complainants should be informed when a case is closed.

2.            That when enforcement action is commenced it should continue until resolved.

3.            That a further report be provided detailing the complaints to be closed  by ward.

RESOLVED

That the decision to agree the recommendations be deferred pending receipt of a further detailed report on the complaints to be closed by ward.

Supplementary report re Legal Agreement money for residential development on the site between 72-74 Twyford Avenue N2.  RECOMMENDATION: To agree the attached report.

Officers presented the report and confirmed that one issue not decided by the Committee on 26 June 2006 was the education provision.  The applicants were not prepared to agree to the higher figure toward the education contribution.

Recent appeal decisions indicated that the applicant’s decision may be correct.  The design and layout of the application was considered to be an improvement on the previous scheme.  It was recommended that the Committee accept the £100k towards the Educational contribution.

RESOLVED

That Members agreed the recommendations outlined in the report.

Infill of ground floor and existing garage area to create 2 x 2 bed flats, and extension at third floor level to create 1 x 2 bed flat, 4 x 1 bed flats and the merging of an existing 1 bed flat to create 1 x 2 bed flat; and the rearrangement of car parking area, creation of lift and installation of front bay window to the ground, first and second floors.  RECOMMENDATION: To agree the recommendation in the attached report.

Members were advised this application was determined in 2004 and should have a legal Section 106 agreement.  Page 84, paragraph 3, concludes that it is not appropriate for the Council to seek a legal agreement.  The Committee is therefore requested to agree two further conditions instead and grant the application subject to the above change.

RESOLVED

That Members agreed to the recommendation outlined in the report.

In accordance with Sub Committee's protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations.  Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, normally no speakers will be heard.  For items considered previously by the sub committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations.  Where the recommendation is to refuse permission, normally no speakers will be heard.

Planning Application reports for determination.

1.      Cecile Mews, Rear of 60 – 88 Cecile Park N8 – Demolition of existing garages and erection of 4 x part single, part two storey houses together with six replacement garages.  This application is duplicate of HGY/2006/0386.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

2.      Cecile Mews, Rear of 60 – 88 Cecile Park N8 – Conservation Area Consent for the above demolition.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent subject to conditions.

3.      Land at Winns Mews (Off Grove Park Road) N15 – Demolition of existing building and erection of 4 x 2 storey (3 bedroom) houses and one single storey (2 bedroom) bungalow.  Bin store and cycle store.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

4.      Land at Winns Mews (Off Grove Park Road) N15 – Conservation Area Consent for the above demolition.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent.

5.      Unit 21, Cranford Way N8 – Erection of 4 storey building comprising manufacturing warehouse for joinery at upper ground and first floor levels, offices and meeting rooms at 2^nd and 3^rd floor levels and parking in basement.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission subject to conditions.

6.      103 Cornwall Road N15 – Demolition of existing building and erection of 3 storey building with basement parking comprising of 8 x 2 bedroom flats, 324 square metres of office space, 10 car parking spaces and cycle storage.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

7.      Unit 2, 4 & 5, 103 – 149 Cornwall Road & Land Adjoining 2 Falmer Road N15  - Demolition of existing industrial units and erection of a part 3 and 4 storey building comprising 7 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed flats with refuse and bicycle storage and associated car parking spaces.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Cllr Peacock and Cllr Bevan left the meeting at this point and Cllr Dodds took the Chair.

RESOLVED

That the decisions of the Sub Committee on the planning applications and related matters, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes, be approved or refused, with the following points noted:

1.      Cecile News, Rear of 60 – 88 Cecile Park N8

Officers presented the report by advising the Committee that this item had four appeals still be to decided.  The report identified the main concerns raised. 

Officers informed the Committee that a site visit had now taken place the previous Friday.   There had been a number of additional items presented since the report had been written.  Lynn Featherstone MP had confirmed her objections to the proposals and there had also been an additional letter from the Tree Trust for Haringey.   Nine additional letters had been received from residents raising similar objections to those in the report.

Objectors spoke on behalf of the Gladwell-Landrock-Cecile Park Residents Action Group (GLCRAG) and presented nine reasons why the application should not be granted:

• The buildings will be unacceptably intrusive.
• Risk to the appearance, health and development of the TPO oak tree.
• Unacceptable loss of the lock-up garages.
• The development does not meet the design standard required to prevent overlooking and lack of privacy.
• Poor quality of the site planning.
• The narrow access creates a substandard environment.
• Dereliction of the site by the applicants.
• Over development of a constricted, elongated Conservation Area.
• Not a reasonable use of planning conditions as an alternative to refusal.

The Chair granted Cllr Winskill the opportunity to address the Committee. Cllr Winskill spoke of his concerns over developing this back land site which would not enhance the conservation area.  The existing lock up garages offer relief to the streets surrounding this site which experience problems of parking pressure. 

The applicant’s representative spoke and informed the Committee that the issues regarding the trees, highway and density had all been dealt with, approved and resolved in the report at page 128.   The applicant’s representative further stated that they had looked at the development over a period of 4 – 5 years and this was the right application.  That Paul Simon accept that if the application was granted the previous two would  be dismissed as every single aspect had been considered.

Members discussed access to the site for emergency vehicles, waste collection and the impact on visual intrusion of the development. 

The Chair then moved to vote on the acceptance of the Officers recommendations.   Members voted 3 for (Cllrs Dodds, Patel and Adje) and 3 against (Cllrs Hare, Demirci and Weber).  In accordance with standing order 42 point 3, the Chair had the casting vote for.  The motion was carried.

RESOLVED

That the application was granted subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

In accordance with standing order 42 point 2, Cllrs Demirci, Hare and Weber requested their descent be recorded.

2.      Cecile Mews, Rear of 60 – 88 Cecile  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

None received.

Members, applicants and objectors are requested please to bring their diaries in the event that a site visit needs to be arranged.

Unit 2, 4 & 5, 103 – 149 Cornwall Road & Land Adjoining 2 Falmer Road N15

A site visit will be confirmed to take place on Friday 8 September 2006 at 9:30am at the site.  Members also agreed to look at the site of the application for 103 Cornwall Road N15 at this time.

31 August 2006 – 7:00pm.

RESOLVED

That the meeting scheduled to take place on 31 August 2006 be cancelled and the business for that meeting be re-scheduled to the next meeting on 11 September 2006 at 7pm.

The meeting concluded at 10:45pm.

Attached schedule as Annex A