Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Peacock, for whom Cllr Mallett was substituting, and from Cllr Hare, for whom Cllr Solomon 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 11 below.

There were no new 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.

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 March 2012.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair.

Demolition of existing sports hall and provision of new buildings to provide new indoor sports, music and performing arts facilities together with associated landscaping works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for planning permission at the Channing School, Highgate Hill. The report set out images, details of the site and surroundings, the proposal, planning history, relevant planning policies, consultation and responses, analysis and human rights and equalities considerations. The recommendation of the report was that the application be granted, subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and advised that further representations had been received subsequent to the production of the report, including from Metropolis, who would be addressing the Committee in objection to the application. Guidance on the new National Planning Policy Framework was circulated for Members’ information.

The following questions were raised by Members after the officer’s presentation:

• Concern was expressed that there was as yet no firm plan for site access; it was reported that testing was currently taking place to ascertain whether the preferred of the 3 options was feasible. There were two other options, although these were less favoured. A condition was sought delegating approval of the final construction management plan to officers, although if this raised further issues, the matter could be brought back to the Committee.
• The hydrological survey had been a combination of desk-based and investigative study. It concluded that the basement would have no impact on the water table; there may be an issue regarding the type of foundations that could be employed, although this had not been found to be significant.
• In response to a question regarding how the proposed building fitted with the character of the area, it was reported that there was a range of building styles in the vicinity and that the proposals to recess the building mitigated the impact from the street.
• The Committee asked about the impact of the proposals on the view from neighbouring gardens, in response to which it was reported that that the use of materials would mitigate the impact of the proposals, and that there was no protection of views under planning policy.
• In response to a question of approval of the materials to be used, it was reported that a condition was proposed requiring the applicant to submit samples of the proposed materials for the approval of the planning authority.
• It was clarified that the test in relation for developments in Conservation Areas related to whether a development preserved or enhanced the Conservation Area, and that this was for the Committee to determine.

The Committee was addressed by four objectors; Mr Mayer, a local resident, Mr Cooper, Metropolis Planning and Design on behalf of local residents, Mr Reynolds, on behalf of the local CAAC and the Highgate Society, and Cllr Bob Hare, Ward Councillor. Cllr Schmitz stated for the record that Cllr Hare had been present at the site visit in advance of the meeting, but had not put any views forward regarding the application at that time. The following points were raised by the objectors and in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing sports hall and provision of rear building to provide new indoor sports, music and performing arts facilities together with associated landscaping works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, for an application for Conservation Area consent for demolition of existing sports hall and provision or rear building to provide new indoor sports, music and performing arts facilities together with associated landscaping works at Channing School, Highgate Hill.

Issues relating to the Conservation Area consent had been presented by the Planning officer and discussed by the Committee in consideration of the previous item on the agenda, and it was:

RESOLVED

That application no. HGY/2011/1577 for Conservation Area Consent be granted, 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 proposed demolition of this existing building is acceptable given it is of no particular merit in itself and does not positively contribute to the character of the conservation area. The siting, design, form, detailing of the proposed replacement buildings are considered acceptable. Overall the proposed development will enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. As such the proposal accords with polices CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas', CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Area' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and SPG2 'Conservation & Archaeology'.

Section 106: No

Erection of 8 x two storey dwellings, comprising of four different house types with a mixture of detached, link detached and semi-detached properties.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the planning application relating to land rear of Corbett Grove, N22. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis of the application and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. The planning officer gave a presentation highlighting key aspects of the report, and responded to questions from Members.

The following points were discussed:

• The Committee was advised that the site had not previously been developed, but was not designated as a Greenfield site.
• Advice was received from the Legal officer that it was a material consideration that a previous application had been granted on the site.
• In order to address the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in respect of the previous scheme, it was reported that this scheme incorporated increased landscaping to the side of the houses of Type B, and that the end house was now further recessed from the railway.
• It was confirmed that the plans permitted adequate access for refuse vehicles and that no concerns had been raised by Waste Management in respect of the proposals.
• In response to a question regarding the Planning Inspector’s concerns regarding the size of the smallest garden of the Type B houses under the previous scheme, it was confirmed that under the new proposal the smallest garden was now 69m².

The Committee examined the plans relating to this application. It was confirmed that the applicant was willing to use a different material than the cedar cladding suggested in the application, and it was agreed that this could be addressed by means of an informative.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report, with the additional informative relating to the use of material other than cedar cladding, and it was:

RESOLVED

1)       That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application reference HGY/2012/0214 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 Country Planning Act  (as amended) 1990) in order to secure the Heads of Terms covering Education Contributions.

i)                    An Education contribution of £62,903 based on the formula set out in SPG10c and the most up to date figures

ii)                  Administration charge of £3145 as required by SPG10a. The total amount of s106 contribution would be £66048.

To ensure that the s106 obligations are honoured in a full and timely manner, implementation of the s106 obligations will be subject to regular monitoring and target dates will be set where appropriate.

2)       Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to section 106 Legal Agreement in accordance with the approved plans and documentation as follows: Drawing No’s JW347 – 100 REV D; JW347 – 101 REV C; JW347 – 102 REV C; JW347 – 103 REV D; JW347 – 104 REV D; JW347 – 105 REV D; JW347 – 106 REV A; JW347  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Order:

123 Rosebery Road / Parham Way, N10

The Committee considered the report on an application for confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order against the tree located at 123 Rosebery Road / Parham Way, N10. In the absence of the objector in respect of this application and it not being possible to confirm whether they had been notified of the date of the hearing it was:

RESOLVED

That this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday, 14^th May 2011, 7pm.

Monday, 14 May 2012, 7pm.

The meeting concluded at 21:40hrs.