Agenda and minutes

Planning Sub Committee
Monday, 13th November, 2017 7.00 pm

Venue: Civic Centre, High Road, Wood Green, N22 8LE. View directions

Contact: Felicity Foley, Principal Committee Co-ordinator

Media

Items
No.	Item
103.	FILMING AT MEETINGS Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings. The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council. Additional documents: Webcast for 103. Minutes: Noted.
104.	Apologies for absence View the background to item 104. Additional documents: Webcast for 104. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barbara Blake, Mallett and Mitchell.
105.	Urgent Business PDF 350 KB View the background to item 105. 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 9 below. Additional documents: Webcast for 105. Minutes: None.
106.	Declarations of interest View the background to item 106. A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered: (i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and (ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room. A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure. Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct Additional documents: Webcast for 106. Minutes: Councillor Doron declared that he had met with local residents groups for both of the applications to provide advice on how the planning process worked. Councillor Patterson declared that he had met with residents in his capacity as ward councillor in relation to the Yewtree application, to provide advice on how the planning process worked. Councillor Beacham declared that he too had met with residents in his capacity as ward councillor in relation to the Yewtree application, to provide advice on how the planning process worked.
107.	Planning Applications View the background to item 107. In accordance with the Sub Committee’s protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations. Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, the applicant and supporters will be allowed to address the Committee. For items considered previously by the Committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations. Additional documents: Webcast for 107. Minutes: Noted.
108.	70-72 SHEPHERDS HILL, N6 5RH PDF 1 MB Proposal: Demolition of existing building and redevelopment to provide 16 residential dwellings within a 5 storey building with associated landscaping, car parking and other associated works Recommendation: GRANT Additional documents: Webcast for 108. Minutes: The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and redevelopment to provide 16 residential dwellings within a 5 storey building with associated landscaping, car parking and other associated works. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. Stephen Jones addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He raised his concerns over the light impact on neighbouring properties and he was not clear on how the light study had been taken into consideration. The existing building had many features that could be restored, rather than demolishing the site. Mr Jones concluded by stating that he would be in support of the application if it provided more affordable housing, however given that the development would provide luxury flats and a small contribution of £300,000 towards affordable housing elsewhere, he requested that the Committee refuse the application. Mark Afford addressed the Committee on behalf of the Crouch End Neighbourhood Forum in objection to the application. Shepherds Hill was included in the conservation area in 1994 to protect the remaining buildings in that area from demolition. He challenged the assertion that the existing building was a ‘neutral development’ and stated that there were a number of features of the building which provided a positive contribution to the conservation area. He disagreed that the new development would enhance the heritage benefit. The Committee requested clarification from the Council’s Conservation officer, Nairita Chakraborty, on the heritage status of the existing building. She informed the Committee that the appraisal written by the Conservation Area Advisory Committee had identified the building as heritage neutral, and whilst there were features of the building that could be described as having heritage value, on closer inspection it was clear that these features had been compromised following poor quality additions and conversions to the building. Therefore, the building remained as a neutral development. Councillor Arthur addressed the Committee and raised a number of points, mainly that the lack of affordable housing did not make a positive contribution to the local area. He accepted that the applicant would be making a payment of £300k towards affordable housing, but this seemed to be too low. Councillor Hare addressed the Committee, and referred to an earlier email that he had sent to the Chair to request that the application be deferred due to the late provision of a large amount of information. He added that the proposed building would not be of a high enough standard to positively contribute to the local area. Ben Burgerman, Lawyer, advised that there was no automatic right to defer an application based on when reports had been submitted. He advised the Committee that they could rely on officers advice when considering any application. The Committee raised a number of questions and issues, responses to which are summarised as follows: - The viability assessment showed that if affordable housing were to be provided then the development would become unviable. To offset the lack of affordable housing the developer would ... view the full minutes text for item 108.
109.	LAND AT REAR OF YEWTREE CLOSE, N22 7UY PDF 2 MB Proposal: Erection of 4 detached houses with basements and provision of off-street parking. Recommendation: GRANT Additional documents: Webcast for 109. Minutes: The Committee considered an application for the erection of 4 detached houses with basements and provision of off-street parking. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. Gordon Best addressed the Committee in objection to the application. There were a number of serious flaws with the application, namely that there was no safe access or egress from the site via Yewtree Close. Part of the development included land which belonged to Mr Best and this inaccuracy had implications for safe vehicle movement within the development. There were safety issues to anyone crossing the entrance to Yewtree Close and vehicles moving in and out of the site, as the road was not easily visible from Alexandra Park Road. This was particularly concerning due to the close proximity of two schools. Robert Bell addressed the Committee in objection to the application. This application had been submitted on two previous occasions and had been refused. The current application showed not material change from the previous two proposals. The building height was not appropriate for the setting, and would cause a material loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. Following a query from the Committee, Ben Burgerman, Lawyer, explained that the ownership of land was not a material planning consideration. The Committee raised a number of questions and issues, responses to which are summarised as follows: - There were two houses already on Yewtree Close, with existing access. Following traffic analysis, it was expected that the new development would result in 4 additional car movements. There had been no collisions at the access point in the past 5 years, and it was not considered to have any visibility concerns. - An objection had been received from the headteacher of a nearby school, and this had been included with the public objections. - The swept path analysis was provided by the applicant and demonstrated that if Veolia were not to provide refuse collection then a private company could be used. However, it was very unlikely that Veolia would not provide refuse collection. Councillor McShane addressed the Committee in her capacity as ward councillor and spoke in objection to the application. The application was out of character for the area, and there were concerns for the safety of students crossing Yewtree Close particularly with the increase in vehicles during the building stage and afterwards. She requested that the Committee refuse the application. The Applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. He advised that the applicant had been developing the application since 2015, and there had been 2 refusals, and 2 appeals dismissed. This new application addressed previous issues, and had been prepared in consultation with the Planning Authority. The access and egress arrangements did not prejudice existing road conditions. As stated by the Local Authority lawyer, the ownership of land was immaterial, however, the applicant did not require a turning area over the disputed land. Councillor Bevan requested that a condition be included relating to the installation of satellite dishes. The Committee agreed ... view the full minutes text for item 109.
110.	UPDATE ON MAJOR PROPOSALS PDF 111 KB To advise of major proposals in the pipeline including those awaiting the issue of the decision notice following a committee resolution and subsequent signature of the section 106 agreement; applications submitted and awaiting determination; and proposals being discussed at the pre-application stage. Additional documents: Major Sites List to committee November , item 110. PDF 206 KB Webcast for 110. Minutes: RESOLVED that the report be noted.
111.	New items of urgent business View the background to item 111. To consider any items admitted at item 3 above. Additional documents: Webcast for 111. Minutes: None.
112.	Date of next meeting View the background to item 112. 28 November 2017 Additional documents: Webcast for 112. Minutes: 28 November 2017.