Agenda and minutes

Cllr Dodds, deputy in the chair.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Peacock for whom Cllr Stanton was substituting.  Apologies for lateness were received from Cllr Patel. 

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.

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.

None received.

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 September 2008.

The Committee was asked to agree the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 September 2008.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 September 2008 be agreed and signed.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decision determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during July and August 2008.

The Committee was asked to note the outcome of 30 appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during July and August 2008 of which 13 (43%) were allowed and 16 (53%) were dismissed and 1 withdrawn.

The Committee was further advised that there was a wide range of types of appeals dealt with in this period, however there were no discernable trends.  There were no appeals to draw to the Committee’s particular attention as the report covered a wide range from small house hold conversions to change of use.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To inform the Committee of decisions made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North and South) and the Chair of the above Committee between 18 August 2008 and 14 September 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 18 August 2008 and 14 September 2008.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 8 September 2008 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement Work since the 8 September 2008 Committee meeting.

The Officer drew the Committee’s attention to page 72 of the agenda.  All major applications were determined within 13 weeks, 3 out of 3 cases.   Minor applications 83% were determined within 8 weeks, 38 out of 46 cases, 2% below the Haringey target of 85%,  however above the government target of 65%.  In respect of other application 90% were determined within 8 weeks, which was the Haringey target.  Overall the figures for the last 12 months to the end of August were within the government target but slightly below the Haringey target.

Members requested whether it was possible to receive a 12 month rolling period of performance statistics in order to give an holistic picture instead of the current 12 month period.  The Officer agreed to pass on the request to the appropriate officer who dealt with the statistics.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To seek Members’ final views on the SPD prior to its adoption as an SPD which will be part of the Local Democracy Framework (LDF) and subject to the agreement of the Cabinet on 14 October 2008.

The Chair asked and it was agreed to vary the agenda to consider item 15 next.

Cllr Bevan entered the meeting at 8:15pm.

The Haringey Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would form part of the Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF).  It would provide guidance on the existing UDP policies and would be a material consideration when considering and determining planning applications.  The SPD would replace the existing SPG on housing standards, density, design and affordable housing. 

A public consultation took place between 17 April and 29 May 2008 on the Draft Haringey Housing SPD.  A total of 14 written responses were received from individuals or organisations.  An area of concern was raised by the GLA in relation to affordable housing and the 50:50 tenure split between social rented and intermediate provision as a starting point.  The GLA advised that in conformity with the London Plan which stated that boroughs should take account of the London-wide 70:30 housing tenure split in setting targets.

Following the public consultation on the draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Housing SPD, the draft SPD had been amended, where appropriate, to reflect the representations received, including those made by the GLA.  The report sought Members’ final views on the SPD prior to its adoption as an SPD which would be part of the LDF subject to the agreement of the Cabinet on 14 October 2008.

The Committee was advised that the SPD would be used to provide benefits for the Haringey community in terms of ensuring an adequate standard and range of housing, especially affordable and accessible housing in order to meet current and future needs of the borough.

Cllr Patel entered the meeting at 8:20pm.

Cllr Bevan addressed the meeting to support the Housing SPD and the number of improvements in obtaining mixed sustainable housing and balanced communities.   The threshold for affordable housing within the Housing SPD was 10 units, however endeavours had been made to reduce this to 5 units, which was not possible and therefore, an aim for the future.  Cllr Bevan expressed his sincere thanks to the officers for their hard work on Housing SPD.

The Committee raised several points in relation to the Housing SPD and enquired:

1. What consultation took place with the wider community and whether any other objections/proposals had been received.
2. What were the implications for large sites like the Haringey Heartlands or Tottenham Hale development in terms of the guidance.
3. Homes in multiply occupation (HMOs) – how would Haringey tighten control and the SPD fit into the work on HMOs.
4.  The affordable housing target was set at 680 units per year and a target of 50% for new housing.  How would this compare to the actual need in the borough?
5. Would the Housing SPD increase the strength of the Committee in terms of the design of future proposals?
6. On page 190, paragraph 4.7, required that new housing development should take place on previously developed land and new development proposals would make effective use of the land.

In response the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

Conversion of property from single occupancy house to 1 x three bed flat and 1 x one bed flat.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee was informed that the application site was located on the northern side of Aylmer Road, between the intersections with The Bishops Avenue and Bancroft Avenue respectively, and close to the boundary with the London Borough of Barnet.  The site was adjoined by similar large residential properties and most have their own driveways and forecourts.  The property was not in a Conservation Area.

The subject site was not in an area that had reached its capacity for conversions.  Furthermore, the site was not within an identified restricted conversion area.  The proposed conversion essentially required only internal refurbishment of the existing property and did not result in more than one flat per floor and would retain one family unit with the three bedroom flat,  therefore no loss of family accommodation.  The site was located within adequate proximity to public transport options and a number of non-residential facilities, including shops. 

The development essentially involved internal building works, modifications only and no proposed changes to the external elevation of the property.   Alteration works were proposed to the side walkway along the eastern boundary of the site adjoining the property at No. 24 Aylmer Road.  These works were considered to be an improvement on the existing inconsistent building approach on the site. The applicant had advised that the external construction materials were to match those of the existing property.  The proposal was considered to be acceptable in relation to design and scale.  The property had a long rear garden.  The plans detailed two vehicle accesses, space for three car parking bays and this was considered more than the minimum requirement for two flats.

An local resident addressed the Committee and objected to the proposal because it did not meet the requirements of the UDP.  The forecourt could accommodate three cars, however if cars were to enter and leave in forward gear this would mean that it would only be feasible to park two cars therefore, creating parking pressure which would be intolerable for neighbours.  The bay windows adjacent to the garden would create overlooking and neighbours would lose amenity.  The property was not suitable for a house conversion and not commensurate with the character of Alymer Road and there was no need for flats.  No other house in Alymer Road had been converted.

The location was not suitable as there was poor public transport and no nearby shops.  The plans were riddled with errors as the kitchen vent could not be sited as shown on the application because there was a skylight in the roof.  Three trees were also omitted from the plans.  Two hundred local residents had objected to the proposals by letter, email and petition.

Cllr Gorrie addressed the Committee and expressed his concern regarding the proposed parking layout at the site.  He felt that this application would set a precedence for the rest of the street.  There was a 50 mile per hour speed limit along the road and therefore it was considered not to be safe to manoeuvre and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 x single storey houses with associated car parking.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission.

The Committee was informed that the application site comprised a lock up garage court between Cecile Park and Haringey Park.  The site was a long, narrow rectangle surrounded on all sides by the rear gardens of the neighbouring residential properties.  Access is from Gladwell Road which is a steep sloping residential street.  The site was located within the Crouch End Conservation Area.

The site had been subject to a number of planning applications for change of use to residential in recent years.  In 2006 a public enquiry was held to consider six separate applications having been made between 2001 and 2006.  Two of those appeals were withdrawn and the remaining four were dismissed.

In support of their application, the applicant had amended the scheme in relation to the Inspector’s comments and submitted a planning statement, design and access statement, sustainability checklist, structural survey, highways statement, tree condition survey, bat and other protected species survey.  The number of units had been reduced from four to two and from 2-storey to single storey along with the removal of the new garages proposed as part of the previous schemes.  The proposed houses would not be substantially higher than the existing garage buildings and would not interfere with the views across the site from the surrounding properties.

The Transportation Group considered that the development would not generate sufficient traffic to prevent sharing the access between pedestrians and vehicles.  They had however, recommended traffic calming measures at the access point via a Section 278 agreement.

The Council, in order to address the issues raised regarding the loss of the garages, carried out its own surveys into parking demand and demand for lock up garages in the local area.  The results demonstrated that there were more vehicles parked in the survey area than there were spaces available, the results clearly indicated that severe parking pressures did exist in the area surrounding the application site.  The second survey demonstrated that there was demand for lock up garages in the area.  If garages were available then the majority of local people would wish to rent or buy one.

An Arboricultural method statement had been supplied giving details of the method of construction in terms of the tree roots, particularly in relation to the foundations.  Eight trees highlighted would be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management, the applicant had stated with the exception of these trees, there was no other intention to remove any other trees.  The large Horse Chestnut tree which was protected by a Tree Preservation Order was to be retained.

It was considered that the current scheme conflicted with the aims of policy UD3(c) of the Unitary Development Plan 2006, which stated that development should not significantly affect the public and private transport networks, including highways or traffic conditions.  In addition the proposal was considered to result in a detrimental effect on the conservation area as a result of additional on-street parking.  The scheme was considered to fail to meet the requirements of PPG15 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 272.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 x single storey houses with associated car parking.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse consent.

The Committee was asked to consider Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 x single storey houses with associated car parking.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to refuse Conservation Area Consent as planning permission for the application outlined in PC272 above was refused.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/1867

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 06/10/2008

Location: Rear Of 60 - 88 Cecile Park N8

Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 x single storey houses with associated car parking.

Recommendation: Refuse Consent

Decision: Refuse Consent

Drawing No’s: PP-01 to PP-07, PP-10 to PP24 incl.

Reason:

1. The proposed demolition of the garages would be premature in that the Local Planning Authority has not received an application and / or granted planning permission for a suitable replacement development.  Premature demolition would not be in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the Scotland Green Conservation Area contrary to Policy CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

Section 106: No

Outline application for erection of 9 x 3 storey, four bedroom townhouses with associated parking and access.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant outline permission subject to reserved matters and subject to Section 106 Agreement.

The Officer presented the report and advised the Committee that at page 116 there was an error by the Transportation Group that referred to business use which was not in the application.  A further error was highlighted in term of a reference to an underground car park which should have read undercroft also not in this application.

The application site was currently vacant and situated on the northern side of Tottenham Lane adjoining the existing Texaco petrol filling station.  The site was directly opposite the roundabout that intersected Ferme Park Road and Tottenham Lane.  To the north was Rokesly Infants and Junior Schools.  The current proposal sought outline consent for the erection of 9 x 3 storey, four bedroom townhouses with associated parking and access.

An appeal decision concerning the Texaco petrol filling station and the current application site which was dismissed was a material consideration and acted as a benchmark which further application were assessed.  The inspector identified the main issues as:

1. The design of the proposal and its visual impact within the street scene, including longer views.
2. The effect upon the amenity of the users of adjoining Rokesly School in terms of overlooking and overshadowing of the school playground.

The dwellings were considered to be of an acceptable standard in terms of layout and room size, the overall dwelling being above the Council’s minimum space standard.  It was considered that the design approach was modern and could fit in with the surrounding area.  The proposed schemed had a density of 305hrh, which was in line with the London Plan.

The scale and height of the proposal was consistent along its length and considered that the proposed development would not exceed the existing height of neighbouring residential buildings and it would not have a significant overbearing affect on neighbouring properties.  Given the proposed use, adjoining residential properties and proximity to public transport options, the principle of residential use on the site was considered appropriate.

The BRE study found that the School buildings and playgrounds would not suffer a significant loss of daylight.   It was considered that the change in circumstance by the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm in terms of overlooking of the school playground.  The report also concluded that the development would result in a greater degree of overshadowing than currently existed but for most of the year the playground would be mostly unaffected.

Car parking for the scheme would be provided at the front of the site with direct access from Tottenham Lane.  The Transportation Group was satisfied with the access and levels of parking proposed. 

The Chair of Governors at Rokesly Junior School addressed the Committee to object that no consultation had taken place with the school and requested that the decision on the application be deferred.  The school objected to the intrusion of overlooking of the playground used by pupils for physical education throughout the day.  The proposal included balconies and a roof dais which had no purpose as the proposal would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 274.

Refurbishment of existing building with reconstruction of new façade to the elevations and change of use from offices to offices / 9 residential units comprising 2 x one bed, 5 x two bed and 2 x three bed flats.

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

The Committee was advised that this application site was a four storey building which was part of Crouch End Town Centre and was also within the Crouch End Conservation Area.  Currently the building was vacant but had previously been used as B1 offices on the ground and upper floors for a number of years.  The proposed refurbishment retained the employment use at ground and converted the upper level office space to residential apartments.

It was considered that the proposed development was of a type and scale which was appropriate for this location.  The mixed use scheme met with the relevant policy requirements for sites of this type as well as being in step with the London Plan.  The proposed development was below the affordable housing threshold provision. 

It was further considered that neighbouring occupiers would not suffer detrimental loss of amenity as a result of adverse additional overlooking and loss of privacy.  The current proposal retained the bulk, scale and massing of the existing building.  The re-design of the facades was attractive and considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the locality.  The scheme included one wheelchair accessible unit and that all the dwellings met the Council’s standards in terms of layout and room size. 

The officer explained that within the report (pages 132 and 137) the scheme proposed 6 off-street car parking spaces, however the plans detailed 5 car parking spaces and the Committee was asked to make a decision on the number of car parking spaces to be provided.  A number of cycle racks would also be included within the cartilage of the development.

Members enquired whether it was possible to condition that one car parking space be made available for the office during business hours.  The Committee agreed that 5 car parking spaces would be provided.

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application subject to conditions and the extra condition and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted subject to conditions and the extra condition that one car parking space be made available for the office during business hours, that 5 car parking spaces be provided for the whole scheme and to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/1692

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 06/10/2008

Location: 2-6 Middle Lane N8

Proposal: Refurbishment of existing building with reconstruction of new facade to the elevations, and change of use from offices to offices / 9 residential units comprising 2 x one bed , 5 x two bed and 2 x three bed flats.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Decision: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Drawing No’s: KP-ML-PL01; KP-ML-GA01, 02, 03, 04, 05; KP-ML-ELEV01, 02, 03; KP-ML-SEC01 & 02.

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 the permission shall be of no effect.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 275.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday 10 November 2008

Monday 10 November 2009.

The meeting concluded at 21:45hrs.