Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 13 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 11^th May 2009.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 11 May 2009 be agreed and signed.

To advise the Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during March and April 2009.

The Committee was asked to note that this items was deferred at the last meeting and therefore, the report detailed the outcome of appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during March and April 2009.

The Committee noted the outcome of 10 appeals determined during March of which 4 were allowed and 6 dismissed.  Of these 2 were enforcement appeals, both were dismissed.   In April the report outlined the decision of 23 Appeals determined of which 5 was allowed and 18 were dismissed.  The Committee was particularly asked to note the outcome of the appeal for The Freemasons, Lordship Lane N22, which was lost for the demolition of the existing building.

Members enquired whether the appeals lost were on the basis of all aspects of planning and in response were informed that they were lost on most.  The officer advised that the decision notices were available to be viewed. 

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

The Committee was asked to note that this items was deferred at the last meeting and therefore, asked to note the decisions set out in Ward order, made under delegated powers by the Heads of Development (North and South) and the Chair of the Planning Committee between 16 March and 19 April 2009 and between 20 April and 17 May 2009.

RESOLVED

That that report be noted.

To advise the Committee of Performance Statistics for Development Control and Planning Enforcement Action since the                      11^th May 2009 Committee meeting.

The Committee was asked to note that this items was deferred from the last meeting.  The Committee was asked to note the performance statistics on Development Control and Planning Enforcement since the 6 April 2009 Committee meeting.

The Officer advised the Committee that in March 2009, the figures were good in relation to major and minor applications.  In relation to other applications the authority were 1% out of Haringey’s target.  In April 2009 there were no major applications determined.  Minor applications were determined within set time and performance targets.  In terms of the yearly performance for last year 32.2% of applications were allowed marginally above both targets. 

The Committee enquired whether it was possible to receive the performance statistics in accordance with post codes/Wards in order to compare where appeals were being upheld or dismissed.  In response the Officer stated that analysis could be provided on the types of cases and brought back to the next meeting of the Committee.  Members further requested statistics be provided in a rolling 12 month period for all applications.  Officers agreed to report back to the next meeting.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Order:

1. Former Public House, Reedham Close, N17

The Committee was advised that the Weeping Willow was in the rear garden of the Former Public House, adjacent to the river Lea.  This tree preservation was confirming an order already in place.  The site was to be re-developed and it had been agreed with the developer to carry out crown works to preserve the tree.

RESOLVED

That that following Tree Preservation Order be confirmed against the tree located at; Rear Garden, Former Public House, Reedham Close, N17.

To inform Members of planning enforcement performance for the last quarter and service issues.

The Officer presented the report to advise the Committee on planning enforcement work over the last quarter and service issues.  The report acknowledged that planning enforcement was a key service for the delivery of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and had an important role for the Greenest Borough Strategy. 

The Committee was asked to note the excellent progress made in reducing the number of open cases, older cases reflected the more complex cases that required further formal action.  A small number of cases had been prosecuted but not resulted in compliance.  In terms of recruitment there was an expectation that the last post would be filled by the end of June 2009.

Planning Enforcement had continued to make improvements to the standard of service provided.  The current caseload was 425, including 54 cases remaining open for 2009/10.  Enforcement activity was considered to have a high level of notice action and prosecution.  Appeals were also significant and largely related to a programme of work to address conservation breaches in Myddleton Road.

In relation to service update the Committee were advised that in 2008/09 the service had received 1052 complaints a 50% increase on 2006/07 and the highest levels since records began in 2001. 

The Committee acknowledge the work accomplished to date however, felt there was still work to be done particularly in Highgate Ward.   Members were requested to engage with the service in order to make Highgate a priority in terms of dealing with complaints.  In response to a question raised the Committee was advised that to adminster a caution against a perpetrator, the service had to commence legal proceedings.  One of the main objectives of the Planning Enforcement Service was to achieve compliance.  The Committee requested that in future complaints should be referred to as ‘service requests’ because complaints could be interpreted as complaints against the service  the officers acknowledged the comment.

RESOLVED

That the Committee noted the continued success of the service in delivering strong enforcement activity; reduced open caseloads, successful recruitment and service improvement.

Erection of 1,672 sqm of Use Class B8 storage for Safestore; erection of 6 Use Class B2 units (total 3,334 sqm) and 1 Use Class B1 unit (325 sqm); with associated parking (112 spaces for whole estate including 7 for disabled persons) and landscaping.

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

The Committee was advised that Bounds Green Industrial Estate was located immediately to the South of the North Circular Road, to the east of Bounds Green Road and to the west of the East Coast Mail Line.  The site was approximately 2.8 hectares in size and was occupied by a mix of small industrial workshop units, predominantly two storeys in height.  The application site was defined as employment area.

It was proposed that the highest point of the Safestore building would 16.1 metres in height however, the predominant height would be 14.35 metres.  The applicant had proposed to introduce buff facing brickwork piers to the north and east corners of the building and silver cladding panels to soften the appearance of the Safestore unit.  The building would be screened to the west by trees to the west of the railway line.  The proposal would involve the demolition of existing single storey buildings, the replacement units would improve the appearance of the estate.

Units A7 would be located to western end of the existing block A, adjacent to the proposed Safestore unit.  Unit D3 was proposed to be developed behind the existing block D and in front of the Safestore building and this building would be faced in steel cladding panels. Unit A8, would have a separate access off the Ringway, with 8 parking spaces, including 2 disabled.  Following discussion with the applicant Unit D9 had been deleted from the scheme.  The trees proposed for removal were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order and not considered to be of significant amenity value.

The proposed scheme was considered acceptable, Units B1 and B2 would have very limited visibility from the public realm.  The level of proposed parking was also considered acceptable and a total of 6 recycle/waste storage areas were to be provided throughout the industrial estate.  The proposal would help to enhance the existing industrial estate in both physical and operational terms, without having a detrimental impact on the character and setting of the area or on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. 

Members queried the financial contribution requested by Transportation and that this amount had been reduced by the planning officer.  The Committee was advised that the reduced amount was to improve the walking conditions, walkways, and footways. The Committee further queried the amount of parking spaces provided for the Safestore unit and in response were informed that calculations had been produced on the existing site, the forecast traffic was 15 vehicle movement in and out of the site and it was felt that the parking spaces proposed would be sufficient.  The figures provided were in line with those predicted by the applicant’s consultants.  The car club spaces proposed were appropriate as they formed a key element of the travel plan. 

A local resident from Lawson Court addressed the Committee to object to the application because it was felt that the proposal had been handled in a highly unethical manner and due to the impact it would impose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday 13^th July 2009, 7pm

Monday 13 July 2009

The meeting concluded at 9:55pm