Agenda and minutes

At the start of the meeting it was agreed that agenda item 9, 550 White Hart Lane, be moved down the agenda, as no interested parties had registered to speak in respect of this item.

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 16 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.

There were no declarations of interest at the start of the meeting.

When it came to agenda item 7, Cllr Basu declared a prejudicial interest in the item as, in his capacity as Ward Councillor, he had held discussions with local residents and other Ward Councillors regarding this application in advance of the meeting.

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 12 September 2011.

The Committee was advised that point (1.3) of the resolution for item PC42, 550 White Hart Lane, “The applicant to enter into agreement to enter into a Construction training and Local Labour Agreement;” should be deleted.

Subject to this amendment it was:

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair.

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for: Demolition of existing garages and erection of three storey building comprising 1 x 3 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 4 x 1 bed flats with commercial use (A1/A2) at ground floor level, offices at first floor level and parking at basement level. (Original Ref: HGY/2008/0593)

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

Cllr Basu declared a prejudicial interest in this item as, in his capacity as Ward Councillor, he had held discussions with local residents and other Ward Councillors regarding this application in advance of the meeting. Cllr Basu remained in the room but took no part in the discussion or vote.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Place and Sustainability on the application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission at 16-52 High Road, N15. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and assessment of the application, and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the application and advised on an objection received from Cllr Claire Kober, which should have been included in the report under the section for consultation responses from Ward Councillors. The Committee was advised that Government guidance in respect of applications  to extend the time limit of an extant planning permission was that these would be expected to be considered favourably unless there had been a material change in circumstances since the original permission was granted.

The following issues were discussed by the Committee in relation to this item:

• Concerns were raised regarding overlooking and overshadowing, in response to which the Committee was advised that the scheme had been designed so as to minimise overlooking, and the distance at the rear of the property at 1 Rostrevor Avenue was felt to be sufficient to minimise any impact on daylight and sunlight.

• Concerns were expressed by Committee members and by a local resident and Cllr Goldberg, Ward Councillor, regarding traffic levels and the impact that access to and from the site onto Rostrevor Avenue would have on an area under significant existing traffic and parking pressure from residents and people attending the synagogues local to the site. Concerns were expressed that this would lead to an increase in accidents and might preclude the current proposal for Rostrevor Avenue becoming one-way. Officers stated that, from a safety perspective, access onto Rostrevor Avenue was preferable to the High Road and that it was estimated that the development would lead to an increase of just 6 cars per morning peak time, which was considered to have no appreciable impact on safety issues. It was also confirmed that the development would have no impact on whether or not a one-way system was implemented on Rostrevor Avenue. A full road safety assessment would be undertaken prior to implementation of any scheme and funding for highways improvements was also included in the proposed section 106 agreement.

• Officers reminded the Committee of the Government guidance in respect of dealing with applications to extend the time limit of extant planning permissions.

Cllr Rice proposed a motion, seconded by Cllr Reid, that this application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee in order for a full transport report to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation for Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing garages and erection of three storey building comprising 1 x 3 bed, 4 x 2 bed and 4 x 1 bed flats with commercial use (A1/A2) at ground floor level, offices at first floor level and parking at basement level. (Original Ref: HGY/2008/0594)

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

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Place and Sustainability on an application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for Conservation Area Consent at 16-52 High Road, N15. The report recommended that application reference HGY/2011/1063 be  granted subject to conditions and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

RESOLVED

That application HGY/2011/1063  be granted, subject to conditions and to a varied section 106 Legal Agreement.

Subject to the following 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 demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works for redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.

Reason: In order to ensure that the site is not left open and vacant to the detriment of the  character and visual amenities of the locality.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL 

The buildings being in commercial use comprising of garages does not have any architectural merit.  Their demolition therefore would not be of any loss.

Section 106: No

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission HGY/2006/1839 for the erection of a further two floors to existing 2 storey building to create 4 x two bedroom, 2 x one and 3 x three bedroom flats and 4 additional commercial units; including alteration to elevations, formation of 5 car parking spaces and provision of covered bin storage; as later amended by planning application HGY/2008/0966.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and to a Deed of Variation to the current S106 Agreement.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Place and Sustainability on an application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission at 72 – 96 Park Road, N8. The report set out the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis of the application. The report recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions and to a Deed of Variation to the current S106 Agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation, outlining key aspects of the application.

• Cllr Jenks addressed the Committee in objection to the application, on the grounds that the extension of the Crouch End CPZ had been overlooked in the report as a material consideration.  It was stated that there were existing parking pressures in the area, and that the limited provision of spaces on the site would lead to an increase in cars needing to park in the local area. In response to questions regarding the parking issues, officers clarified that a condition could be added to prevent residents from applying for parking permits for the CPZ area.

• Cllr Jenks also raised objections with regards to the sustainability proposals, and the lack of evidence supporting these. The Committee suggested that a condition could be added regarding sustainable design.

• The Committee expressed concern regarding access, and suggested that a condition should be adding to ensure there was a lift servicing all four floors.

The recommendations of the report were moved, with the addition of three additional conditions to prevent residents from applying for CPZ parking permits, for sustainable design and for a lift servicing all four floors and a variation to the section 106 Agreement regarding residents not being able to apply for parking permits and it was unanimously:

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2011/0905 subject to a pre-condition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into a deed of variation to the current S106 Agreement and following completion planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2011/0905 and the Applicant’s drawing No.(s) E01-00, 02-00, 02-01, 02-RF, 08-01, 08-02, P02-00B, 02-01B, 02-02B, 02-03B, 02-05A, 02-RF A, 08-04B, 08-05B, P-SCHED, 08-04, CN03-03, 04, 05, 03-03 WEST, 03-01 WEST, 03-01 EAST & 03-02.

Subject to the following 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 development hereby authorised requires the applicant to provide 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Front extension to existing first floor, rear extensions to ground and first floor and addition of pitched roof storey to provide commercial space at ground floor level and 5 x one bed flats and 1 x two bed flats at upper floor levels. (Amended description).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Place and Sustainability on the application for planning permission in respect of 270 Archway Road, N6. The report set out the site and surroundings, planning proposal, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and assessment of the application, and recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation setting out key aspects of the application, and advised of a late representation received from Cllr Rachel Allison, expressing concern that the proposal would rival the neighbouring church in height and bulk, and whether this was appropriate as it could detract from a place of worship. The planning officer then answered questions from the Committee.

• In response to a question from the Committee regarding materials, it was confirmed that the proposal for use of traditional materials to blend in with the existing structure.

• Cllr Bob Hare spoke on behalf of local residents and expressed concerns regarding the bulk and massing of the proposal and the impact this would have on residents to the rear of the site in respect of loss of daylight and sunlight and views of the sky. The Committee agreed to the submission of some photographs by Cllr Hare illustrating the resident’s concerns.

• The Committee asked for greater information in respect of the daylight and sunlight study undertaken and submitted by the applicants, as residents expressed concern that the impact on their light would be greater than that indicated in the report, given the scale of the proposal. The applicant clarified the methodology undertaken for the daylight and sunlight study, and it was stated that the findings were that there would not be significant harm to nearby properties, and that there was compliance with good practice in respect of light issues, including the sky component.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders until 2230hrs.

The recommendations of the report were moved and on a vote of 8 in favour and 1 against it was:

RESOLVED

1)       That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2011/1172 subject to a pre-condition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into an Agreement or Agreements with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) and Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 in order to secure:

1.1)           A sum of £1,000.00 towards the management of the relevant Traffic Management Order(s) (TMO) controlling on-street parking in the vicinity of the site to reflect that the 6 new residential units shall be designated ‘car free’ and therefore no residents therein will be entitled to apply for a residents parking permit under the terms of this Traffic Management Order(s) (TMO);

1.2)           The developer to pay an administration / monitoring cost of £500.00 in connection with this Section 106 Agreement.

2)       That in the absence of the Agreement referred to in the resolution above being completed by 31^st January 2012, planning application reference  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. 65 Mount View Road, N8
2. 29 Ridge Road, N8
3. Southwood Hall, Wood Lane, N6

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Place and Sustainability which recommended that Tree Preservation Orders be confirmed against trees located at; 65 Mountview Road N4, 29 Ridge Road N8 and Southwood Hall, Wood Lane N6.

• A local resident, Mr Whent, addressed the Committee regarding the confirmation of the TPO at 65 Mountview Road. It was clarified that the tree affected by the TPO in question was that marked T1 in the Committee report and that T2 was not the subject of a TPO. Mr Whent advised that, without correct maintenance, the tree in question could pose a threat to his property, as in the past a significant amount of the tree had fallen into his garden. Mr Whent felt that given this fact, and that the tree was not a rare species, a TPO should not be confirmed.

• Officers advised that it was not possible to add a condition to a TPO requiring adequate maintenance, but that there was a statutory duty in law to ensure that trees were maintained so as not to pose any danger, and that an informative could be added to advise that adequate maintenance be undertaken.

• It was clarified that a TPO did not mean that no works could be carried out on a tree, just that the necessary application needed to be made. It was confirmed that the application process was free of charge, although some concern was expressed that the application process might put people off carrying out works.

On a vote of 5 in favour and 3 against, it was:

RESOLVED

That the TPO against T1 at 65 Mountview Road, N4, be confirmed, with an informative that adequate maintenance to the tree be undertaken.

The Committee advised the objector that the owner of the tree did have a legal responsibility to maintain any tree to prevent it from becoming dangerous, and suggested that he may wish to seek legal advice if necessary to resolve the matter. It was also suggested that he speak to his Ward Councillors.

It was further:

RESOLVED

That authority for the confirmation of the remaining TPOs outlined in the report be delegated to officers.

Development comprising of construction of one industrial building accommodating 3,627 (39,047ft) of gross internal B8 and B1 employment floorspace with ancillary trade counter, together with revised site access and associated highway works, signage and sustainable urban drainage.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to sec.106 Legal Agreement or deed of variation to the current S106 Agreement.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Place and Sustainability regarding the application for planning permission at 550 White Hate Lane, N17. The report set out the site and surroundings, proposal, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis of the application, and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 Legal Agreement or deed of variation to the current s106 Agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and advised that an additional recommendation was proposed such that the Section 106 Agreement could provide for a £70k highways contribution for the works. The agreement would note the intention that only £70k in total be payable as a highways contribution between this and the scheme for the Bridisco site approved on 12 September 2011.

• In response to a question regarding whether the vehicle movement figures given in the report related to the entire site, or just the section covered by this proposal, it was confirmed that they related to the site as a whole. It was clarified that, while the applicant had referred to the morning peak as 9 to 10am, the council defined this as 8 to 9am, which accounted for any discrepancy in the figures regarding the morning peak.

• It was proposed that an additional condition be added regarding local employment.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report including the additional recommendation that the Section 106 Agreement include a £70k highways contribution and the additional local employment condition and it was unanimously:

RESOLVED

1)       That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2011/1566, subject to a pre-condition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into an Agreement or Agreements with the Council under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) and Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 in order to secure:

1.1)           Highways Contribution – a sum of £70,000 (seventy thousand pounds) to be used by the Council towards the cost of highways works.

1.2)           ‘Haringey Guarantee Sum’ – a sum of £20,000 (twenty thousand pounds) to be used by the Council towards the cost of securing training and employment opportunities for residents of Haringey.

1.3)           ‘Community Benefits Sum’ – a sum of £10,700 (ten thousand seven hundred pounds) to be used by the Council towards the carrying out of environmental improvements in the vicinity of the Site.

1.4)           Monitoring Sum – a sum of £1000 (one thousand pounds) to be used by the Council in monitoring the performance of this Deed.

1.5)           Local labour – that jobs on the site during construction and after completion be first advertised in the local area before being advertised on a wider basis.

Or

Subject to a pre-condition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into a deed of variation to the current S106 Agreement for the broader Bridisco site in connection with application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

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

Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability to advise on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during August 2011.

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 22 August 2011 and 25 September 2011.

Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability to inform the Sub Committee of decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the Sub Committee.

NOTED

To advise the Sub Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement since the 12 September 2011 Sub Committee meeting.

Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability to advise the Sub Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement.

NOTED

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday, 14^th November 2011, 7pm.

Monday, 14 November 2011, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 10.20pm.