Agenda and minutes

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.

Noted.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2017.  A factsheet covering some of the key points within the protocol as well as some of the context for Haringey’s planning process is provided alongside the agenda pack available to the public at each meeting as well as on the Haringey Planning Committee webpage.

The planning system manages the use and development of land and buildings.  The overall aim of the system is to ensure a balance between enabling development to take place and conserving and protecting the environment and local amenities.  Planning can also help tackle climate change and overall seeks to create better public places for people to live, work and play.  It is important that the public understand that the committee makes planning decisions in this context.  These decisions are rarely simple and often involve balancing competing priorities.  Councillors and officers have a duty to ensure that the public are consulted, involved and where possible, understand the decisions being made.

Neither the number of objectors or supporters nor the extent of their opposition or support are of themselves material planning considerations.

The Planning Committee is held as a meeting in public and not a public meeting.  The right to speak from the floor is agreed beforehand in consultation with officers and the Chair.  Any interruptions from the public may mean that the Chamber needs to be cleared.

Noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hinchcliffe.  Councillor Hare was in attendance as substitute.

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.

None.

None.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 8 June 2019.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on ### be approved.

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building on site and the erection of a mixed-use building providing: 3 commercial units; 45 residential units (comprising of 14 affordable and 31 private tenure) and part basement plant room

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing building on site and the erection of a mixed-use building providing: 3 commercial units; 45 residential units (comprising of 14 affordable and 31 private tenure) and part basement plant room.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.  It was noted that daylight and sunlight assessments had been prepared by a consultant in accordance with Council policy and BRE guidance.  The impact on neighbours was generally favourable in terms of daylight and sunlight.  There would be a small impact on four properties on Ashby Road, by less than 20%, which BRE guidance advised would be unnoticeable.

Mr Matthew Foncette addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He raised issues in relation to overshadowing neighbouring properties due to the height, and the reduction of daylight to properties.  There had been 20 responses to the application, 19 in objection and 1 requesting further information.  Residents were not against the principle of development, but felt that the proposed building should be reduced in order to address their concerns. 

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Foncette explained that consultation had not been as good as it could have been.  There had been four letters on signposts, and the timing for the Development Management Forum was not suitable for all residents to attend.  The process did not allow residents to formulate and express views on applications.  Mr Foncette added that the judicial review was important in that the applicant had submitted a judicial review on a consented development which was relied upon to reduce carbon in the area.  Residents would support the development if it was lower in massing and scale.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Vertical Sky Component was the measure of the amount of sky visible from a centre point of a window, and BRE guidance advised that a window that achieved 27% or more was considered to provide good levels of light.  None of the rooms in the neighbouring development would fall below 20%, and of the four properties closest to the development, only two or three of the five windows would lose a small amount of light. 

-           The detailed design stage would take all DDA requirements into consideration.

-           It was difficult to achieve zero carbon on smaller sites, however the Council was committed to working towards a model moved towards this.  The carbon fund would be used to offset carbon on sites, for example by fitting solar panels on to council buildings.  The Environmental Health officer raised no objection to the air quality assessment undertaken by the applicant.

-           A judicial review had been submitted by the applicants to challenge the permission granted for Bernard Works.  This was a separate site to the application site, and officers considered that the application was acceptable as a standalone scheme.  The judicial review carried little weight and should not be factored into the consideration of the application.  It would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 353.

Proposal: Construction of a new family dwelling.

Recommendation: GRANT

Report to follow

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a new family dwelling (with retention of existing front façade).

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Mr Geoff Hunt addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He spoke on behalf of the Woodlands Conservation Area Action Group who considered the application to be out of keeping with the character of the area.  He referred to the photograph of the property in the report as misleading, as it had been taken from a point in the street where the elevation could not be seen.  The west elevation flank wall was too large and out of scale with neighbouring houses.  Mr Hunt added that he had been assured that in the absence of conservation status, the area should be protected under Planning Policy DM1.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr Farrol Goldblatt addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He lived in the neighbouring property, and explained that he felt that the south and rear elevation would have an impact on amenity for immediate neighbours and properties at the rear.  The rear elevation ignored design principles for a suburban house and the mixture of large glazed areas at the rear was incompatible with the style of the property and local area, and contrary to Planning Policy DM1.  The 2018 application had 28% glazing, this had increase to 49% in the June 2019 application, and further increased to 66% in the current application.  Neighbours had not been consulted on this, and he urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Julia Ogiehor addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Her main focus was to protect the unique streetscape which made Muswell Hill special.  The application still presented a number of issues and concerns for local residents, and Councillor Ogiehor considered that these were valid concerns.  The west elevation was too dominant, and should match the east elevation of no.74.  The glazing of the rear elevation had increased with every application and she agreed with residents that the application should be refused.

Jason Evans, Applicant, addressed the Committee.  He had worked closely with the Planning service throughout the application process and had sought to compromise on the design in order to address the concerns raised at the last application.  The rear and side elevations had not changed since the last application, and these were not raised as concerns previously. 

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The reasons for refusal of the previous application were as written on page five of the report.

-           The details of bricks and pointing had been conditioned, and would have to be submitted to and approved by the Council.

-           The design had more glazing than other properties in the locality, but it was not considered to be unacceptable in relation to a reduction in amenity for neighbouring properties.

-           The triangular window at the top of the rear elevation was covered by ‘hit and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 354.

Proposal:Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a five storey building which includes a recessed top floor comprising of mixed use development of 1 x retail unit of 186.7 sqm plus stock room of 180.8 sqm on the ground floor and ancillary retail accommodation at basement level with residential flats above (19 units comprising 11 x 1 bed, 6 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed units).

The Planning Officer and representatives for the applicant gave a short presentation on early plans for the scheme to demolish existing buildings and redevelopments of the site to provide a five storey building, which would include a recessed top floor comprising of mixed use development of 1x retail unit of 186.7 sqm plus stock room of 180.8 sqm on the ground floor and ancillary retail accommodation at basement level with residential flats above (19 units compromising 11 x 1 bed, 6 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed units).

The Committee commented on the proposals:

-           There was no child play space identified, and too many one bed properties.

-           The terrace was described as undistinguished, however Members felt that this was incorrect, and the terrace was actually an attractive view.

-           Five storeys was not acceptable when the surrounding buildings were four storeys high.

-           Balconies should face the rear of the development, not on the busy road.

-           The design was not particularly interesting.

-           The inclusion of a builders merchants in the retail unit would increase traffic to an already busy area.

The Chair thanked all for attending, and recommended that the comments made by the Committee be taken into account by the applicant.

*Clerk’s note: the Committee agreed to suspend Standing Orders in order for the meeting to continue past 22.00hrs to complete the consideration of this item.

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.

This item was not discussed.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 1-31 July 2019.

This item was not discussed.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

7 October 2019

7 October 2019