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 15 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

NOTED

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.

Councillor Bevan declared a prejudicial interest in agenda Item 12 – 7 Orchard Place, N17. Councillor Bevan advised that he would withdraw from  the proceedings at the commencement of Item 12 – and return only to give his objections to the application then withdraw again for the remainder of the item.

NOTED

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

There were no deputations or petitions.

NOTED

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1 April 2008.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1 April 2008 be agreed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

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

The Committee noted the outcome of 5 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during March 2008, of which 3 (60%) were allowed and 2 (40%) were dismissed. 

The Committee was asked to note that there were 3 enforcement appeals, 1 was  dismissed - 20 Concord House,  Park Lane, N17 0JQ, and 2 were allowed – 30 Cholmeley Crescent N6 5HA, and land at rear of 1-21 Daleview Road, London N15 6PL.  . 

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To inform the Committee of decision made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North & South) and the Chair of the above Committee between 17 March 2008 and 13 April 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 17 March 2008 and 13 April 2008.

Councillor Adamou referred to the delegated decisions in relation to 85 Burgoyne Road, and 22 Duckett Road, and expressed her surprise at both being allowed given that there were a large number of HMO’s in the area already, and also that the UDP stated that there should be no conversions in this particular area but it would appear that planning officers were ignoring the UDP by allowing this.

The Chair asked, and officers agreed to respond to both Councillor Adamou and the Chair in writing as to the reasoning for allowing both applications, and also report back to the next Committee.

RESOLVED

i.                    That the report be noted; and

ii.                  That the reasoning for allowing two HMO applications at 85 Burgoyne Road,N4 and 22 Duckett Road, N4., be conveyed in writing to Cllr Adamou, and copied to the Chair, and reported to the next meeting of the Committee.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 1 April 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the previous Planning Committee of 1 April 2008.

The Committee were advised that 3 out of 4  major applications were determined within 13 weeks (75%),  and 31 out of 41 cases (76%) of minor applications were determined within 8 weeks, slightly below the Haringey performance target.  In respect of other applications 130 out of 144 cases (90%) were determined within 8 weeks which was above the Haringey target.

There being no questions from the Committee it was :-

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

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, the applicant and supporters will be allowed to address the Committee.  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. 

Variation of condition 9 (hours of delivery to service yards) attached to planning reference HGY/2007/0500 to allow operation between 0700 - 2100hrs Monday to Friday, 0800 - 2100hrs on Saturdays, and 0900 - 1800hrs on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee was advised that the application site formed part of the Mall Shopping City which consisted of a covered three-level shopping mall, a multi-plex cinema, multi-storey car parks, a recently vacated petrol filling station and  service yards and residential and office space.  The proposal before the Planning Committee was for a variation to condition 9 relating to the hours of delivery to service yards. The original application included a condition implementing the hours of delivery to be outside the hours of 7am-7pm Monday – Saturday with no deliveries on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and a further application was  then received for 24 hrs delivery and this was refused planning permission. The variation now applied for was to allow operation between 0700-2100hrs Monday to Friday, 0800-2100hrs on Saturdays and 0900 – 1800 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 

The Committee were advised that because the applicant was not proposing early morning or late night deliveries it was anticipated that there should not be much additional disturbance to residents.

The Committee questioned the reasons why the extension and need for flexibility in the delivery times had arisen, and the size of the vehicle.  In response officers advised that the applicant had expressed the need for delivery on Sundays in order for stock to be available on Mondays to meet customer demands.  It was the case that all other stores had deliveries 24/7.  Given the proximity of the site, delivery was requested up to 9pm, and Sundays/Bank holidays. 

The Committee further commented on  the effects of the increase in deliveries to the store and the fact that the variation had been requested even before the store had been completed and opened, and the fact that the goods to be delivered were non perishable.  Clarification was also sought as to the deliveries to other shops in the mall and whether it was possible for deliveries to be made to these stores from the same delivery vehicles, therefore cutting the number of deliveries in total to the Mall.

In response the Committee were advised that as the different retailers in the mall had different suppliers it was not possible to consolidate delivery services. Also the increased effect of deliveries would have no greater effect on the level of traffic and noise that residents had experienced when the former petrol station had been in use.  The Committee commented that  the noise levels from the former petrol station and noise from cars was significantly different from, and could not be compared to the noise that would result in the increase in vehicle deliveries given their size, as well as their proximity to residential dwellings.

In response to further questions the Committee were advised that the service and storage yards were the furthest away from Caxton Road, and that noise levels from idling vehicles was envisaged to be minimal in terms of residence disturbance.

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

·        That the proposed variation had been applied for even before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

Demolition of existing building and erection of 3/4 storey building comprising 1 x one bed, 1 x three bed and 5 x two bed flats with associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee were advised that the site was on the south side of Lordship Lane between Coldham Court and Andrula Court. The application proposal had been  for demolition of existing building and erection of 3/4 storey building comprising 1 x one bed, 1 x three bed and 5 x two bed flats with associated landscaping. The current proposal was to add 1 x 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of the approved building by subdividing the original 3-bedroom flat on the ground floor into a 3-bedroom flat and a one-bedroom flat, making a total of 7 flats in the development rather than 6.  Both flats would have direct access to garden space.  The envelope of the building as approved in 2007 would remain the same as there was no increase in size or bulk.

The Committee were further advised that at the time of submission of the application the original building had been demolished and the site cleared but the new building approved in 2007 had not been built, and as a result an application for the change of use of the ground floor flat into 2 flats was not possible as this flat still did not exist, and a new application for the whole building, with the variation of the additional flat, had to be submitted. The application was also a car free development.

The Committee were also advised that the earlier permission was subject to a Section 106 Agreement  requiring financial contributions for educational provision, environmental improvements and amendments to Traffic Management Orders.  These contributions had been paid before the issue of the planning permission and the addition of one non-family unit did not give rise to any requirement for additional contributions.  The development remained below the threshold for provision of affordable housing.  There was therefore no requirement for a fresh agreement to accompany this decision.  However, the Planning Officer advised that a Deed of Variation should be entered into to ensure that the obligations in the Section 106 Agreement for the previous scheme are binding on the amended scheme.

In response to points of clarification from the Committee officers advised that the change in specification in flat sizes was viewed as more likely to attract usage for small families. The size of the rooms in each dwelling was of adequate size, and consultation had taken place in the near vicinity though the site was opposite the park and therefore the development was not overlooked as such.

The Committee referred to provision of cycling storage and whether this could be included within the development. The Committee also commented that in terms of cycle storage there should be a check in terms of those applications where a cycle provision had been included and built, and the actual usage of the facility.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions and subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/0263

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 06/05/2008

Location: 591 Lordship Lane N22

Proposal: Demolition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.

Redevelopment of site to provide 3 storey building comprising 2 x three bed and 4 x two bed self-contained flats with 3 no car parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement.

Councillor Bevan, having declared a prejudicial interest, left the proceedings at 20.08hrs.

The Committee were informed by officers that the application site was situated at 7 Orchard Place outside the conservation area.  The site was currently a two storey builders office with a single storey extension to the rear, adjacent to a yard for car repairs etc and the railway line to the west and a row of 3 storey residential houses to the east. To the rear of the site there were very tall conifer trees (15m).

The Committee were advised that the proposal was a resubmission for the demolition of the existing builders offices and redevelopment of the site to provide a 3 storey building comprising 2 x 3 bed flats on the ground floor and 4 x two bed self contained flats on the first and first and second floor constructed in roof tiles and facing brickwork, with 3 parking space.  The amendments involved in the revised scheme involved the alteration of the dwelling mix, 3 car parking spaces and evidence submitted to show that the site has been advertised on the market for employment use over a period of 18 months.

The Committee, in noting the previous period of marketing for employment use, sought clarification as to whether the site could be marketed now for employment use at a price appropriate to the area and therefore possibly attracting a level of interest.

In response officers advised the Committee that the site had been marketed by 3 different Estate agents who had marketed the site over an 18 month period with no interest shown during this period. The market price had been £375K, which a reasonable price for marketing such premises in this area.  The site had had full marketing and each of the Estate Agents had done this in good faith.

Councillor Bevan re-entered the proceedings and addressed the Committee as an objector to the application.

Councillor Bevan commented that he had 4 main points of objection to the application.  He referred to the size of some of the units – with 56 square metres (sqm) and 65 sqm,  being substantial shortfalls to the required minimum floor space area. Councillor Bevan also commented on the loss of employment use, as there was a huge demand for units such as this in Tottenham. Councillor Bevan also referred to the suitability of this site for residential use giving the nuisance that could be caused by the adjacent railway line, as well as the matter of overlooking and daylight issues to adjacent properties.

Councillor Bevan also referred to the marketing of the site and whether the site had has seriously been marketed as a possible employment site and in a proactive manner in the past 18 months.

In response to points of clarification from the Committee Councillor Bevan responded that the opportunity for employment at the site would be dependant on the type of business, and he felt that such a site would be appropriate for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

Variation of condition E4 attached to planning permission HGY/2005/1439 (creation of Haringey 6th Form Centre) to allow opening between 0600 - 2300hrs every day, including the sports centre and theatre and restaurant facilities.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve variation of condition E4 attached to Planning Permission HGY2005/1439 relating to extended operating hours.

In a brief introduction of the report the Committee were advised that planning permission had been granted for the sixth form centre in October 2005, (HGY2005/1439) as part of a wider scheme including new housing and a new care home.  The residential element was now completed and occupied called Academia Way. The application sought the extension of the opening hours of the sixth form centre from those allowed in the original planning permission.  Condition E4 attached to that permission allowed the centre to open between 0700 and 2200 hours Monday – Friday, 0800 and 1800 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays. It was now proposed to open the centre from 0700 to 2300 on every day.  The intention of the proposal was to encourage increased community use and make the facilities more accessible to local people in line with the advice from central government and policies G3 and CW1 of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.  It was considered that, as any issues associated with the running of the sixth form centre were included as part of an ongoing programme of initiatives by the sixth form centre to ensure good relations with the local community, that the issues raised by local residents would be addressed and the facilities within the sixth form centre would be seen to provide a valuable resource for local people in line with policy UD3 of the Unitary Development Plan 2006. 

The Chair asked if there were any comments from the Committee.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether the granting could be conditional on a 2 year period, in order to assess take up, and whether a condition could be added in respect of the issue of crowd control and dispersal, and litter clearing and noise monitoring. In response to both points the Committee were advised that the Committee could limit the operation up to a two year period, and that in terms of the issue of crowd control and dispersal, and litter clearing and noise monitoring this could be added not as a condition but as an informative.

The Committee then heard from Somerset Hall residents objecting to the proposed variation in the following terms:

·        That the levels of noise and litter/mess arsing from the existing hours operation caused much distress to local residents, and increases in service charges in order to clear litter/mess caused by students;

·        That there had been damage to resident vehicles and property;

·        Evidence of smoking illegal substances in the vicinity close to residents homes, as well as drug dealing;

·        That the effects of the existing facility on local residents had reached an unacceptable level;

·        That the concerns expressed to the College had not been taken seriously and no effective measures had been put in place by the College to combat the levels of noise, disturbance and damage to vehicles and homes;

·        The need to have adequate fencing with the cost being shared between the residents and the college;

·        The need for students to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

To seek Committee approval to undertake public consultation for a period of six weeks on the draft Wood Green Supplementary Planning Document.

In a brief introduction of the report the Head of Economic Regeneration Ms Galey advised the Committee that the Wood Green Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would form part of the Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF), and part of the framework for the development of Wood Green town centre by providing guidance on development sites, urban design and a sustainable long term vision.  Ms Galey advised that following extensive initial consultation with Members, businesses, residents associations, strategic partners and stakeholders a draft SPD has been prepared for Wood Green town centre and the key sites identified within its boundaries.  The draft document was now subject to a statutory public consultation for the duration of up to six weeks before a final version of the document was presented for adoption in September 2008.

In respect of the proposed statutory consultation process, the strategy, if approved by Committee, the statutory public consultation would be launched at The Mall shopping centre on the 19 May 2008 and thereafter, be located in the Wood Green Library for a period of 6 weeks. During this time a dedicated information stand was to be erected with an accompanying comments box to encourage all visitors to submit their views and opinions. The stand would be open fully to all members of the public during the opening hours of the library. Full details of the project, consultation and project time-scales were also provided on the dedicated website which would also be used as a portal for receiving comments from the upcoming public consultation.

The Committee commented in relation to:

·        the mix of properties proposed and whether there had been any ascertaining of the required flat sizes given the 4000/5000 people currently in temporary accommodation and their requirements;

·        the consultation process needing to address users at night time in terms of those that use the night clubs and other facilities were likely from outside the area and different to daytime users;

·         the usage of the identified space by the PCT and their requirements in terms of space.

·        Concerns at the traffic proposals through Wood Green and the filter road at the River Park House junction and the resultant difficulties with this.

In response Ms Galey advised that consultation would take place with planning services as regards to the housing requirements in terms of the recently completed housing SPD.  In terms of consultation there would be a 6 week process as well as a full weekend of consultation in the Shopping Centre. Also people could view the website and give comment.  With regard to night-time users officers would carry out a consultation with night-club owners as to usage.  In respect of the PCT there had been extensive discussion with the PCT with regard to the type of facility and requirements. However the PCT had now had advised that it was not interested in the identified site for use.  As a result officers would leave the identified as an optional usage.   In respect of the highways issues Ms Galey advised that officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

Nil items.

To be advised.

To be confirmed.

The meeting ended at 21.30hrs.