Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Dodds for whom Councillor Egan was substituting and from Councillor Weber for whom Councillor Oakes was substituting.  Apologies for lateness were received from Cllr Oakes.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late reports related to items     below which will be considered under that agenda item.

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 Egan declared an interest in the decision to be taken under item 8.  “I had applied to speak against this application when it first appeared on the agenda.  I am also a member of the Avenue Gardens Residents Association who made an objection to this application.   I will therefore absent myself from the meeting when this item is considered”.

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

None received.

Decisions made under delegated powers between 7 August and 17 September 2006.

Members were asked to note the decisions taken under delegated powers between 7 August and 17 September 2006.  The figures for August detailed one major case.  The Authority was endeavouring to manage major cases and minor applications were above Government targets however, we were slightly below our own targets which were being addressed.

Performance Statistics for Development Control, Building Control and Planning Enforcement Action.

The Committee were asked to note the decisions taken within set time targets by Development Control, Building Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 11 September 2006.   The August performance shows the Authority was not reaching Government targets.  The yearly performance shows a requirement to be at a lower percentage than the current figures and the Authority were putting in measures to deal with this.

RESOLVED

That Members note 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.

RESOLVED

That the decisions of the Sub Committee on the planning applications and related matters, be approved or refused with the following points noted.

Change of use of property to police patrol base (sui generic) with associated installation of CCTV cameras, window guards and replacement entrance gates.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

Cllr Egan left the proceedings for consideration of item 8.

The Committee were advised that this application site was a large commercial building which used to be Middlesex University.   The proposal was a change of use to a Police Patrol base.  The proposed plan details a total of 27 external car parking spaces for use by operational vehicles and visitors only.  The conversion of the building to the Police Patrol Base would be temporary. 

An objector spoke on behalf of local residents and outlined reasons why the application shouldn’t be granted for a number of reasons:

1.      Safety of pedestrians

2.      No direct access to strategic road networks

3.      Near a primary school and proposed new secondary school

4.      Part of the protected Heartlands Access Route

5.      The proposal would cause parking stress

Cllr Oakes entered the meeting.

The applicant’s representative responded by advising the Committee that the application was only for a temporary period whilst works were being carried out to Wood Green Police Station.  The applicant had secured a lease for a 5 year period, however it was anticipated that the site would not be used for this length of time. 

The schools had been consulted on the proposed change of use of the site and they had made no representations.  The proposal would bring a currently vacant property back into use and also the police presence in the are would bring safety into the area.

Members of the Committee discussed in detail the use of emergency vehicles speeding from the site, the use of sirens and flashing lights and whether alternative locations had been considered.

Members decided to grant the application subject to conditions.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2006/1213

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 12/10/2006

Location: Units 1 and 2 Quicksilver Place, Western Road N22

Proposal: Change of use of property to police patrol base (sui generis) with associated installation of CCTV cameras, window guards and replacement entrance gates.

Recommendation:  Grant subject to conditions.

Decision: Grant subject to conditions.

Drawing No.s 217-MPAPB-PLAN-G-001, 217-MPAPB-PLAN-EX-ELEV-A-B-C-004, 217-MPAPB-PLAN-EX-ELEV-D-E-F-005, 217-MPAPB-PLAN-PR-PLAN-G-008, 217-MPAPB-PLAN-PR-ELEV-A-B-C-010, 217-MPAPB-PLAN-PR-ELEV-D-E-F-011 &  planning support statement dated June 2006.

Conditions

1. The permission shall be granted for a limited period expiring on 12th October 2009; further the permission hereby granted shall not ensure for the benefit of the land but shall be personal to Metropolitan Police Authority only, and upon the Metropolitan Police Authority ceasing to use the land the use shall be discontinued and shall revert to the authorised use of General Industrial (B2).

Reason: Permission has only  been granted with respect to the special personal circumstances of the applicant and would not otherwise be granted.

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure  the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The temporary use of the property as a police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Demolition of existing 39 Garages and erection of 5 x 2 storey three bedroom houses with associated landscaping and 10 parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission subject to Section 106 Legal Agreement and conditions.

Cllr Egan re-entered the proceedings.

Members noted that this application had been before the Committee on two previous occasions for the development of the site as well as two dismissed appeals.  This scheme attempted to overcome the concern of the last inspector of potential overlooking of properties in Elm Grove and Tregaron Avenue.  The main change was the number of units being reduced from 6 to 5 and overlooking windows had been omitted.  The proposal would have a low profile design in density and size for a backland site.

Objectors spoke on behalf of Cecile Park and Tregaron Avenue residents.  Their main concerns for objecting to the application was the degree of overlooking and the development’s detrimental effect to the loss of privacy to Cecile Park rear gardens and 11 Elm Grove and the loss of open space.  They also pointed out that the previous scheme was for 6 x 2 bedroom houses and the current scheme is for 5 x 3 bedroom houses with 10 foot rear gardens.  Other concerns raised included unacceptable high mansard roofs,  access for emergency vehicles, access for refuse collection would be difficult a long the narrow entrance if congested by parked cars.  There would also be risk of damage to mature trees (some with TPOs) in the Conservation Area.

Cllr Winskill spoke on behalf of residents objecting to this application and highlighted two concerns, conservation and parking.  A previous application for a dorma window had been refused due to overlooking, so how could this application be recommended to be granted.  The 40 lock up garages were much needed in a pressurised parking area and extreme parking stress is  experienced and this leads to a demand for crossovers.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Committee and advised the planning report was developed along side planning officers and had endeavoured to satisfy planning policies.  The matter of concern raised by the last inspector was the potential overlooking of properties.  This had been addressed by the omission of any first storey windows to Tregaron Avenue.

Members questioned the applicant and officers on the proposals and issues raised overall and decided to refuse the application on the following grounds:

1. High mansard roof increasing overlooking to Cecile Park housing.
2. The recommendations of the Hornsey CAAC officer.
3. Loss of parking spaces on Cecile Park.
4. Quality of the design.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2006/0580

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 12/10/2006

Location: Land Rear Of 27- 47 Cecile Park N8

Proposal: Demolition of existing 39 garages and erection of 5 x 2 storey three bedroom houses with associated landscaping and 10 no. parking spaces.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions and S106 Legal Agreement.

Decision: Refuse

Drawing No.s 2873 P01 rev B & P02 rev B.

Reason:

1. The site is of very limited depth and occupies a backland site in the Crouch End Conservation Area.  By reason of their prominent mansard roofs which are untypical of the Conservation Area, and their sitting very close to the southern boundary of the site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Conservation Area Consent for the above demolition.  RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent.

The Committee was asked to consider Conservation Area Consent for the above demolition.  The Committee refused to grant conservation area consent subject to conditions as planning permission for the above application was not granted.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2006/0582

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 12/10/2006

Location: Land Rear Of 27 - 47 Cecile Park N8

Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing 39 garages and erection of 5 x 2 storey three bedroom houses with associated landscaping and 10 no. parking spaces.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions & S106 Legal Agreement.

Decision: Refuse

Drawing No.s: 2873 P01 rev B, P02 rev B

Reason:

1. In the absence of an approved scheme for the permanent redevelopment of the site, the demolition of the existing lock-up garages would result in the site having a derelict appearance which would detract from the appearance of the Crouch End Conservation Area and would thus be contrary to Policy CSV 7 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. 36A Alexandra Park Road N10
2. 1-12 Hamilton Place, 29A Woodside Gardens N17  To Follow
3. Copper Beeches, North Grove N6
4. 44 Stanhope Gardens N6

The Chair moved that there be a variation to the order of the agenda.  Members agreed to vary the order of the agenda and take item 13 before item 11.

RESOLVED 

That the following Tree Preservation Orders be confirmed:

• 36A Alexandra Park Road N10
• 1-12 Hamilton Place, 29A Woodside Gardens N17
• Copper Beeches, North Grove N6
• 44 Stanhope Gardens N6

Erection of 4 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom house, part single part two storeys in height with rear dormer window.  Car parking and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Officers presented the report and stated that the proposed scheme was the same size as the previous granted scheme.  The current development involved the creation of an additional unit by subdividing one of the approved units into two separate units.  The Transportation Group had expressed concern that the vehicular access is narrow however, they had no concerns over the previous planning application which had been granted approval.

The Committee heard from objectors to the application who felt the opening to the site was quite small.  Concerns were raised about the loss of amenity and increased traffic.  This development would encourage more cars into the area when it was well served by public transport.  Concern was also raised about the level of noise which would increase as previously there was a proposal for a property with seven bedrooms and the current proposal was for a property with 11 bedrooms.  Members were also advised that litter along Harvey and Spencer Roads was a problem due to wheelie bins being kept on the pavement.

Cllr Winskill addressed the Committee and advised that this proposal was the fourth planning application for this site.  Residents had previously objected on the grounds that there would be loss of light and the impact on traffic.  The current proposal detailed an increase in the number of units.  This new application was for 11 bedrooms and 6 car parking spaces.  The property is located in a Cul-de-Sac so there would be parking problems and pressure.

The applicant spoke and reiterated that this application was a partial demolition as in the original scheme to retain side and back walls.  The increase in the number of rooms came about from redesigning the ground floor which made it more usable and no additional space was created.  The footprint remains exactly the same.  The current proposal was an improvement to the site and the overall scheme is exactly as it was before with the addition of one unit which would not cause issues of parking.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the increase in the number of rooms from six to eleven and was reassured that the size of the rooms met Haringey’s size standards.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2006/0922

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 12/10/2006

Location: Albert Works, Spencer Road N8

Proposal: Erection of 4 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom house, part single part two storeys in height with front and rear roof lights car parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions & S106 Legal Agreement.

Decision: Grant subject to conditions & S106 Legal Agreement.

Drawing No.s GVBS 1434 - 500A, 501 & 502.

Conditions:

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 shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Erection of 5 x 2 storey houses (2 x 3 bed, 2 x 2 bed and 1 x 4 bed houses) in 2 blocks.  RECOMMENDATION:         Grant permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee were informed that this proposal sought the erection of five, two storey houses.  Officers had received no representations to the proposal from residents or the transportation group.  However, comments had been received  from the Arboriculturalist who stated there was a row of mature trees in the rear gardens of adjacent properties, which were visible from a public place,  provided a screen to the site and were of high amenity value.  A condition had been included to protection these trees.

Members raised concerns over the materials to be used in the development.  They requested reassurance that the bricks to be used matched those of the building on either side of the site.  Officers confirmed that condition 3 covered this issue.

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to Section 106 agreement and conditions.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2006/1504

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 12/10/2006

Location: Land Adjacent To 48 Elizabeth Place N15

Proposal Erection of 5 x 2 storey houses (2 x three bed, 2 x two bed and 1 x four bed houses) in 2 blocks

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions & S106 Legal Agreement

Decision: Grant subject to conditions & S106 Legal Agreement.

Drawing No.s 30223/P01C, 02A, 03A, 04B 7 05A.

Conditions:

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 shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure  the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

3. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced   until precise details of the materials to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted have been submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

4. The construction works of the development hereby granted shall not be carried out before 0800 or after 1800 hours Monday to Friday or before 0800 or after 1200 hours on Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

5. That not more than 5 separate houses, shall be constructed on the site.

Reason: In order to avoid overdevelopment of the site.

6. The building proposed by the development hereby authorised shall comply with BS 8220 (1986) Part 1 'Security Of Residential Buildings' and comply with the aims and objectives of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Monday, 30 October 2006 at 7:00pm.

In accordance with Standing Order 32.6 no other business shall be considered.

Monday 30 October 2006 at 7:00pm.

The meeting ended at 10:15pm