Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Weber for whom Cllr Aitken was substituting and apologies for lateness from Cllrs Demirci and 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 14 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 received.

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:

a).           Planning Committee held on 9 March 2009 and

b).           Special Planning Committee held on 17 March 2009.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings held below be agreed and signed:

a).           Planning Committee held on 9 March 2009 and

b).           Special Planning Committee held on 17 March 2009.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decision determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during February 2009.

The Committee was asked to note the outcome of appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during February 2009.

The Committee noted the outcome of 23 appeal decisions determined of which 4 (17%) were allowed, 1 in respect of an enforcement appeal and 19 (83%) were dismissed.   The figures showed an overall good month in relation to performance and had improved the statistics for the year.  The appeals ranged from conversions to extension.

In respect of the appeal for 596-606 High Road N17, this was a major development and had been dismissed at appeal due to highway safety and the living conditions of future occupants.

Cllr Patel entered the meeting at 7:12pm.

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 16 February 2009 and 15 March 2009.

The Committee was asked to note the decisions set out in Ward order, made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development Control (North and South) and the Chair of the Planning Committee between 16 February 2009 and 15 March 2009.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the 9 March 2009 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement since the 9 March 2009 Committee meeting.

The Officer advised the Committee that decisions taken within set time targets by Development Management and Planning Enforcement Work since the 9 March 2009 Committee meeting.  In relation to major applications (1 out of 3) 33% were determined within 13 weeks.  For minor applications (33 out of 39 cases) 85% were determined within 8 weeks and for other application (55 out of 68 cases) 81% were determined within 8 weeks. 

The Committee was especially asked to note that in respect of appeals against refusal of planning permission the annual total dismissed was 65% in line with Haringey targets.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To advise Members of changes to Procedures for dealing with Planning Appeals, which introduce a ‘fast-track’ process for appeals against refusal of householder applications.

The Officer presented the report to advise Members of the changes to Procedures for dealing with Planning Appeals, which introduced a ‘fast-track’ process for appeals against refusal of householder applications.

The report detailed the changes in the way appeals against refusal of planning permission would be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate as from 6 April 2009.   It had implications for the handling of applications and appeals by Local Authorities and for the involvement of local residents objecting to appeals.  The changes were intended to provide a speedier process for the handling of householder appeals. 

The new arrangements would enable the Planning Inspectorate to determine the method of appeal (written representation, hearing or public inquiry); householder appeals would have to be submitted by the applicant within 12 weeks rather than 6 months.  There would be no ‘second-stage’ opportunity for Council’s or local residents to make further representations on householder appeals as presently existed.  It was also proposed that the Planning Inspectors would undertake site visits unaccompanied.  Further that any award of costs would be introduced in during the written representations process.

The Committee was asked to note the significant changes in the appeals procedure mainly affecting householder applications.

RESOLVED

That the changes in the procedure be noted.

Demolition of existing houses and erection of 5 x 3 storey houses (comprising 4 x three bed and 1 x four bed) with associated parking.

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

The Committee was informed that this application had been deferred from the previous Planning Committee meeting held on 9 March 2009.  This application was a revised scheme following a previous dismissed scheme.

The Committee was advised that the application site was located on Creighton Avenue and had a very large rear garden which backed on to the gardens of Pages Hill.  The application site was currently a pair of semi-detached houses.

The design of the houses was considered acceptable as they reflected the height and bulk of existing houses adjacent to the site.  The density (157hrh) was actually lower than the recommended density range.  It was felt that the scheme complied with building overlooking distances and was not overbearing to adjacent properties.   Eight off street parking spaces, one disabled space were proposed along with a 20mph speed restriction which would assist traffic safety measures.

The Committee was further advised of a proposal by the applicant to amend the position of a single unit on the left hand side of the site by moving it forward by 1.5 metres.  The applicant had discussed this with the occupants of the property at number 18 who were happy with the proposal.

In response to a Members enquiry the officer explained the main differences between the current and previous applications;

• Proposal for 5 units rather than 6 in the previous application.
• The roof level had been reduced in terms of its bulk.
• The distance between the rear of the proposed new houses and the rear of houses in Pages Hill, backing on to the  buildings had been increased by 3 metres.
• The provision of parking spaces had been reduced from 12 to 8.

A Planning Consultant representing the residents of Pages Hill addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the basis that it was felt to be worse that the previous scheme dismissed on appeal.  It was considered that the reduced height, bulk and scale discussed was not true and the units were actually wider and broader.  The Planning Inspector had felt that the previous scheme would have a dramatic impact on the resident on Pages Hill and that there was no difference in the proposed scheme.  In response to a question raised by the Committee the representative explained that the pitch of the roof was lower, however it made little difference to the occupants on Pages Hill.

Cllr Matt Davies addressed to the Committee to requested that this application should be compared to the previous application dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.  The Planning Inspectorate had been concerned about the impact on the residents of Pages Hill.  The Committee was requested to reject the application for the same reasons the Planning Inspectorate had dismissed the previous appeal because the applications were the same.

The applicant responded to the concerns raised and advised that the current application addressed the issues raised by the Planning Inspectorate.  The proposed houses were much smaller and the buildings had been positioned  in line with Creighton Avenue.   The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 433.

Demolition of existing building and erection of part two/part three storey building comprising of 1 x 3 bed, 3 x 2, 4 x 1 bed flats, 4 x B1 units at ground floor with eight car parking spaces.

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

The Committee was informed that a previous planning application had been refused in 2006 for a 4 storey building.  The current application submitted was for a 3 storey building with a total of 8 flats.

The application site was located to the rear of the High Road in the Bruce Castle Conservation Area.  The current site was a three storey partially vacant building that was on a short lease for light industrial and commercial uses.   The surrounding area was mixed, with a range of building types which ranged in height.  The site backed on to a railway line from Bruce Grove Station to Liverpool Street.

The principle of mixed use development at the site wa considered acceptable.  The building would reflect the scale and materials of the adjacent locally listed building at Morrison’s Yard.  The unit and room sizes were consistent with the floow minima and the proposed amenity space was considered suitable for this type of development in the form of terraces or roof terraces.  The scheme provided an appropriate mix of dwelling types that would meet the housing need for private housing and affordable housing.

The use and opening up of the cul-de-sac at Kenmare Drive seemed to provide the best means of access and was a natural continuation of Kenmare Drive.  Residents living in the adjacent residential block would not be adversely affected.  The applicant had provided 8 car parking spaces which would include 1 disabled space and 18 cycle racks.

The Committee was further advised that the drawings appended had recently been amended.  The gap betweeen the proposed B1 unit and the old barn had been increased and changes to the front elevation in terms of the brick and arches.

In response to a question raised the officer replied that the industrial units  had been light industry/offices and that there was no information in relation to the number of employees previously employed at the site.  The potential number of employees that could be employed within the proposed scheme could total 20.

Cllr Bevan addressed the Committee and raised concerns regarding the statement that the housing service had been consulted in respect of the application. Upon making enquiries the housing service had confirmed they had not been consulted in relation to the application.  Further concerns was raised in relation to the loss of employment, access to the site, amenity space and fear of crime which were detailed in the crime prevention officer’s report attached and which were all reasons to reject the scheme.

The applicant addressed the Committee and responded to the following issues raised:

• The crime prevention officer had submitted comments on the basis of looking at the plans and not visiting the site, particularly in relation to the removal of the wall.  It was proposed that additional lighting was a deterent for crime.
• The 2 storey element and the concerns of the under croft parking could lead to a place for vandalism and arson.  The fire officer had no representation to make in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 434.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing building and erection of part two/part three storey building comprising of 1 x 3 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 4 x 1 bed flats, 4 x B1 units at ground floor with eight car parking spaces.

RECOMMENSATION: Grant consent subjection to conditions.         

The Committee was asked to consider Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing building and erection of part two/part three storey building comprising of 1 x 3 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 4 x 1 bed flats, 4 x B1 units at ground floor with eight car parking spaces.  With the proviso that the demolition should not take effect until a contract had been let for the redevelopment of the site in accordance with  the approved planning permission.

The Chair moved a motion to agree the recommendation in the report to grant consent subject to conditions.

RESOLVED

That Conservation Area Consent be agreed with the proviso listed above and as planning permission for the application outlined in PC434 above was agreed.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2009/0184

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 06/04/2009

Location: 579C High Road N17

Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing building and erection of part two / part three storey building comprising of 1 x 3 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 4 x 1 bed flats, 4 x B1 units at ground floor with eight car parking spaces.

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions

Decision: Grant subject to conditions

Drawing No’s: 7447/01, 02, 03, 04, 11A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15, 16, PS01, PS02 & PS03.

Condition:

1.      The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works for redevelopment of the site under planning permission reference HGY/2009/0181) has been made and planning permission granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides. Reason: In order to protect the appearance of the conservation area.

Section 106: No.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

The following item is likely to be the subject of a motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting as it contains ‘exempt’ information as defined in Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely that it contains information relating to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information).

RESOLVED

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting as Item 16 contained exempt information, as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985); namely information relating to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information).

To confirm and sign the exempt minutes of the Special Planning Committee meeting held on 17 March 2009.

The Committee was asked to sign the exempt minutes of the Special Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 17 March 2009.

RESOLVED

That the exempt minutes be agreed and signed.

To consider any new exempt items of urgent business admitted under agenda items 2.

There were no new exempt items of urgent business.

Monday 11 May 2009.

Monday 11 May 2009.