Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Demirci and Scott for whom Councillors Browne and Erskine were substituting respectively.

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 15 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 judgement 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.

Cllr Schmitz declared a personal interest in item 11 (Rear of 36-46 Alexandra Road N8 0PP) as he knew the applicant’s representative Peter Ottery and had sold his property via Mr Ottery.

Cllr Schmitz also declared a personal interest in items 12 & 13 (225 Archway Road, N6 5BS) as he had spoken with Cllr Allison and Ms Lefmann, who objected to the proposals, solely to confirm that item 13 was on the evening’s agenda.

To consider receiving deputations and/or petitions in accordance with Part Four, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

There were no deputations or petitions.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 14 June 2011.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14^th June 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair.

To advise the Sub Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during May 2011.

The Committee received the report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during May 2011 (pages 25-30 of the agenda pack), of which 0 were allowed and 5 were dismissed.

In response to a question from a Committee Member the Head of Development Management confirmed that none of the relevant parties had sought reimbursement for costs of the appeals.

NOTED

To inform the Sub Committee of decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the above Sub Committee between 23 May and 19 June 2011.

The Committee received the report setting out the decisions taken under delegated powers, by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the Planning Committee, between 23 May 2011 and 19 June 2011 (pages 31 – 56 of the agenda pack).

NOTED

To advise the Sub Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 14 June 2011 Sub Committee meeting.

The Committee received the report on performance statistics for Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since 14 June 2011 (pages 57 – 76 of the agenda pack).

The Head of Development Management highlighted that the reference to a Planning Contravention Notice served on 29 Elder Avenue N8 (page 75) was in error.

NOTED

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. Oakfield Court, Haslemere Road, N8
2. 89 & 91 Fortis Green, N2
3. 65 Mount View Road, N4
4. 95 Mayfield Road, N8

The Committee received the report recommending 4 tree preservation orders (pages 77-94 of the agenda pack) and the additional information previously circulated, in response to objections received in relation to items 3 (65 Mount View Road) and 4 (95 Mayfield Road) below.

1.         Oakfield Court, Haslemere Road N8 (Pages 79-81)

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order placed on Oakfield Court, Haslemere Road N8 be confirmed.

2.         89 & 91 Fortis Green, N2 (Pages 83-85)

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order placed on 89 & 91 Fortis Green be confirmed.

3.         65 Mount view Road N4 (Pages 87-89)

The Head of Development Management introduced the tree preservation order placed on 65 Mount View Road, N8 and the objections raised by the occupants of Flat A & Flat C 9 Dashwood Road.

The Committee noted the statements of Karen Louise Hill (Flat C 9 Dashwood Road) and Mark Whent (Flat B 9 Dashwood Road) including comments and photographs showing that in the objectors’ opinions it was unclear which tree the preservation order related to and the trees at 65 Mount View Road shaded neighbouring gardens. 

Members of the Committee expressed concerns that clarity was needed around which tree the order related to and it was:

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order recommended for 65 Mount View Road N8 be deferred until the Planning Sub Committee in September to allow officers to inspect the site and produce a photograph in a future report  of the exact tree which the preservation order relates to.

4.         95 Mayfield Road N8 (Pages 91-93)

The Head of Development Management introduced the tree preservation order for two lime trees in the rear garden of 95 Mayfield Road and highlighted that works for planning application reference HGY/2011/0917 had not yet been permitted.  In response to a question it was noted that the Council could not add conditions to a tree preservation order to ensure a property owner pollarded (regularly maintained) a tree.

The Committee noted the statement of Ms Danielle Simler owner of 95 Mayfield Road including that she spoke on behalf of the residents of 94 Inderwick and 96 Mayfield Road who had also submitted letters of objection to the Council.  Ms Simler highlighted that the property was not in a conservation area; the trees were barely visible from the street and neighbouring property owners had cut down similar trees which were not a rare species.  Ms Simler informed the Committee that the trees adversely affected views from 95 Mayfield Road and neighbouring properties and shaded the sun from the gardens and would be costly to maintain.  If felled Ms Simler would replace the trees with alternative trees.

In response to questions from the Committee the Head of Development Management reported that there was no evidence of subsidence at the site and that management of the trees would resolve any future issues.

The Chair moved the recommendation and, on a vote of 6 for and 2 against, it was:

RESOLVED

That the tree preservation order placed on 95 Mayfield Road N8  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Erection of 2 x single storey two bed dwellinghouses (amended plans).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee received the report setting out planning application for the rear of 36-46 Alexandra Road N8 0PP (pages 95-108 of the agenda pack) and tabled documents including an email from the London Fire Brigade recommending that domestic sprinkler systems be fitted to the buildings as the access arrangements for fire fighting would not comply with building regulations and, an extract from a recent appeal of the decision of a similar development on garden land.  The Head of Development Management highlighted that there were no parking spaces proposed but the site was located in an area with high public transport accessibility and within a controlled parking zone.  It was also reported that two letters had been tabled by local residents Mr Steve Pile of 55 Burghley Road and Dr Jan Campbell of 36 Alexandra Road objecting to the application.

In response to questions from the Committee it was noted that the development would be set slightly lower in the ground than existing buildings and there would be rear boundary walls up to 2 metres in height and, being a single storey development it was not considered that there would be any loss to amenities to neighbouring properties.  Neighbouring properties would have sight of the development but would not be able to see inside the building.  In response to concerns about the narrow access passage officers considered the access and storage areas for refuse bins to be adequate.

The Committee heard the statements of Mr Steve Pile, Dr Janet Campbell and Ms Ulla Lefmann (41 Coleraine Road) urging the Committee to reject the proposals, including the following points:

·        The proposals, if granted, would overlook and intrude on neighbouring properties and privacy would be invaded.

·        The development would reduce daylight and sunlight into neighbouring properties and an independent impact study had not been conducted.

·        The development did not meet the Council’s guidelines that all rear facing habitable rooms directly opposite one another should be a minimum of 20 metres apart, despite it being a one storey development.

·        The development was contrary to the Council’s own design guidance.

·        The Council was under no obligation to build on green field sites and the site should remain as a garden.

·        Development should not be permitted until the Japanese Knotweed problem had been solved in the whole area.

·        The local residents’ association opposed the proposals.

The Committee noted the following further to a statement from local resident Mr Jayanti Patel, 61 Burghley Road resident, in support of the proposals:

• Whilst Mr Patel had similar concerns as other residents in the area he supported development of the site so that the area would be cleaner.
• The Japanese Knotweed had spread from this site into neighbouring gardens.
• A condition should be added to the application restricting future applications to build a second storey.  Officers explained that this was not possible as all applications must be considered on their own merit.

The Committee noted the following further to a statement from Mr Peter Ottery, the applicant:

• The actual  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Demolition of 1940s extensions to listed villa & replacement with new single storey extension, repairs to fabric and re-planning of interior; extension of terrace to Archway Road. Provision of new bicycle store and recycling area; removal of specified trees and planting new trees, with new hard and soft landscape.

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

The Committee received the application for 225 Archway Road N6 5BS for the demolition of extensions to the listed villa and replacement with single storey extension at 225 Archway Road N6 5BS (pages 109-136 of the agenda pack), the circulated information from local residents objecting to the application and the tabled documents including a letter from Cllrs Allison, Hare and Williams requesting deferral of the application.  The Committee noted that the application differed from that which was refused in April 2011 in that the proposal for a two storey house with lower ground floor had been removed.  An amendment to paragraph 1.1 (page 110) was reported and it was noted that there was in fact a tree preservation order on a cedar tree located at the rear of the site.

The Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the recommendations on Pages 124-125 and highlighted that additional letters from residents at 7, 11 and 13 Southwood Avenue, and a letter signed by a number of local residents had been submitted within the consultation deadline, but not incorporated into the report before circulation, raising concerns including that the development would impact the watercourse running under the land, a full hydrology report should be conducted, concerns about landscaping and future development, impact on wildlife and privacy, overcrowding and exacerbation of parking issues. 

The Committee received the statements of Stephen Robinson (resident of 13 Southwood Avenue) and Jim Dickson (resident 11 Southwood Avenue) objecting to the proposals, including the following points:

• A proper hydrology report should be produced to determine whether the deep excavation and basement development would affect the watercourses running through the site, which would potentially create problems for local residents. Southwood Avenue was already affected by flash flooding after heavy rainfall.
• It had been confirmed that none of the watercourses in the area were Thames Water or Environment Agency assets.
• It was confirmed that Priory Brook ran through Jacksons Lane and another brook ran through Cholmeley Avenue.
• Any future proposals for the site should be in keeping with the design of current properties in the area.

The Committee heard from Cllr Rachel Allison (also on behalf of Cllr Bob Hare) in objection to the proposals, supporting the concerns expressed by other residents and highlighting that the watercourse below the site area had caused her own property to subside.  Cllr Allison suggested evidence that the watercourse had been culverted (drained under the road) be obtained, and that assurance be provided to residents that  the developer will be responsible for any issues caused to the surrounding properties as a result of the watercourse being disturbed.

The Committee noted that the fire brigade had objected to the proposals because of poor accessibility to the basement.  Officers confirmed that the basement was accessible according to building control requirements.

The Committee asked for more information on the watercourse and officers reported that no water streams had been found to be running through the site.  The Officer confirmed that 2 brooks were known to run underground between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Listed building consent for Demolition of 1940s extensions to listed villa & replacement with new single storey extension, repairs to fabric and re-planning of interior; extension of terrace to Archway Road. Provision of bicycle store and recycling area; removal of specified trees and planting new trees, with new hard and soft landscape.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant listed building consent, subject to conditions.

The Committee received the application for 225 Archway Road N6 5BS for listed building consent for the demolition of the extensions to the listed villa and replacement with new single story extension (pages 137-146 of the agenda pack).

RESOLVED

That listed building consent be granted for planning application HGY/2011/0999 subject to the conditions below:

Conditions:

IMPLEMENTATION 

1. The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission shall be of no effect.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity. 

MATERIALS 

3. Notwithstanding the approved application drawings additional information and a schedule of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development, showing:  Fully annotated and dimensioned detailed plans outlining the repairs to architectural features, facing materials, and finishes to the exterior of the building (at a scale of 1:10)  Fully annotated and dimensioned roof repair details to chimney stack, chimney pots, flashings, cornice, eaves, brackets (at a scale of 1:10). 

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

4. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the external materials to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted have been submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.  If replacement bricks are necessary, these shall match the historic bricks as closely as possible and shall be approved in writing by the District Planning Authority prior to installation on site. 

Reason: To ensure the use of appropriate materials with regard to the architectural character and appearance of the listed building

5. All new external and internal works and finishes and works of making good the retained fabric of the Listed Building shall match the existing with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture and profile, unless shown otherwise on the drawings or other documentation hereby approved or required by any conditions attached to this consent. 

Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and the architectural character and appearance of this Listed Building.

6. The contractor on site shall ensure that all due care is taken to protect the historic fabric of the Listed Building from damage during the course of the works, including any materials, or elements of structure, that may be temporarily taken down and put to one side, and afterwards re-erected as part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Extension of existing sheltered accommodation to form 6 no additional flats.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee received the planning application for the extension of existing sheltered accommodation to form 6 additional flats (pages 147-157 of the agenda pack). The Officer reported that the application had been reduced to develop 4 flats (rather than 6) further to concerns raised at the Members’ site visit about the loss of an oak tree (which would now remain).   Some committee members expressed concern that 2 units had been lost to save a tree when there were many older people in the borough needing care.  Other committee members stated that the presence of the tree would add to residents’ quality of life. The Committee agreed that the applicant could submit a future application for an additional 2 units.

There would be no adverse impact on surrounding residents’ amenities due to the distance and screening of the development.  In response to a member’s concern the planning officer reported that window sizes to the east of the elevation could be made larger but agreement of this would have to be delegated to an officer. 

RESOLVED

To approve planning application HGY/2011/0615 for the extension of existing sheltered accommodation to form 4 additional flats subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission shall be of no effect.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

3. The external materials to be used for the proposed alteration shall match in colour, size, shape and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance for the proposed development, to safeguard the visual amenity of the neighbouring properties and the appearance of the locality.     

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The proposal to provide 6 additional-one bedroom self contained flats for special housing needs will not represent an excessive intensity of the site which would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposed units designed to a good standard are in compliance with the Council's Unitary Development Plan Policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', HSG7 'Housing for Special Needs', M10 'Parking for Development', CW1 'New Community Facilities', CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas', CSV5 'Alterations and Extensions in Conservation Areas' and SPG 1a 'Design Guidance and Design Statements', SPG11b 'Building Suitable for Community Use', Housing Supplementary Planning Document October 2008 of the Haringey's  Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Section 106: No

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of business.

Special – Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Monday,12 September 2011

The future meetings were noted:

Special – Wednesday , 20 July 2011

Monday, 12 September 2011

The meeting closed at 22:00hrs.