Agenda and minutes

The Committee was informed that at the time of despatch of the agenda Cllr Adamou was a Member on the Committee and had sent her apologies for the meeting.  Apologies were also received from Cllr Beacham for whom Cllr Reid was substituting and from Cllr Wilson for whom Cllr Whyte was substituting.  The Committee welcomed Cllr Demirci back to the Membership.

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 16 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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.

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on 29 May 2008 and the Planning Committee held on 9 June 2008.

The Committee was asked to agree the minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on 29 May 2008 and the Planning Committee held on 9 June 2008.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on 29 May 2008 and the Planning Committee held on 9 June 2008 be agreed and signed.

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

The Committee noted the outcome of 7 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during May 2008, of which 2 were allowed and 5 were dismissed.   There were no particular appeals to point out to the Committee, however the service had exceeded the Government target by 29% which was considered to be very good.

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 19 May 2008 and 29 June 2008.

The Committee was asked to note the decisions made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North & South) and the Chair of the Planning Committee determined between 19 May 2008 and 29 June 2008.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the  9 June 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance Statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the 9 June 2008 Committee meeting. 

The Officer informed the Committee that with respect to planning applications there were no major decisions determined in May 2008.  In relation to minor applications 80% were determined in 8 weeks and for other applications 95% were determined within 8 weeks.  The granted refusal rate for decisions determined in May was 69% were granted (90 our of 131) and 31% refused (76 out of 295).  In terms of appeals against refusal of planning permission the government target was 30%, Haringey’s target was 35% and in May the actual target was 33% between the two targets.

Members requested that the performance statistics report be provided in a rolling 12 month period rather than the last 12 months in order to receive an historic picture of service performance in relations to all planning applications.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To consider a variation of condition 8 (play times) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2001/1002 dated 12 December 2001, to extend morning and afternoon play times in the garden by 10 minutes each (an increase of 20 minutes per day in total). 

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee was informed that the application site was a two storey semi-detached house on the northern side of Woodside Avenue.  The house had a nursery on the ground floor and a flat on the first floor.  Residential properties adjoined the site to the north, south and west with Woodside Avenue bounding to the east.

Planning permission was originally granted in December 2001, for the use of the ground floor of 23 Woodside Avenue as a Montessori school.  The main consideration in this proposal was the extent to which allowing children to have additional time outside in the garden would cause an unacceptable increase in noise generation from the property detrimentally impacting on the amenity of nearby residential properties.

The premise was demonstrably well run and met a need in the wider community.  It was considered that an additional 10 minutes in the morning and afternoon would not give rise to unreasonable additional levels of noise nuisance on nearby residential properties.

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application subject to conditions.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/0887

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 21/07/2008

Location: 23 Woodside Avenue N6

Proposal: Variation of Condition 8 (play times) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2001/1002 dated 12 December 2001, to extend morning and afternoon play times in the garden by 10 minutes each (an increase of 20 minutes per day in total).

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions

Decision: Grant subject to conditions

Drawing No’s: No drawings.

Conditions:

1. The amount of time children are allowed to play in the rear garden is to be restricted to a maximum of 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the afternoon.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding properties.

INFORMATIVE: This approval only amends Condition 8 of the previous consent HGY/2001/1002 issued on the site. Conditions 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of this previous approval remain valid and must be adhered to at all times. Amended Condition 8 must also be adhered to at all times.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

It is not considered likely the additional 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the afternoon for the children's playtime in the rear garden would give rise for unacceptable noise disturbance being created on nearby residential properties. As such, this proposal is considered to be in keeping with Policies UD3 'General Principles' and CW1 'New Community / Health Facilities' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan (2006).

Section 106: No

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 40 extra care units and provision of 8 off-street parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject o conditions.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Cllr Harris had tabled a letter with the agreement of the Chair.

The Committee was further informed that there was an error on Condition 11, under Reason: the words ‘and Parkland Walk’ should be removed.  The Highgate Society had asked that a further condition be added that a professional photograph of the property be taken before the demolition and be kept by the Society.  As the building was part of the history of Highgate’s development. 

The planning officer advised the Committee that a further condition was also to be added to the planning consent in relation to a Section 278 agreement.  That no development would commence until the developer had entered into a Section 278 agreement that works would be undertaken to improve the section of footways in the interest of highways and pedestrian safety.

Representations had also been received from Building Control who advised that formal building regulations applied.  Three local residents had submitted letters objecting to the proposed building being over large in terms of bulk, mass and layout.  The style of the proposed development was not in keeping with either the style of buildings it was replacing nor the surrounding buildings.  No construction traffic would be allowed to use Grange Road as it was a private road.

The application site was occupied by two converted and extended villas known respectively as The Tree and Homfray House, and was a vacant nursing home.  There was no prevailing architectural style in the area, being a mix of Victorian and Edwardian developments.  The application site was located within Highgate Conservation Area, however the building was not listed.

This application followed on from a recent refusal which was for a similar application for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the erection of a part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 41 extra care units.

A fundamental component to the development of extra care schemes was that they must be near to local amenities and services.  The Borough currently only had 60 such units and the provision of extra care housing had been identified as a priority in the Borough’s ‘Supporting People Strategy 2005-2010’.  The project had the full support of the Council’s Adult, Culture and Community Services.  The self contained units were designed to be fully wheel chair accessible and compliant with Lifetime Home Standards.  

The replacement building would be of a contemporary architectural design and its footprint would be similar to that of the existing buildings on site, with an additional single storey being built along the western boundary.  The main building fronting onto Broadlands Road would take the form of 3 villas.  The height of the North East corner of the building had been reduced by 3m, therefore minimising the impact on neighbouring Broadlands flats.  The overall composition of the proposed development would consist of brick, and white render with some timber cladding.  The reduction in height and proximity of the proposed building would not adversely affect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 40 extra care units and provision of 9 off-street parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conservation area consent.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the existing building had undergone substantial external redevelopment by way of unsympathetic additions and its contribution to the Conservation Area had been eroded.  The existing building made a ‘neutral’ contribution to the Conservation Area.

The substantial community benefit associated with this proposal was considered to represent an exceptional case and the argument for the demolition was considered acceptable.

The Committee was asked to consider Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 40 extra care units and provision of 9 off-street parking spaces.

RESOLVED

That Conservation Area Consent be granted for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 40 extra care units and provision of 9 off-street parking spaces as the application outlined in PC     was granted.

Cllr Bevan entered the meeting at 20:20hrs.

Residential redevelopment of playground site adjoining Stainby Road comprising 15 units: 6 x four bed houses and a block of 9 flats comprising 4 x one bed and 5 x three bed flats (forming part of previously approved scheme, reference HGY/2005/1257.

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

Cllr Bevan entered the meeting at 8:20pm.

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised that this application site was previously approved as part of the original plans for Saltram Close.  The site was an enclosed semi derelict playground, originally designed for the use of Saltram Close Estate.  The site was bounded directly to the north by Monument Way and Saltram Close Estate formed the south boundary.  Stainby Road lay to the east of the site.

The site was currently derelict and unsafe for its original purpose, it was considered that the proposed change of use to residential was acceptable.  The density was approximately 414hrh, within the density range set out in the UDP and London Plan.  The units were designed to conform to ‘Lifetime Homes Standards’ and 10% had wheelchair access. 

The scheme would provide not less than 50% of the total units for affordable housing, however the units would be for renting because the Housing Enabling Team had identified a shortage of large units for renting purposes.  The proposed scheme was modern in design and would connect with the design approach of the adjacent development on the former Rose & Crown Public House, and nearby new developments.  It was considered that the height and scale conformed to existing buildings and should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area.

The flats within the scheme would be ‘car-free’ with 9 covered and secured bicycle storage facilities and each of the six houses would have the provision of one car parking space per unit and secure bicycle stand.  Amenity space had been designed into the scheme in the form of rear garden space, balcony and terrace for all the houses.  The flat units had provision of ground floor patio, balconies and a secured roof garden.

CllrsAmin and Diakides entered the meeting at 8:30 and 8:31 respectively.

The Committee questioned  why the existing planning permission for the site was not implemented and were advised that the permission was still valid, however legal services had advised that a new application be resubmitted because it would have a fresh Section 106 agreement.  Concern was raised regarding the fact that the site was on a gyratory system and what measures had been considered to address issues such as noise.  The Officer replied that specific measures had been adopted near the rear boundary walls of the scheme and also specific windows would be installed to prevent noise intrusion.  The Committee could condition that an acoustic report be produced to address this issue.  Members further enquired about where the car parking spaces would be provided and whether the extra height of the proposed development would have an effect on the properties in Saltram Close.    The Committee was informed that parking spaces would be provided in the front garden for each of the houses.  The height of the development to the north would have the sun moving round the estate so therefore no loss of sun or daylight.   The Committee further raised concerns in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

Retention and rebuilding of existing fire damaged building, including two storey extension to rear to provide 6 x 1 bed flats, 2 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 3 bed flats.

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

The Officer presented the report and informed the Committee that the application proposed 10 flats but in fact there were 12 flats in the scheme, 8 x 1 bed flats and not 6.

The application site comprised the front of Nos 97-99 Philip Lane.  The building comprised a pair of semi detached dwellings on the end of a group of three similar pairs.  These houses formed an important element in the Clyde Circus conservation area.

In 2007 planning permission was refused for the redevelopment of this building as 12 self contained flats.  The building was currently in a very poor state of repair, following two separate fires.  The rear walls were very badly damaged and the roof had been completely destroyed.  The design of this scheme was to repair and where necessary, replace the external shell of the building and to match the new elements as closely as possible to the original.

In order to allow light to the lower ground floor units, lightwells would be created to the front and rear of the building, the front garden was sufficiently large to accommodate the lightwell without any detriment to the appearance of the conservation area.  The rear extension had been reduced in length compared to the refused scheme so that it was approximately 5 metres from the rear boundary.  The design and appearance of the proposed extension was to match as closely as possible the materials, finishes and appearance of the original building.  The scheme was proposed as a car free development as the site was located in an area of medium public transport accessibility and was within a controlled parking zone.

Members raised concern that the proposed application was designated a car free development and it was felt it discriminated against trades people from buying these properties. 

Members further noted that on the site visit there was an odd shaped garden boundary and requested the garden space be defined.  The Committee requested that an extra condition be imposed for landscaping the alleyway.

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application subject to conditions and the extra condition to landscape the alleyway.  On a vote there being 6 in favour and 2 against the motion was carried.  Cllr Dodds requested that his dissent be noted.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions and the extra condition to landscape the alleyway.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/1054

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 21/07/2008

Location: 97 - 99 Philip Lane N15

Proposal: Retention and rebuilding of existing fire damaged building, including two storey extension to rear to provide 8 x 1 bed flats, 2 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 3 bed flats, 12 flats in total.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Decision: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Drawing No’s: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103 & 2200.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

Erection of two storey residential building at first floor level over existing single storey commercial premises and additional storey above existing residential to provide 9 residential units with 5 parking spaces at ground floor level.

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

The Committee was informed that the application site was situated on the north side of Coleridge Road within the Crouch End Conservation Area.  The Area to the west and south of the property was predominantly residential although immediately adjacent to the town centre to the east.

The proposed development had been designed to reflect the existing traditional character and style of the adjoining properties.  It was considered that the proposal was acceptable in the location and that it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Crouch End Conservation Area.  It was further considered there would be no detrimental effect on privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties.

The proposal fell below the threshold for Affordable Housing as it was for only 9 units and provided for 5 car parking spaces.  The vehicle entrance to the parking spaces provided would be via an existing cross-over.  A sustainability checklist was completed and included good ventilation, provision for condensing boilers to all units, the use of reclaimed bricks and the use of the existing structure.

The Committee raised questions regarding the refuge facilities and fire access.  The planning officer informed the Committee that the Fire Authority were satisfied with the proposal.  Members enquired why this application provided parking spaces as opposed to the previous application considered.  The transportation officer responded that within the UDP an application must meet the criteria for a car free development the application site must lay within a controlled parking zone.  There was no controlled parking zone in Crouch End therefore this application could not  be designated car free development.  

An objector addressed the Committee and advised that he was representing the views of a number of residents in Coleridge Road.  He questioned the accuracy of the plans provided and stated that the proposal was absolutely not in character with the area.   The plans provided detailed a 4 storey building with 9 umits, the windows were much smaller and out of character.  The left hand side of the building housed 5-6 cars so there would be no net gain in terms of parking.  With respect to the petrol reservoirs these had only been covered over.  There was a drainage issue with respect to overflows and there would be no one responsible to maintain or manage these.  The staircase was considered to be too steep as the treads were quite high, very dangerous and a risk to residents. 

The planning officer advised the Committee that an informative would be added that redundant crossovers would be removed and there would be a single access to the premises, therefore off street parking would be replaced.

The Committee questioned the objector on how he would like to see the proposal modified and in response was informed that safety was at risk in respect of the narrow staircase.  The proposal was out of character for the area and the density was too much on the small site.  

The applicant, in response to the objectors concerns, informed the Committee that the layout  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Special Planning Committee on 24 July 2008.

Monday 8 September 2008 at 19:00hrs.