Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Hare for whom Cllr Demirci 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 19 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

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 Peacock and Cllr Bevan declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in the report to be considered at item 18 on the agenda as they sat on the Member/Officer Steering Group to consider the draft Haringey Housing Supplementary Planning Document.  

Cllr Demirci declared a personal interest in item 17 on the agenda as the application was in his Ward.

To consider receiving deputations and/or petitions in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None received.

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the PASC held on 11 February 2008.

PC125

Members enquired whether the three further applications to be considered for the GLS site had been granted and authorised by the Chair of the Planning Committee.  In response the Chair confirmed that these applications had not been authorised.

PC129

Members requested in paragraph four of the minute that the word  “hoped” be replaced by the word “requested” and the paragraph read as follows:

‘The Committee acknowledged the work of the enforcement service to date and requested that funding would be make available to continue this project beyond April 2008.’

PC131

Members queried that it had been agreed that retrospective planning applications would be charged a planning advice fee.  The Officer responded that in theory applications would be charged a fee, however in practice it would not apply as retrospective cases were normally for householder applications.   The Planning Service did not normally receive retrospective applications for large scale developments.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 11 February 2008 be agreed and signed subject to the amendment to PC129.

Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during January 2008.

The Committee noted the outcome of 13 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during January 2008, of which 7 were allowed, 6 dismissed and 1 was an enforcement appeal.  The Committee was particularly asked to note the following specific appeals:

• 61 Nightingale Road N22:

This proposal was allowed for 9 residential units.

• 27-47 Cecile Park N8

The application was a back land scheme for 5 three storey houses and was dismissed.

• There were also applications for crossovers 1 was allowed and 1 dismissed.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To inform the Committee of decisions made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North & South) and the Chair of the above Committee between 14 January 2008 and 10 February 2008.

The Committee was asked to note the decisions made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North and South) and the Chair of the Planning Committee determined between 14 January 2008 and 10 February 2008.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of performance statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement work since the 11 February 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the 11 February 2008  Planning Committee meeting.

The Officer asked the Committee to note that all major applications were determined within 13 weeks and 82% of minor applications were determined within 8 weeks.  This was slightly below the Council’s target.  93% of householder applications were also determined within 8 weeks which was above the Council’s target.

In respect of enforcement appeals these were not counted in the performance statistics, 50% were allowed and 50% were dismissed.  The yearly performance to the end of January 2008; 42% were allowed and 58% dismissed.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

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.

The Officer advised the Committee that in considering this application they would need to consider the following issues:

• Affordable housing which was not included in the recommendations.
• A proposal for a car club, however this would need to be included in the S106 Legal Agreement.

In terms of the conditions attached in the report the Officer informed the Committee that a further two would need to be added in relation to:

1. The relocation of the recycling provision.
2. That 13 cycle racks be provided.

The Officer presented his report and informed the Committee that the residential use of the site was considered to be appropriate given the adjoining residential properties and proximity to public transport.  The proposed residential units were considered satisfactory in relation to internal floor areas, storage space and residential amenity space.  The building design and siting was considered to be commensurate with the established development on the site.  The density of the proposed development would be approximately 625hrh and this was considered consistent with the UDP and London Plan.

The proposal would not result in detrimental overlooking and amenity impacts on nearby residential properties.  The scheme would provide 60% of the units being affordable housing.  The current scheme would provide 190sqm of retail units to replace the existing shop.  The proposed site was within an area with medium public transport accessibility and the applicant was proposing on-site car parking spaces and cycle racks.

The Committee questioned what was the public transport accessibility level for the area and was informed that it was 2 which was considered low, however within reasonable walking distance from Tottenham Hale Tube Station.

A local resident objected to the application on the basis that they had not been consulted on the location of the shop, the materials to be used in the development and the location of the recycling bins.  It was noted that Ferry Lane Primary School was 7 metres from the proposed development and requested a condition that no demolition works would be carried out during school term time.

The applicant addressed the Committee and responded to the concerns raised by the objector.  The applicant confirmed that a communal garden was to be provided along with a temporary shop during the construction of the development.  The materials to be used were to be matched with existing surrounding brickwork.  With respect to the demolition works these would only be carried out during working hours.

The Committee questioned the amount of amenity space to be provided in respect of the development.  The Officer advised that 600sqm was to be provided overall.  The 30 flats were approximate to 20sqm each and this in relation to the standards and SPG was 25sqm for individual units and 50sqm for communal areas.  In terms of the communal areas there was sufficient provision however, the private individual units was just below the limit.

The Committee was further concerned to note that the Environmental Agency had wanted to see additional enhancements on the site.  The Officer explained that an 8sqm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

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.

The Committee was advised that this application site was currently vacant and the proposal was virtually identical to the approved scheme in 2006 except for some alterations to the internal flat layout and changes to the provision of bicycle store and parking.  The proposed density of the development would be 453hrh which was considered to be in line with the Council’s UDP.  The applicant was proposing 100% of the housing to be affordable where it was only necessary to contribute 50% of affordable housing.

A proposed scheme was submitted in 2007 which was not approved due to the two units located in the back yard and was refused because of the effect on the loss of privacy.  

The Committee was further informed that the proposed accommodation was satisfactory in terms of space, standard and layout.  The proposal was identical in terms of footprint, height and relationship to adjacent buildings to that of the previously approved scheme in 2006 and provided sufficient amenity space at the rear for future occupiers of the flats.

The revised scheme provided five car parking spaces at the rear and 14 cycle racks.  The scheme provided bin storage and a recycling area to the rear of the proposed building.

The Officer further informed the Committee that there would also be two further amendments:

1. The recycling area would be moved slightly nearer to the site entrance to reduce carrying distance for waste collection.
2. The balconies on the flat elevation had been reduced in size and would now be Juliet balconies.

If the application were approved a revised plan would need to be submitted to take account of refuge and revised balconies.

The Committee enquired whether there was access for emergency vehicles and in response was advised that confirmation had been received from the Fire Brigade that they had no objections. 

The Officer further went on to explain that the 100% affordable housing proposed 25% of the family units, 3 and 4 bed units would be social renting and the smaller units for shared ownership.  Members were concerned that there was currently a trend that shared ownership properties were not being applied for.  The Officer recommended that it would be useful to receive a report from Housing and Registered Social Landlords on the number of shared ownership properties not occupied.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions an a S106 Legal Agreement.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/2575

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: 673 Lordship Lane N22

Proposal: 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 subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Decision: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Drawing No’s: 001, 003, 004A, 005A, 010B, 101C, 102C, 103C, 110C, 111B, 120B & 121B.

Conditions:

1.       The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Continuation of use as hostel for the homeless.

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

The Committee was informed that the application site was a two storey semi-detached house on the east side of Oakfield Road and that the site lay within Stroud Green Conservation Area.  The proposal was for the continuation of use as a hostel for the homeless.  The site was considered to be in good order, repair and a hostel with no problems. 

Members enquired whether a 5 year extension to the condition of use was excessive.  The Officer advised the Committee that the extension could be  granted for a 3 year period.

The Committee noted that the premises could not be sold without prior permission.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/2434

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: 48 Oakfield Road N4

Proposal: Continuation of use as hostel for the homeless.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Decision: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Drawing No’s: No drawings.

Conditions:

1.       That this permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 11 February 2013 when the use hereby approved shall be discontinued and determined and the land reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to enable the Local Planning Authority to review and assess the use following experience after a period of operation. 

2.       The permission hereby granted shall not enure for the benefit of the land but shall be personal to Marios and Maria Christoforou only, and upon that person ceasing to use the land the use shall be discontinued.

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

3.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 the premises shall be used as a hostel for homeless persons only and shall not be used for any other purpose including any purpose within Class C2 unless approval is obtained to a variation of this condition through the submission of a planning application.

Reason: In order to restrict the use of the premises to one compatible with the surrounding area because other uses within the same Use Class or another Use Class are not necessarily considered to be acceptable. 

4.       No more than18 persons, including any resident staff, if any, and babies under 12 months, shall occupy the premises at any one time.

Reason: In order to limit the total number of occupants in the interests of the amenity of current and future occupants in the premises and locality. 

5.       The amenity space associated with the premises shall be permanently retained for use by the occupants and shall not be sub-divided in any manner which prejudices the use of that space by those occupants.

Reason: In order to ensure that adequate amenity space is retained in association with the property. 

6.       A separate room shall be made available for use by a person responsible for the management and supervision of the hostel and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee was informed that the proposed scheme had been revised since the previous appeal.  The Inspector had decided to dismiss the appeal based on the effect of the terrace on the adjoining properties.  The Architects had improved the design and included brick work which appeared as a single storey above ground.

The proposed loss of the existing lock up garages was acceptable due to the close location of Finsbury Park Rail and Underground Station.  The proposal had been revised since the appeal decision and the application detailed the erection of a two storey dwelling house with a lower and upper ground level.  The room sizes and overall property size met the required floor areas, the site provided adequate amenity space and would not adversely impact on the garden amenities of neighbouring properties.

The proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.

Members noted that the Conservation Officer had not expressed complimentary comments in respect of the scheme.  The Officer responded that the Conservation Officer’s comments had been accepted as the proposed development was modern in design.  However, these comments had been weighted against the Inspector’s decision notice and the design had been improved to more reflect the style of the surrounding area.

An objector addressed the Committee and advised that the boundary lines were incorrect and had not been rectified.  The proposed development was in a Conservation Area and existing neighbours enjoyed the amenity space.  The Objector further commented on the enormous parking problems in Ossian Road and that 25 Ferme Park Road had been over developed in 2000.

The applicant informed the Committee that the scheme had evolved over the last few years.  There had been no increase in the height of the proposed scheme and therefore it was not considered to be over developed.  The proposed scheme took account of neighbours concerns with regard to the brick, and the yellow brick included was considered to be more harmonious to the surrounding buildings.

The Committee queried the amount of amenity space to be provided, and whether a daylight study and land contamination report was required.  The Officer replied that contamination was unlikely from a private garage.  In respect of a day light study this was not required as the proposed scheme did not have an impact on adjoining properties.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/0916

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: 2 Ossian Road N4

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 bedroom dwellinghouse.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions

Decision: Grant subject to conditions

Drawing No’s: 1277 PL/01 & 02.

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.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

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

RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant subject to conditions.

The Committee was asked to consider Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 bedroom dwelling house.

RESOLVED

That Conservation Area Consent be granted as planning permission for the application outlined in PC153 above was granted.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/0917

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: 2 Ossian Road N4

Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garage and erection of 2 bedroom dwellinghouse.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions

Decision: Grant subject to conditions

Drawing No’s: 1277 Pl/01 & 02.

Condition:

1.       The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works for redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. Reason: In order to ensure that the site is not left open and vacant to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of the locality.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The proposed infill development does fit into the local scale, character and pattern of established residential area and remains in conflict with Policies UD3 'General Principles' and UD4 'Quality Design' (Fitting in new buildings into surrounding area) of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

Section 106: No

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 3 / part 4 storey buildings to provide 186 sqm of A1 / A2 / A3 floorspace and 48 residential units together with formation of new vehicle access to Tottenham High Road. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission.                       

The Officer presented his report and informed the Committee that the application site fell within Bruce Grove Conservation Area and was within an area of archaeological importance. 

The development proposed an overall density of 410-430hrh taking into consideration the mixed use nature of the scheme.  The buildings were located at various positions throughout the site which were regarded as relating poorly to the surrounding pattern of development.  It was also considered that the proposed development failed to complement the character of the surrounding conservation area and was of a scale that was not sensitive to the area.

The Council’s Principle Transportation Officer objected to the proposed access to the site for anything other than emergency vehicle, refuse collection access as service access was not acceptable.   The scheme further failed to provide adequate amenity space within the development.  Waste management had identified that part of the development exceeded the maximum distance from the storage areas proposed.  It was considered that a car free development was regarded as appropriate.

Further to Members comments as to the application not being acceptable whether there were to be amendments, Cllr Bevan requested that a further reason for refusal be included that according to the UDP the application site was not in a CPZ therefore the proposed development would not be car free.

The officer responded that it was not appropriate to accept this as a further reason for refusal.  One of the reasons for refusal was that cars would not be able to access the site and centred around vehicle servicing and delivery.  The Transport Officer confirmed that the Committee could not use the lack of car parking provision as a reason for refusal as the site was sustainable and transport available.

Cllr Bevan advised that he was not in agreement with the Transport Officer’s advice and moved a motion to add a condition that a further reason for refusal be included to the according to the UDP the application site was not in a CPZ therefore the proposed development would not be care free.  On a vote there being 1 for and 7 against the motion was lost.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused planning permission for the reasons stated in the report.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/2583

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: 596 - 606 High Road N17

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 3 / part 4 storey buildings to provide 186 sqm of A1 / A2 / A3 floorspace and 48 residential units together with formation of new vehicle access to Tottenham High Road.

Recommendation: Refuse Permission

Decision: Refuse Permission

Drawing No’s: 0557(PL)001, 002, 009A, 010A, 011A, 012A, 110A, 111A, 112A, 113A, 114A, 115A, 116A, 200A, 300A, 301A, 302A, 303A, 304A, 305A, 306A, 400, 401 & 402.

Reasons:

1.       The proposed development lies in an area of sensitive and special character worthy of retention within the Scotland Green Conservation Area.  The proposal, if approved, would seriously detract from the important character to the detriment of the vicinity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 3 / part 4 storey buildings to provide 186 sqm of A1 / A2 / A3 floor space and 48 residential units together with formation of new vehicle access to High Road.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse consent.

The Committee was asked to consider Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 3 / part 4 storey buildings to provide 186 sqm of A1 / A2 / A3 floor space and 48 residential units together with formation of new vehicle access to High Road.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to refuse Conservation Area Consent as planning permission for the application outlined in PC155 above was refused.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/2584

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: 596 - 606 High Road N17

Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 3 / part 4 storey buildings to provide 186 sqm of A1 / A2 / A3 floor space and 48 residential units together with formation of new vehicle access to Tottenham High Road.

Recommendation: Refuse Consent

Decision: Refuse Consent

Drawing No’s: 0557(PL)001, 002, 009A, 010A, 011A, 012A, 110A, 111A, 112A, 113A, 114A, 115A, 116A, 200A, 300A, 301A, 302A, 303A, 304A, 305A, 306A, 400, 401 & 402.

Reason:

1.       The proposed demolition of the buildings would be premature in that the Local Planning Authority has not received an application and / or granted planning permission for a suitable replacement development.  Premature demolition would not be in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the Scotland Green Conservation Area contrary to Policy CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

Section 106: No

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new Samaritans operation centre at ground floor level and 3 x 1 bed flat at first floor level and 1 x 1 bed flat at second floor level.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee was informed that the application building was currently being used as a training centre for the Samaritans and the surrounding area was predominantly residential.  The proposed building would replace the existing which was in a poor state of repair, of little architectural merit and not statutorily or locally listed.

The proposed scheme at Shaftsbury Hall would not cause any significant harm in terms of amenity, as a training and centre for confidential support would not detract from the amenity currently enjoyed by local residents.  There would be no additional parking as the local area had access to numerous bus routes and Bounds Green Underground station.

The scheme had a total density of 464hrh which included the ground floor office, training room and call centre space.  Refuge storage had been allocated at the side of the building and that the redevelopment of this site would not impact upon the ecological corridor.

The Officer further advised the Committee that the applicant had supplied a revised drawing to show modified front and side elevations.  The Samaritans had also submitted a petition with 27 signatures attached in support of the application.

The Committee questioned the density of the proposed scheme and commented that the London Plan guidelines were 200-250sqm.  The officer replied that the density interpretation of the London Plan depended upon the area which was close to a railway station and local shops nearby.  Also considered was the form of the development fitting in to the surrounding area which did conform.  The Committee felt that the design of the scheme did not take account of the houses along Herbert Road.   In response the officer acknowledged that the proposed development was uncompromisingly modern in design and a difficult scheme to fit into the street scene.

An Objector informed the Committee that he had not seen the revised plans or petition.  The streets around the proposed site were all residential.  The proposed scheme would be over developed by 70% and had the appearance of a warehouse.  The land was only suitable for a two small, 2 bed houses.  The proposed building would be overpowering.

The Committee questioned the objector regarding the height of the proposed building and were informed that the surrounding houses were all 100 years old.  The block on the top of the building was far too high.  The Officer confirmed that the amended plan did not change the height or size, just the elevation of the proposed development.

The Applicant addressed the Committee and advised that the density of the flats was 50sqm above the recommended level.  The design of the building was a question of taste and in context at the end of the street, near the railway line.  The design had taken account of the comments and concerns of residents and Councillors to make it more of a landmark building.  In respect of crime, it was considered to be a crime hotspot because of the current state of the building.  The new scheme proposed to have CCTV and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

To report on the Draft Haringey Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and to seek approval to proceed to public consultation on the SPD and the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report.

The Committee was asked to consider the Draft Haringey Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SDP) and to seek approval to proceed to public consultation on the SPD and the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report.

The Officer presented her report and advised the Committee that the SPD would form part of the Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF) and would provide guidance to supplement the housing policies of the adopted UDP. 

The SPD was intended for use in the determination of planning application for housing developments or for mixed use proposals involving housing.  It provided detailed guidance on standards for new housing and conversions, on affordable housing provision and on housing density and design.  It was recognised that the SPD would not replace the SPG policies.

The Committee was informed that a Member/Officer steering group was established and the chair of the steering group recommended that the draft SPD be taken to the Planning Committee.

The Committee enquired of the membership of the steering group and was informed that the membership was as follows: The Lead Member for Regeneration and Enterprise, Lead Member for Housing Services and four Members of the Planning Committee.  

RESOLVED

That the Committee agreed the following recommendations as outlined in Section 2 of the report:

1. That the Committee notes the work carried out to date on the proposed Haringey Housing SPD, and the accompanying Sustainability Appraisal Report.
2. That the Committee recommends consultation on both of the above documents in anticipation of adoption of a Housing SPD, following any amendments made as a result of the consultation.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Tuesday 1 April 2008

Tuesday 1 April 2008

The meeting ended at 10:00pm.