Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 12 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.

None received.

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 Planning Committee held on 3 March 2008.

The Committee was asked to agree the minutes of the Planning meeting held on 3 March 2008.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 3 March 2008, be agreed and signed.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during February 2008.

The Committee noted the outcome of 18 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during February 2008, of which 10 (56%) were allowed and 8 (44%) were dismissed. 

The Committee was asked to note that there were 5 enforcement appeals, 3 were dismissed in Conservation Areas.  An appeal for a place of worship in an industrial area was allowed however, this case was now the subject of a judicial review.

The Committee was particularly asked to note that the appeal for 1 Mount Pleasant Villas N4 was allowed.  This application was for the demolition of derelict garages and the erection of nine new houses set around a landscaped mews in a Conservation Area.  This application had strongly been opposed however, the Planning Inspector had allowed the appeal.  The Inspector felt that the site could not be seen in the Conservation Area and would not have a significant impact or effect on Holly Park Estate.  It was felt that the density was not significantly increased and fell within the development plan.  The Inspector’s decision was that the scheme was satisfactory and would not cause harm.

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 11 February 2008 and 16 March 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 11 February 2008 and 16 March 2008.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 3 March 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the 3 March 2008 Planning Committee meeting.

The Officer informed the Committee that one major application was determined within 13 weeks (100%) and (82%) of minor applications were determined within 8 weeks, slightly below the Haringey performance target.  In respect of householder applications (92%) were determined within 8 weeks which was above the Haringey target.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 1 x 4 storey block, 1 x 3 storey block, 2 x 2 1/2 storey blocks and 1 x 2 storey block to accommodate 60 residential units; erection of 1 x single storey commercial building (400 sqm) together with the provision of 11 car parking spaces, secure cycle parking spaces and associated landscaping (AMENDED DESCRIPTION + AMENDED PLANS)

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

The Committee was advised that this application site comprised of an area of land on the eastern part of the site formerly used by BT as a temporary car park and a large yard with a range of two storey buildings, all now vacant.  The site was bordered by residential two storey terraced houses, a school playground and long gardens of properties on Bounds Green Road. 

This application sought to overcome the reasons for refusal of a previous application in 2005, for more houses and no commercial use.  The redevelopment of the site would retain a proportion of B1 space for commercial business.

The residential development of a mixed use scheme was considered to be appropriate for this site.  The proposed density of the scheme was 433hrh, which was acceptable and in accordance with the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan.  The proposal included affordable housing with provision of 47%.  Overall the scheme proposed had been designed to respond to neighbouring street patterns and minimise the overlooking of neighbouring properties.  The height and mass of the central block had been reduced by one floor and would not have an overbearing, dominant or detrimental impact on residential amenities to neighbouring occupiers.

The application included a number of proposals for uses of renewable energy, in particular solar heating panels.  The proposal also included the provision of 13 car parking spaces, 11 for housing, 2 for commercial and 40 cycle racks.

The Committee questioned the provision of amenity space for the houses, and whether a lift was to be included within the block with four storeys.  The Officer responded by informing the Committee that some of the houses had 48-49sqm, some had 35sqm and there was a large communal space in the middle of the development with over 300sqm.  Blocks A and B flats had balconies and a share of the overall communal space. 

The Committee further raised concern about the provision of sprinklers, access for waste removal and emergency vehicles.  In response the Officer advised that there was a second alternative emergency access point beside the commercial building and that the width of the roads were adequate for emergency vehicles to turn around.  Block C had satisfied the Fire Regulations as long as the proposal provided sprinklers.

Local residents addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the basis that:

• The development would cause overcrowding in the area.
• Blocks A and B were too high for the site and would adversely dominate the streetscape.
• The London Fire Authority was not satisfied with the scheme presented and problems were identified with blocks C and D.
• Overlooking would be caused because blocks A and B faced each other over a space of 14sqm.
• Any proposal for the site should respect the local environment and replicate this density.
• The scheme should be kept as a community proposal with more shops rather than more housing.
• The parking provision for the development was not sufficient as there were already parking problems in the area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 169.

Erection of 4 storey building over 2 basement levels comprising gym and storage at sub-basement, car parking in basement, retail unit at ground floor level, 5 x one bed, 6 x two bed, 2 x three bed flats and 3 x offices on third floor. (amended description).

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

The officer stated there was additional information to be provided to the Committee prior to presenting the report:

1. There was a current appeal in relation to the previous application and the result was not yet know.
2. A letter dated 28 March, had been received from the applicant detailing minor revisions to the basement area at the back of the site.  The drawings on display showed a reduction in the length of the basement area to protect the tress on the other side of the boundary with the properties in Fairfield Road.
3. The previously approved scheme was 11m in height at the front.  The current application was 12m in height at the front of the scheme.
4. Distances at the rear had been queried and there was a 38m distance between proposed development and the ground floor rear extension in  Fairfield Road.  The standard required by the SPG was 40m. 
5. Page 100 of the report, transportation points 2-4 to be added as  conditions of the permission if the Planning Committee decided to grant planning permission.
6. The existing planning permission on the site was dated 30 August 2005.

The Committee was informed that the site was a former petrol station situated on the southern side of Tottenham Lane.  It was considered that the proposed shopping units were appropriate for this type of location adjacent to the Town centre.  The overall scale and appearance was considered not to be detrimental of the immediate locality or the mixed character of the street scene and as such did not represent over development in relation to the area.  The density of the proposed site was 445hrh considered acceptable and not  excessive.

It was considered that the proposed building would not lead to any adverse effect on neighbouring properties or occupiers.  In relation to the size of the units, the scheme complied with the required space standards as set out in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  The scheme provided for 50% affordable units.

The scheme proposed a fully accessible basement area for parking and included 20 cycle racks, 14 that would be enclosed with secure shelter and the remaining 6 under cover.  There were also a number of sustainable elements including solar hot water, rain water harvesting, grey water, recycling along with recycled building materials where possible.

Objectors addressed the Committee and requested that the application be refused on the following grounds:

• The height and depth of the development had not complied with the SPG Policy.  The building would look like 5 storeys and not 4.
• The upper floors were set back and therefore had a detrimental effect on surrounding properties.  Extra height had been provided on the retail space.
• The scale of the building, particularly at the front was 4 storeys and excessively bulky.
• The 2004/05 application was for a smaller building and that report had stated it was too high.  This application was for a larger building.
• The officer’s report did not take into consideration residents views.

A representative from the Hornsey CAAC advised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Tuesday 6 May 2008.

Tuesday 6 May 2008.

The meeting concluded at 9:15pm