Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Rice, for whom Cllr Mallett was substituting.

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.

An item of urgent business had been received in respect of Clarendon Square, seeking the addition of an additional condition to the permission already granted, relating to health and safety.

It was clarified for the record that this report was only seeking agreement to the addition of a condition, and that voting in favour of this proposal did not necessarily constitute endorsement of the planning application itself, consideration of which not all Members had taken part in.

On a vote of 7 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention it was:

RESOLVED

That the addition of the following condition to the decision on 22 September 2011 to grant outline planning permission (subject to conditions, a s106 legal agreement and the Mayor’s Direction) for land at Haringey Heartlands between Hornsey Park Road, Mayes Road, Clarendon Road and the Kings Cross/East Coast Mainline – Ref. No. HGY/2009/0503 be approved:

“No part of the development shall be occupied until the Hazardous Substances Consent for the gasholder station has been revoked or varied in accordance with the Planning Hazardous Substances Act 1990, as amended, such that the  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does not advise that permission should be refused on safety grounds, and written confirmation of the necessary revocation or variation has been issued by the London Borough of Haringey as local planning authority.

Reason: in the interests of health and safety, it is necessary to ensure that the adjoining gas infrastructure will not present a risk to safety.”

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 agenda item 11, 677 Green Lanes, as having taken part in an online discussion forum with regards to the site.

Cllr Demirci declared a personal interest in agenda item 7, Wood Green Police Station, as the matter had been discussed at a Ward meeting at which he had been present, but he had not participated in the discussion.

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 special Planning Sub Committee held on 22 September 2011 (TO FOLLOW) and the Planning Sub Committee held on 10 October 2011.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2011 and the special meeting held on 22 September 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair.

Replacement of existing police station with new custody facility and office accommodation in four storey building for police use, including retention of façade of the original building.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation on key elements of the report, and advised that while no details of the internal layout or design of the custody suite could be provided for security reasons, the design standards for this would be as set out by the Home Office design guide for police buildings and other relevant guidance. It was also confirmed that if the custody suite at Wood Green were full, the central cell allocation service would identify the nearest police station with available space for allocation to any new detainee.

The Committee was advised of two proposed variations to the conditions as set out in the report; in relation to condition 4 regarding noise levels, it was proposed that this condition be changed such that with the exception of the emergency generator, the noise level would be as set out in the existing condition, but with the emergency generator running, the noise could be above the background noise level; in relation to condition 19 on disabled parking spaces, the Metropolitan Police had requested that of the 4 disabled parking bays marked out, three of these could be used for operational vehicles at times when the disabled parking spaces were not required.

The Committee examined the plans and discussed the application. In relation to concerns raised that prisoners should not be held in the custody suite for more than 72 hours, officers advised that this was not a material planning consideration, and that the use of the custody suite was ancillary to the primary use as a police station; therefore, any condition added in respect of use of the custody suite would be outside the Committee’s remit. In response to concerns raised regarding potential issues with vehicles associated with the police station parking at property owned by addressed as part of the Travel Plan, which was covered by the proposed condition 20 as set out in the report.

Concern was expressed that it should be clear that the custody suite at Wood green was not to be used for remand prisoners, and it was moved by Cllr Schmitz that an informative be added limiting the maximum amount of time that prisoners could be kept in the custody suite to 72-hours. On a vote of 2 in favour and 7 against, this motion fell.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report, with the amendments to the conditions in respect of external noise and disabled parking, 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 reference HGY/2011/1094 subject to a pre-condition that the applicant shall first have entered into an agreement or agreements with the London Borough of Haringey (under Section 106 of the Town and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission HGY/2008/1484 for erection of new part four storey, part three storey and single storey office buildings (gross floor area 3,456sqm) with ancillary parking, secure cycle storage and circulation areas.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission to replace extant consent subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that permission to replace the extant planning consent be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key elements of the application and responded to questions from the Committee.

The Committee suggested that the mixed-use nature of the scheme should be retained in order to protect employment at the site, and requested that a condition be added to the effect that there should be no residential use permitted on the particular site in question. On a vote of 7 in favour of this condition and one abstention, it was agreed that such a condition should be added.

On the motion of the recommendations of the report and the additional condition as set out above it was:

RESOLVED

That application HGY/2011/1624 for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission HGY/2008/1484 be granted, subject to conditions and an additional condition preventing residential use of the site.

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.

EXTERNAL APPEARANCE / SITE LAYOUT

3.                  Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the 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.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

4.                  A scheme for the treatment of the surroundings of the proposed development including the planting of trees and/or shrubs shall be submitted to, approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to provide a suitable setting for the proposed development in the interests of visual amenity.

5.                  A detailed scheme for the provision of refuse and waste storage within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the works. Such a scheme as approved  shall be implemented and permanently retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the locality.

CONSTRUCTION

6.                  No development shall take place until site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Closure of existing access and formation of new access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting key elements of the report, and responded to questions from the Committee.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the Planning Inspector’s view that a crossover at the site proposed would not pose a hazard in respect of road safety, and whether this was still valid, Maurice Richards, Transport, advised that the data with regards to road safety at that site had been looked into and it was not felt that there was any safety implication. It was also confirmed, in response to a question from the Committee, that there was no issue in respect of the ground level at the site of the hard standing. The Committee asked about the scope for planting between the parking area and Parkland Walk, in response to which it was confirmed that planting could be undertaken by the applicant, but that the difference in ground level and existing fence between the site and Parkland Walk meant that the parking area was currently not visible from Parkland Walk.

Cllr Jim Jenks addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents, and expressed concern at the proposal when previous applications for similar works had been refused. The Planning Inspector had stated that the retention of access at the current location was harmful to the character and appearance of the area and that use of the hard standing area for off street parking would further harm the appearance of the area and street scene. It was also reported that objections made by the Cranley Gardens Residents’ Association had been omitted from the report. Cllr Jenks advised that the proposal would contribute to an erosion of open space in the area and asked the Committee not to grant the application.

A local resident, Ms Sutton-Klein assisted Cllr Jenks in responding to questions from the Committee. In response to a question regarding the nature of the appeal considered by the Planning Inspector in March 2011, it was reported that it was a very similar scheme to the current application, for the retention of the western access, closure of the eastern gate and associated works, including hard standing and parking. The Committee asked the nature of the objections from the Cranley Gardens Residents’ Association which were reportedly omitted from the report, in response to which it was advised that these clarified the comments of the Planning Inspector. Ms Sutton-Klein advised that residents’ original objections to the new houses on the site had been addressed by means of assurances regarding the soft landscaping, which were now not being met.

Colin Marr, representing an informal campaign group opposed to crossovers across the borough, addressed the Committee and stated that the four large houses on the site had very limited garden amenity, and that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Application for a new planning permission to replace extant planning permission HGY/2008/0462 for redevelopment of site to provide 3 storey building comprising 2 x three bed and 4 x two bed self-contained flats with 3 no. car parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission to replace extant consent subject to conditions and a deed of variation to the current S106 Agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that consent be granted subject to conditions and a deed of variation to the current s106 agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key points of the report and responded to questions from the Committee.

Cllr Bevan addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He expressed concern that the applicant was currently using the site illegally as a builders yard and that, were the application granted, this would lead to a further three years’ illegal use of the site. It was requested that the application for an extension of time be granted for only one year. In response to a question from the Committee, Cllr Bevan advised that this would encourage compliance as, if work were not undertaken within a year, the application would then be in breach of the new planning guidance on room sizes that was to be introduced.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the existing room size directive, which was currently guidance only, may be strengthened as an SPD in the next year, although it was not yet determined to what size of site the standards would apply. The Legal Officer advised the Committee that as an application for a renewal, the actions available to the Committee were limited – a different decision could only be reached if there had been a change in policy circumstances since the granting of the original permission. Although there were circumstances in which a shorter period of time could be granted, it was advised that these were not applicable in this case. In response to a question regarding how the likely future change in policy would affect the Committee’s decision, it was advised that the decision had to be made in light of current circumstances. It was confirmed that any legal action being taken in respect of the site was an entirely separate process and should not be taken into consideration.

The Committee examined the plans. The recommendation of the report was moved and on a vote of 7 in favour and 2 against it was:

RESOLVED

That permission be granted to replace extant Planning Permission reference number HGY/2008/0462, subject to the conditions (as set out below) continuing to apply in all respects other than as modified by the approval of this Planning Permission and subject to Section 106 agreement attached to this previous consent also continuing to apply other than any variation to Section 106 Agreement considered necessary to the Councils Legal Department.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Erection of 3-storey side extension and insertion of rooflights to front, side and rear roofslopes to facilitate conversion of upper parts to 7 x two bed flats and 1 x three bed flat.

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

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 legal agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation, outlining key aspects of the report, and responded to questions from the Committee.

In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that a condition could be added requiring the detailing of the windows and stucco surrounds on the extension to take its cues from the existing detailing. It was noted that the intention was for the extension to be subordinate to the main building, for which reason the detailing should not fully replicate the existing, but echo it. It was confirmed that it was proposed to landscape the forecourt of the site and remove the existing crossover.

The Committee examined the plans and asked further questions of officers. In response to a question regarding the proposed waste facilities, it was noted that waste management were satisfied and that a condition was also proposed to address this issue. Concerns were raised regarding the future use of the site, and specifically whether there was a way of preventing its use for a betting shop. In response to this, a condition was suggested along the lines that the ground floor of the premises must be retained as A4 use unless an agreed viability study is submitted and approved by the planning authority, in order to ensure appropriate control any change of use, and to address concerns relating to the potential loss of social and community benefits associated with the site’s use as a public house. Cllr Peacock expressed strong objections to the proposed additional condition, as it was clear that the premises was not viable as a public house, otherwise it would still be in use.

The Committee voted on the proposed additional condition and on a vote of 6 in favour and 3 against, it was agreed that this condition be added. The recommendation of the report was moved and on a vote of 7 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention it was:

RESOLVED

1) That, with the addition of an additional condition that the ground floor must be retained as A4 use unless an agreed viability study is submitted and approved by the planning authority, planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application HGY/2011/1358 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 contribution of £24,000.00 towards educational facilities within the Borough according to the formula set out in Policy UD10 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 10c of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006;

1.2             A sum of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

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

The Committee considered a report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during September 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 26 September 2011 and 30 October 2011.

The Committee considered a report on decisions made under delegated powers by the Head of Development Management and the Chair of the Sub Committee between 26 September 2011 and 30 October 2011.

NOTED

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

The Committee asked whether it would be possible to receive legal advice on degree to which the Committee’s actions were circumscribed in respect of applications for extension of time of existing planning consent, and the question of when a shorter period of time could be granted. It was agreed that this advice would be supplied.

Monday, 5 December 2011, 7pm.

Monday, 5 December 2011, 7pm.