Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Alexander for whom Cllr Demirci was substituting and for lateness from Cllr Dodds.

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 20 below.

There were no items of urgent business received.

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 Beacham declared a personal but not prejudicial interest on agenda item 12, Adoption of Conservation Area Character Appraisals as his home lay within the Wood Green Conservation Area. 

To consider receiving deputations and/or petitions in accordance with Part Four, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None received.

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 7 January 2008.

MATTERS ARISING

PC107

Members raised concern that the tabled note in response to the Tottenham Hale Residents Against Schscraper Housing (THRASH) letter referred to during discussions at the 4 December 2007 Committee meeting did not address the original decision of the Committee.   The Committee enquired about the number of applications for the GLS site which would be decided under delegated decisions.  It was felt that residents and the community should have an opportunity to discuss and comment on the design features of future applications.  In response the Officer advised the Committee that a further three applications were to be considered and how this would be decided was in careful discussions with the Chair of the Planning Committee,  Assistant Director and/or the Head of Development Control.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 7 January 2008 be agreed and signed.

Appeal decisions determined during December 2007

The Committee noted the outcome of 10 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during December 2007, of which 8 were planning applications and 2 on enforcement appeals.   The outcome of the appeal decision was 3 (30%) were allowed and 7 (70%) were dismissed.   These appeals were a mixture of domestic applications, one was for a signage hoarding at the bottom of Muswell Hill.  The Officer advised of a correction at the bottom of page 26 of the agenda under the title ‘issues’ the address should read 128 Waldergrave Road.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To inform the Committee of Decisions made under delegated powers determined between 10 December 2007 and 13 January 2008.

The Committee was asked to note the decisions made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North & South) and the Chair of the Planning Committee determined between 10 December 2007 and 13 January 2008.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 7 January 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the 7 January 2008 Planning Committee meeting. 

The Officer gave a brief explanation of the figures within the tables included in the report.  The Committee enquired of officers what was the procedure once notices had been served on premise owners.  In response the Officer explained that the enforcement process was a long one, notices were served as a warning  and owners could appeal.  Once at appeal there was a further period of compliance then the offence became illegal and the Council could take further action.

Cllr Dodds entered the meeting at 7:15pm

The enforcement officer in attendance advised the Committee that a temporary stop notice had been served on 1 Grand Parade which lasted for 28 days, the owner had to cease activities for use as a social club.  If the owner continued the activies then the Council could prosecute.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To update Committee Member on the progress of the Planning Enforcement Project.

The Enforcement Officer outlined the background to the report and informed the Committee that the project was a result of a proposal to the Planning Committee to reduce and manage the open planning enforcement cases.

The Officer updated the Committee on the current progress of the project.     In phase 1 of the project 475 cases were deemed to fall within the four year rule, any case where work was carried out over four years ago is immune from legal action and closed.  Phase 2 incorporated cases received from 2004 – 2006.  Phase 3 dealt with the remaining cases coming in to the project on a daily basis.  Since January 2007 876 cases had been received and 533 closed.  Overall the number of cases closed was 1319 with 1002 remaining open.  The department continued to review how effectively cases were managed and closed.  

Cllr Diakides entered the meeting at 7:20pm.

The Committee questioned the officer on how a case was closed and in response was advised that the case depended upon a number of factors; it could well be that there was no breach or that it was not expedient to pursue the matter.  The Committee further enquired what process was followed after the enforcement procedure was concluded and in response were advised that it was then difficult for the Council to get landlords to change the property back however, examples of successful enforcement cases were published in order to deter people from making similar mistakes.

The Committee acknowledged the work of the enforcement service to date and hoped that funding would be made available to continue this project beyond April 2008.

RESOLVED

That the progress of the planning enforcement project be noted.

To inform the Committee of the responses obtained from the consultation and to formally adopt the Local Information Requirements.

The Officer presented his report and advised that an initial report had been presented to a previous Planning Committee and that this report built on that following the consultation exercise. 

A five week consultation period concluded on 23 January and resulted in a number of responses received from Committee Members, statutory consultees and members of the public.  The Local Information Requirements (LIRs) had been amended to take account of the comments received.

The LIRs with the new standard application forms would go live at the end of February 2008, the mandatory timescale for implementation was the 6 April 2008.

The Committee suggested that site waste management plans should be included in the LIRs as it was difficult for Waste management to collect refuge. In respect of environmental impact assessments the Committee felt these should have been included within the LIRs by the Government and the cumulative effects taken into consideration.  In response the Officer stated that small applications (extensions) could be overly burdensome to submit a site management plan however, it was possible to request further additional information if it was pertinent to the application.  In relation to impact assessments the Officer explained that in respect of very small developments it was usual to condition that sort of arrangement though it could be considered in the future as part of a broader planning process.

RESOLVED

That the recommendations as outlined in the report be agreed and adopted.

To note the proposal for a more formalised service and associated charging regime for Pre-Application Planning Advice and Planning Performance Agreements in Haringey.

The Committee was asked to note the proposals to introduce a more structured approach to deal with the pre-application phase of planning applications in the borough.  The report detailed two different charging regimes one for basic Pre-Application Planning Advice (PAPAs) the other for Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs).  The report further detailed the level of service to be provided:

1. New charges for developers to pay for advice.
2. Advice would be available to agents or developers considering submitting an application of two or more units.
3. Planning performance agreements would only be considered for major, strategic and complex applications. 

It was proposed to introduce the Pre-Application Advice Services from April 2008.

The Committee queried the charges for retrospective planning applications.  In confirming that retrospective applications would also be charged a fee the Committee were advised that, the fees for planning applications were set by Central Government and applied across the whole country.  Retrospective applications were not necessarily penalised.   The majority of retrospective cases were householder applications.  Additional charges for further meetings had been benchmarked and were dependent upon the level of officer who attended. 

The Committee commented that they would have liked to see the model charter included in the pilot PPAs.  The officer informed the Committee that they were working with Atlas to develop a charter specific to Haringey.  Atlas were encouraging authorities to individualise these charters and this was being reviewed.

The officer further advised the Committee that the Planning Service would ask the developer to enter into an agreement to formalise the planning advice provided.  Meetings with developers and planning advice provided would remain confidential until an application had been submitted.  The officer providing that advice may or may not be the same officer who presented the application to the Committee. 

RESOLVED

That the recommendations outlined in the report be agreed.

To report on the recent public consultation exercises in respect of the following Conservation Areas and seek approval for their adoption:

• Muswell Hill Conservation Area
• Wood Green Common Conservation Area
• Trinity Gardens Conservation Area

The Committee was reminded that a report was presented to the Planning Committee on 28 September 2006, seeking approval to commence a programme of producing Conservation Area Character Appraisals (CACA) for the Borough’s conservation areas for the purpose of public and stakeholder consultation, with a view to future adoption.  Following approval of the programme the Committee further adopted character appraisals for nine conservation areas in Tottenham.

The second phase of the ongoing programme of public consultations on CACA involved the following 3 conservation areas:

• CA4    Muswell Hill Conservation Area
• CA10  Wood Green Conservation Area
• CA12 Trinity Gardens Conservation Area

The consultation period ran for 10 weeks and closed on 10 September 2007.  A number of boundary changes had been put forward.

Cllr Winskill entered the meeting at 7:55pm.

Representations received as a result of the public consultation had been considered and the CACA had been amended where appropriate.  The appraisals were in the format prescribed by English Heritage.  It was intended that each adopted appraisal would form part of the planning procedure, appeals procedure, enforcement and general planning decision making process.

The Committee noted a number of infringements had been picked up during the consultation process and it was asked whether these had been referred to enforcement.  In response the Committee were advised that all representations received through the consultation process were being reviewed in detail and where appropriate referred to enforcement. 

It was also intended to present to the Committee a small Article 4 appraisal, as Haringey’s locally listed buildings had not been updated since 1997.   Once all the CACA had been completed they would form part of the SPG.

RESOLVED

That the Character Appraisals for the above Conservation Areas be approved and adopted.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of one eight-storey and one ten-storey block fronting onto Hornsey Lane, with one 1 to 5 storey projecting block (western block) and one 4 to 7 storey projecting block (eastern block) at the rear; comprising 71 x 1 bed, 18 x 2 bed, 6 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed units, plus 40 extra care units (a total of 136 units) with basement car parking, cycle parking and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and/or subject to Section 106 Legal Agreement

The Officer presented the report and informed the Committee that the subject site was known as Roden Court, located on the northern side of Hornsey Lane.  The existing site consisted of 98 studio flats and was occupied by approximately 50 residents.

This application followed on from a recent refusal which was for 40 extra care units and 99 residential units.  The proposed development would have a density of 375hrh which was considered to be acceptable within this urban area where flats were the predominant housing type.  The proposal would include together with the proposed extra care accommodation a mix of affordable family housing units, 65 habitable rooms were to be affordable and 17 habitable rooms provided within the family social rent units.

Cllr Haley entered the meeting at 8:10pm.

The proposed development would consist of two towers to the front of the site with projecting wings to the rear which reduced in height.  It was considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the streetscape, skyline/panoramas and character of the area.  It was also considered that the overall qualify of the towers design was acceptable and met Policy requirements.  The proposal included 45 basement car parking spaces plus 3 surface car parking spaces for the extra care facility.  A further 45 cycle racks had been proposed for the site, 6 to be located near the entrance to the extra care facility.  A number of trees were specified for removal to facilitate the new building.

The Committee were informed that the Fire Officer had originally raised concerns regarding the access for emergency vehicles however, these had now been resolved.

The Committee requested an outline of the differences between the original application refused on the grounds of bulk, height and mass in contrast to the application now before the Committee.  In response the officer explained that there had been a slight slimming down of the block, changes to the design of the front blocks, better design of the windows, a reduction in the height of the eastern side and on the right hand block a floor had been taken off the top to reduce the effect on Hilltop House and to overcome overlooking and a number of other adjustments.

Cllr Aitken addressed the Committee and reiterated what the officer had said in terms of the mix of affordable housing and stated that this proposal was a commercial residential care development.  The changes made to the plans were cosmetic and did not meet the fundamental home care standards and requested the Committee to reject the application.

Cllr Haley objected to the application on the grounds of environmental sustainability.  He stated the application site was close to the W5 bus route, 10 buses passed per hour on a two way connection to Archway Station.   Cllr Haley further stated that the officer had alluded to looking at sustainable energy however, he felt that some form of combined heating and power system should be proposed as concerns were raised during discussions regarding the water table and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Erection of four storey block comprising 2 x four bed, 1 x three bed, 4 x two bed and 7 x one bed flats, with associated parking, cycle storage, refuse bay and recycling area to the rear.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Continuation of use as hostel for the homeless.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 bedroom dwelling house.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 bedroom dwelling house.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Demolition of existing public house and erection of four storey residential development comprising of one retail unit, 2 x 1 bed flats, 18 x 2 bed flats, 8 x 3 bed flats and 2 x 4 bed flats.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant permission subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

The next site visits will take place on Friday 29 February 2008 at 9:30am.

Monday 3 March 2008

Monday 3 March 2008

The meeting concluded at 10:00pm