Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Davidson; therefore the Deputy Chair, Councillor Bevan chaired this meeting

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.

Members asked that the Development Control forum to discuss 315 The Roundway be reconvened in order that the application could be heard at the next PASC on 23 January 2006.  The planning officers advised that this may mean ‘doubling up’ at the DC Forum on 11 January in order to meet the 13 week target.

                    Members were advised that the first meeting of the Design Panel took place 2 weeks ago to discuss Hale Wharf and that the minutes were now available.  Further information was available from Sue Cook, Head of the Design Team.

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.

Councillors Bevan and Peacock declared interests with regard to item 9.2 on the Agenda; 725-733 Lordship Lane, and made the following statements.

                    Councillor Bevan said; ‘I wish to declare a personal interest in the decision to be taken under agenda item 9.2 tonight (725-733 Lordship Lane).  I believe that the application for planning permission significantly affects the interests of the same organisation that has made a donation the Tottenham Carvinal when I was involved in my capacity as joint Treasurer.  This donation has not benefited me financially in any way but I thought it proper to bring it to the attention of this committee.  I am confident that I can deal with the planning issues raised at this committee; uninfluenced by this charitable donation and that a reasonable person would not consider that my judgement of the public interest likely to be impaired.   I have never met the person concerned other than at official planning meetings’. 

Cllr Bevan remained in the meeting when the item was discussed but abstained when the vote was taken. 

Councillor Peacock said,  ‘I wish to declare a personal interest in the decision to be taken under agenda item 9.2 tonight (725-733 Lordship Lane).  I believe that the application for planning permission significantly affects the interests of the same organisation that has made a number of donations to charities that I have been involved in while I was Mayor and in my capacity as Secretary of the Tottenham Carnival.  Although I am confident that I would be able to come to a decision on the question solely on the basis of the planning arguments, I have decided in the interests of maintaining the highest standards of probity on these issues, to absent myself from the meeting when this item is considered’.

Cllr Peacock decided to withdraw from the meeting when this item was discussed and voted on. 

Cllr Bevan stated that he was joint Treasurer of the Tottenham Carnival but Cllr Peacock challenged this as she understood Cllr Bevan was sole treasurer.

Cllr Bevan stated that he was joint Treasurer of the Tottenham Carnival but Cllr Peacock challenged this as she understood Cllr Bevan was sole treasurer.  Cllr Bevan responded that since his appointment as Treasurer, it had been a joint position. If any confusion remained for the coming year, he would have this reiterated and confirmed in the minutes at the next festival meeting; ie. that the other joint Treasurer is to continue, especially as his name is an authorized signature on the bank account.

Minutes of the Planning Applications Sub Committee of 28 November to follow

                     RESOLVED    

                     That the minutes of the Planning Applications Sub Committee on 28 November be confirmed and signed by the Chair

For Development Control and Building Control and Planning Enforcement

Noted

Made between 14 and 17 November 2005

Cllr Hare queried as to why PVC windows had been agreed for 91 Upper Tollington Park.  Planning officers explained that they had considered this application to be an improvement on the current windows which were not an original feature but simply a poor 1970’s design and in need of replacement.

Made during November 2005

Officers drew attention to some appeals which had been allowed, despite Council's decision, for example an additional house at Grand Avenue in the Muswell Hill conservation area; such decisions were disappointing. On the other hand, the Council's decision to refuse three dwellings on a tight back-land site in Daleview Road N15, was supported on appeal

1.                  14-16 Creighton Avenue N10

2.                  725-733 Lordship Lane N22

3.                  40 Coleridge Road N8

4.                  40 Coleridge Road N8 (Conservation Area Consent)

5.                  Land at Winns Mews N15

6.                  Land at Winns Mews N15 (Conservation Area Consent)

7.                  Treehouse School, Woodside Avenue N10

8.                  Former Hornsey Waterworks, High Street N8

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.                     725-733 Lordship Lane N22

The planning officers introduced this item and explained to members that, despite the 7 storey design, the application fell within London Plan density levels. Due to the height of the adjoining cinema, the development could be considered within the streetscape. There was no adverse conservation area impact. 

An objector spoke on behalf of the Local Residents’ Association and the Executive Member for Social Services and local resident, Cllr Kate Wynne reinforced his concerns about the lack of quality of life for existing and new residents; that the application contravened SPG 3A; that the proposed health centre was allegedly a ‘red herring’; that insufficient consultation had been carried out; the lack of play space for children; poor lighting due to north and west facing aspect and that the development would face the adjoining cinema wall where buses wait and therefore presented a potential pollution risk. 

The applicant spoke in support of his application and stressed to members the importance of providing health services in the borough, ie dentist, chiropodist and well-man clinic.  The application had been to the DC Forum in October and feedback had been discussed with planning officers and their comments taken on board.  As a result of this; the revised scheme reduced the number of dwellings, the development had been set back further and an amenity terrace had been provided.  They felt that the design and materials were of an appropriately high and sympathetic standard, with large windows to counteract any potential lack of light.  They were committed to employing local tradesmen and  agreed to work with the local authority on further ecological enhancements and the use of renewable energy.  A local resident also spoke in support of providing a new health centre. 

Members were concerned about the validity of the proposed health centre use but the applicant explained that they needed planning permission before they could obtain agreement to this.  They had been in negotiations with the PCT but confirmed that such an agreement had not been minuted in any PCT Board Meetings.

Members decided to refuse the application on the grounds of mass, bulk, scale, density, design, streetscape, public realm issues,  frontage, public safety from the car park entrance, no provision of social rented housing and lack of section 106 agreement.  There were 6 votes against, none voted in favour.  Cllrs Bevan and Adamou  abstained.

2.                     40 Coleridge Road N8 (including Conservation Area Consent)

                     Officers introduced this item and advised members that there was no architectural merit in the building proposed for demolition.  The density of the proposed development was within the revised UDP and subject to a 106 agreement.   No objectors were present.    The application was agreed with an extra condition asking for further elevational drawings to be submitted to the planning office, inclusion of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PASC87

Would members, officers, applicants and objectors bring to the meeting their diaries to allow dates of site visits to be agreed at the meeting

Winns Mews – Wednesday 21^st December at 10.00 am (meeting place outside 20 Beaconsfield Road N15)

14-16 Creighton Avenue – to be set up in the New Year when the applicant is available.  This item had been withdrawn from tonight’s agenda.

The meeting closed at 9.45 pm

23 January 2006, 7pm

23^rd January 2006, 7pm

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2005/1896

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 13/12/2005

Location: 725 - 733 Lordship Lane N22

Proposal:  Redevelopment of site for a mixed use development comprising a 6/7 storey building of 90 residential units with 50% affordable provision, with commercial uses including a health centre on the ground floor together with hard and soft landscaping works.

Recommendation  Grant subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Decision:  Refuse

Drawing No.s:  109, 110B, 111A, 112, 113A, 114A, 115A, 116A, 117A, 118B, 119B, 120 & Planning Statement.

Reasons

1. The proposed development by reason of excessive size and scale and  general appearance, contrary to Policies DES 1.1 Good Design and How Design Will Be Assessed, DES 1.2 Assessment of Design Quality (1): Fitting New Buildings into the Surrounding Area, DES 1.4 Assessment of Design Quality (3): Building Lines, Layout, Form, Rhythm and Massing of Haringey Unitary Development Plan also UD3 Quality Design of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan and  would be detrimental to the amenities of the immediate locality and Wood Green Town Centre.,

2. The proposed development represents overdevelopment in relation to the area of the site and the properties in the locality contrary to Policies HSG2.2 Residential Densities and DES 1.10 'Overdevelopment' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and Policy HSG 8 'Density Stanards' of the  Haringey Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Consultation Draft September 2004 and  by reason of: the overall size and bulk and  the number of units and habitable rooms within the site thereby causing demonstrable harm.

3. The proposed development would not result  in the provision of social housing for rent contratry to Paragraph 3.38 of the London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy For Greater London) dated February 2004 or Policy HSG 4 'Affordable Housing' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Consultation Draft, September 2004; thereby causing demonstrable harm in  failing to add to the supply of social rented housing in the Borough.

4. The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the cost of Education Contribution, Environmental Improvements Contribution and Administering and Monitoring Contribution arising as a result of the development contrary to Policies RIM 1.1 'Community Benefit' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan and UD 10 'Planning Obligations' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Consultation Draft , September 2004.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2005/1827

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 23/01/2006

Location: 14 - 16 Creighton  Avenue N10

Proposal Demolition of existing pair of houses and erection of 6 x 3 storey four bedroom houses with parking.

Recommendation  Grant subject to conditions & Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Decision  Deferred for a Members site visit.

Drawing No.s 205082/010, 030, 031, 110, 120, 121, 122, 123, 130, 131 & 132.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2005/2064

FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUB COMMITTEE DATED 13/12/2005

Location: 40 Coleridge Road N8

Proposal : Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site including erection of 9 terraced houses comprising 3 x 3 storey houses in Coleridge Road, 4 x 3 storey  ...  view the full minutes text for item PASC90