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.  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’, 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.

The Chair advised that the meeting would be streamed live on the Council’s website.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2017.

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 is agreed beforehand in consultation with officers and the Chair. 

Members and speakers were requested to note the information as set out at item two of the agenda.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hinchcliffe and Stone.

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.

Councillor Cawley-Harrison informed the Chair that he had submitted an objection to a previous application for land at the rear of 29 Haringey Park and had also spoken to the applicants, but advised that he would approach the application with an open mind.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 8 September 2020 and 12 October 2020.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 September 2020 and 12 October 2020 be approved as a correct record.

Proposal: Construction of a 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling with associated access re-surfacing works and lighting.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling with associated access re-surfacing works and lighting.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           In regard to the previous case – HGY 2017/2314 – two schemes had been put together as part of the appeal.  Appeal A related to access being from the unnamed private road and Appeal B related to access being allowed between 29 Haringey Park and the public highway to the north.  Appeal B was allowed on the basis that it was accessible from the main road.  The difference between the extant permission (Appeal B) and the last application refused at the site was the basement.  The impact assessment had been reviewed by the Council and was considered to be acceptable.

-           In order to excavate the site, more vehicles would be moving to and from the site.  This had been detailed in the Construction Management Plan which had been deemed acceptable by Officers.

Karen Morrison spoke in objection to the application.  She had grave concerns on the physical impact on Abbots Terrace.  The properties had no front gardens and residents could be put in danger when accessing their properties due to construction traffic.  Excavating the site would cause significant removal of soil from the site.  Impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area also needed to be considered.

Jacqueline Veater spoke in objection to the application.  The Council had refused six applications for the site, and the current scheme should be refused as it could not provide safe access to the site.  Ms Veater stated that the application was in contravention of Development Management Policies DM2 and DM7.  Ms Veater informed the Committee that the applicants were not one of the owners of the private lane and the position in 2018 was to not grant permission to resurface the lane.  The lane could not support a project of this size and so the application should be refused as the previous applications had been.

Councillor Palmer spoke in objection to the application.  Previous reasons for refusals had focused on access and safety, and this application should be refused on the same basis.  The use of Abbots Terrace would be prejudicial for residents.  The narrowness of the lane was only suitable for light vans and cars, and not construction traffic.  The applicant appeared to assume that they had permission to resurface and light the lane, however key stakeholders had not given permission for this.  There was a lack of designated footway for pedestrians, and there were serious concerns that residents may end up footing the bill for any works carried out on the lane.  Cllr Palmer concluded by stating that the site has had a detrimental impact on local residents over a decade of repeated applications.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Planning permission was not contingent on the ownership of the lane.  Third parties were able to propose works to land which was not owned by then but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 466.

Proposal: S73 Minor material amendment for variation of condition 1 (approved plans) of the S73 planning permission HGY/2017/1008  in order to substitute the drawing numbers  and variation of condition 6 (Student accommodation) of the original permission HGY/2013/0155 to allow Co-living (as well as student accommodation) for a temporary period of 3 years.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for a S73 Minor material amendment for variation of condition 1 (approved plans) of the S73 planning permission HGY/2017/1008  in order to substitute the drawing numbers and variation of condition 6 (Student accommodation) of the original permission HGY/2013/0155 to allow Co-living (as well as student accommodation) for a temporary period of 3 years.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The management plan for the building would be amended to allow all residents of the building to access all of the amenities.

-           The amount of blue badge bays would remain the same (3).

-           The London Plan policy states that tenancies can be no less than three months, however the applicant had indicated that the tenancies would be for a minimum of six months.

-           There would be an onsite manager to deal with any issues or queries from residents.

-           There was not much guidance in the way of size standards.  The Care Quality Commission standards for care homes was 12m² and the average student accommodation was 13m².  These rooms were bigger at 16m².  All residents would have access to all communal spaces in the building.

-           Non-students would be required to pay Council Tax – how this was levied was outside of planning considerations.

Councillor Gordon addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  The applicant was requesting a change of use which changed the business plan from the original one of student accommodation.  This could not be considered as a material planning consideration.  Councillor Gordon felt  approving this application would establish standards for co-living and felt that it would be better for the Council to take the opportunity to create a policy to provide better standards.  The standards on the application should not be adopted for key workers.

Councillor Carroll spoke in objection to the application.  He advised of previous approaches by the applicants to Ward Councillors in respect of providing co-living, which were not considered to be an appropriate use of the building by Ward Councillors.  Councillor Carroll felt that to grant temporary permission would only lead to an application for permanent permission in the future.  The student accommodation sector was still viable.  The letter provided in the addendum gave a vague promise of commitment to leasing rooms and the Committee should not make a decision based on this.

Councillor Brabazon spoke in objection to the application.  A key issue was that, due to the lack of policy, to approve this application would set a precedent for future applications.  Councillor Brabazon referred the Committee to a similar application in Wandsworth which was rejected as it was considered to fall short of acceptable standards, based on room sizes of 16-24m². 

Dean Hermitage advised that it was not the role of the Committee to take into account private business interests of applicants.  The Committee needed to consider the local area and the impact of any application.

Rob Krzyszowski advised that a decision must be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 467.

Proposal:Construction of 6 dwellings set in landscaped area and creation of community wildlife garden, following the demolition of existing structures

Clerks note – the Chair suspended Standing Orders at 21.50 to allow the meeting to continue past 22.00 for the consideration of this item.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the construction of 6 dwellings set in landscaped area and creation of community wildlife garden, following the demolition of existing structures.

The Committee commented on the proposal:

-           It was unclear how issues raised in previous refusals had been addressed.

-           Concerns were raised on daylight/sunlight provision given that the properties were largely single aspect.

-           Pre-app advice was that parking needed to be addressed, and it was unrealistic to not have parking for six family sized properties.

-           Councillor Cawley-Harrison commented that it was refreshing to have a design that was different from the usual applications submitted.

-           Concerns were raised on the use of white bricks / render and the difficulties with greening.

The applicant advised that the new proposal was based on a bigger site, and the recording studio was now included in the development.  The scheme had passed daylight and sunlight tests.  It was felt that this development would provide the perfect opportunity for a car-free development due to the abundance of public transport and local amenities.  The applicant would work with officers to explore the best option for the finish of the buildings.

Members requested a proper site visit before the application was considered by the Committee.

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.

The Chair requested that any questions be sent directly to Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 28 September 2020 to 23 October 2020.

The Chair requested that any questions be sent directly to Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

7 December 2020

7 December 2020