Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received 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 10 below.

New items of exempt business will be dealt with at item 10 below. Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear.  New items will be dealt with at item 10.

The Chair advised that, due to the current upgrade of Haringey’s web site, there had been an ‘upload freeze’ for the past week.  Members of the public could log on and download sets of meetings and reports up to 10^th October but the documents for 31^st October could not be viewed until the end of the week.

Everyone present was advised that the meeting was subject to a live webcast and by entering the room and using the public seating area; they would be consenting to being filmed. 

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 Basu declared a prejudicial interest with regard to the application for 381-481 Seven Sisters Road as he had previously expressed an opinion on this item at a Development Control Forum.    He decided to leave the room when this item was discussed

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

None received

To confirm the minutes of the Special Planning Application Sub Committee of 4 October 1005 and the Planning Applications Sub Committee of 10 October 2005

That the minutes of the Planning Applications Sub Committees on 4^th October and 10^th October 2005 be agreed and signed.

Members noted that all targets had been met, with the exception of minor applications which were above Government targets but below Haringey targets.  Appeals were slightly above Government targets but below Haringey targets.   Members were also advised that an Appeal was pending for the application on Ferme Park Depot (heard at the last meeting of PASC on 10 October).

Noted

1.      Oakdale Arms, 283 Hermitage Road N4.  Demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey building comprising 4x1 bed, 2x2  bed and 1x4 bed self-contained flats and parking at basement level.  Recommendation – Grant Permission, subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement (page 53)    

2.      381 – 481 Seven Sisters Road N15.   Demolition of existing garages and erection of four part 3/part 4 storey blocks comprising 28x1 bed, 30x2 bed and 10x3 bed residential units with associated landscaping (page 68)

3.      The Lodge, Creighton Avenue N10.  Demolition of existing park keeper’s lodge and erection of 2x2 storey four bedroom dwelling houses with rooms at lower ground and first floor level. With associated car parking and landscaping     (page  93)

RESOLVED

That the decisions of the Sub Committee on the planning applications and related matters, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes, be approved or refused, with the following points noted:

1.                     The Lodge, Creighton Avenue N10

             Having looked in detail at the site plans, members had some concerns that this development could be overlooking and therefore decided to defer a decision until after a site visit.

2.                     Oakdale Arms, 283 Hermitage Road N4

                   Officers presented this application and members were asked to note that the demolition of the public house was not subject to planning permission and the proposed density levels for the redevelopment were within the London Plan standard.

                   The ward councillor and several objectors spoke outlining their concerns at the loss of this public house and the proposed redevelopment.   Members noted that the premises had been designated ‘CAMRA North London Pub of the Year’ and it was highly regarded by the local residents and felt to be at the hub of the local community. 

                   The retired Vicar of St Ann’s Parish confirmed that the Oakdale Arms was used as a ‘church plant’, i.e. a community facility attached to the local church and services were held in their function rooms every Sunday morning.  The local Trades Council and NDC representatives also felt that the Oakdale Arms added value to the local community and members noted that the function rooms were also used by a local  group for people with disabilities.

                   Officers confirmed that protecting community facilities was an objective of the London Plan but members were asked to be mindful that the premises was categorised as within Use Class A3 in Planning Terms (not D use; i.e. as a community facility) and that realistically the religious use could only be regarded as ancillary.   Members were also reminded that planning applications could be made whether or not the land had been purchased. 

                   Objectors felt that housing development was saturated in this area and it was alleged that there had been difficulty selling some of the recent developments which were now subject to large scale lettings.  They were particularly concerned that the proposed basement area and underground parking could make the entrance to the development undesirable.  This concern was also shared with  members; as well as the design and use of materials.  Members were  concerned generally about underground parking in the borough unless it was subject to stringent surveillance and maintenance. 

                   The applicant’s agent felt that he had addressed previous concerns about height, mass and bulk and members noted that the redevelopment complied with UDP Policy on regeneration.  Underground parking had been included in the development as the applicant felt that current on street parking was hazardous. As the applicant was not present, he felt that he could not answer the queries about surveillance and maintenance.  However, members were reminded of the recent application re Somerset Halls (to be updated further at item 9 on this agenda) whereby building maintenance had been written into the 106 agreement.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2005/1592

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 31/10/2005

Location: 381- 481 Seven Sisters Road N15

Proposal Demolition of existing garages and erection of four x part 3 / part 4 storey blocks comprising 28 x 1 bed, 30 x 2 bed and 10 x 3 bed residential units with associated landscaping.

Recommendation  Grant subject to conditions & Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Decision: Refuse

Drawing Nos.   P-102-01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12 & 13.

Reasons

1. The proposed development represents overdevelopment in relation to the area of the site and the properties in the locality contrary to Policy DES 1.10 'Overdevelopment' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan by reason of the overall  height, unbroken massing, bulk and size  in a prominent location in the streetscape  thereby causing demonstrable harm.

2. The proposed development would be overbearing particularly in relation to the properties at the rear  in Pulford Road and would result  in loss of light  and visual intrusion to the detriment of the amenities of those properties contrary to Policy DES 1.9 'Privacy & Amenity Of Neighbours'.

3. The proposed development would result in the loss of valuable public and informal  urban open space  which together with other nearby spaces performs a valuable  fuunction of relief from  urban development in the street scene contrary to Policies OP 1.1 'Protection Of Urban Open Space', OP 1.2 'Informal Open Space', OP 2.1 'Public Open Space' and DES 1.6 'Urban Design, The Design Of Public Space & Street Furniture' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed development would not result  in 7% of the  proposed  units of accommodation being provided for shared ownership / key worker (intermediate) housing contrary to Policies HSG 2.23 'Affordable Housing' of the Harringey Unitary Development Plan and HSG 4 'Affordable Housing'  in  the Revised Deposit Consultation Draft Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2005/0734

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 31/10/2005

Location: Oakdale Arms 283 Hermitage Road N4

Proposal  Demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey building comprising 4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed self contained flats and parking at basement  level.

Recommendation  Grant subject to conditions & Section 106 Legal Agreement

Decision REFUSE

Drawing No.s P/017, P/018, P/019 & P/020.

Reasons

1. The proposed development represents overdevelopment in relation to the area of the site and the properties in the locality contrary to Policy DES 1.10 'Overdevelopment' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan by reason of overall height, bulk and size  in a prominent location in the street scene  thereby causing demonstrable harm.

2. The development would be visually intrusive when viewed from adjoining properties by reason of bulk, overall scale, massing and design thereby contrary to Policies

DES 1.1 'Good Design & How Design Will Be Assessed'

DES 1.2 'Assessment Of Design Quality (1): Fitting New Buildings Into The Surrounding Area'. 

DES 1.3 'Assessment Of Design Quality (2): Enclosure, Height & Scale'.

DES 1.4 'Assessment Of Design Quality (3) Building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.