Agenda and minutes

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 11 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.

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 16 April 2012.

TO FOLLOW

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16^th April 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair.

To consider the proposal by Rozbelle the applications for a variation of the current s106 agreement for the development at Furnival House, 50 Cholmeley Park as agreed in September 2010. No other changes to the planning permission are sought.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the proposal for a variation of the existing Section 106 agreement for the development at Furnival House, 50 Cholmeley Park, N6 as agreed in September 2010. The Committee was advised that the final sentence of paragraph 5.3 of the report should be amended to read “The Transportation contribution will remain the same as existing”.

The following points were raised in discussion by the Committee:

• This was a matter for the Committee’s determination as it related to a planning agreement between the Council and the applicant.
• The Committee needed to determine whether the change in the scheme’s viability warranted the proposed reduction in s106 contributions.
• The Committee’s legal advisor reported that that the viability assessment submitted by the applicant had been assessed by the Council’s officers and also by an independent expert to verify the information supplied.
• The return indicated in the viability assessment was significantly lower than the standard expectation of 15-20%, and the viability of the scheme was assessed as marginal.
• It was the view of Council officers that allowing the reduction in the s106 agreement would increase the likelihood of the scheme going ahead, and it was on this basis that the recommendation of the report was that the proposal be approved.
• There had been a material change in circumstances since permission for the scheme was granted, in that works to Listed Buildings were no longer exempt from VAT.
• It was confirmed that the reduction in s106 would reduce the amount of social housing that could be provided, but local and national policy did not permit s106 obligations and the issue of viability to prevent otherwise deliverable schemes from coming forward for development.
• The Committee expressed concern that details of the viability assessment had not been made available for the Committee to examine, in order to make a decision on the basis of all the relevant information, and it was agreed that a public summary of such information should be included in such reports in future. Members were also reminded that they could view the full information by arrangement with the Planning officers and by agreeing to sign a confidentiality agreement.
• The Committee was advised that all s106 agreements were registered as land charges and would transfer with ownership in the event of sale.
•  In response to a question from the Committee, it was reported that, were the scheme coming forward for initial approval at this time, a total s106 contribution of approximately £1.2m would be recommended by officers.

Cllr Bevan spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Housing. Cllr Bevan expressed concern that the proposed reduction in s106 contribution would result in three fewer social houses being provided. Cllr Bevan stated that market evidence demonstrated that there had been no reduction in sale values for similar properties, and that his experience in dealing with Homes for Haringey had shown that building costs had in fact reduced in recent years.

The applicants  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

Erection of 4 storey building (plus basement) to provide A1 retail use at ground and basement levels and 26 residential units at first, second and third floors.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the planning application in relation to 638 High Road, N17 0AA. The report set out details of the site, the proposal, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, planning obligations, human rights and equalities considerations and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report and the Committee then examined the plans and asked questions of officers.

The following points were raised in discussion of the application by the Committee:

• Concern was expressed regarding the adequacy of the waste disposal facilities, as there were problems regarding this issue at other premises in the local area. It was agreed that a condition could be added requiring details of waste management arrangements, and that the proposed space for waste management was larger than in the previous building.
• In response to concerns regarding the design of shop-fronts and advertising, it was confirmed that conditions were proposed in respect of both of these issues.
• It was agreed that an informative could be added in respect of the possibility of having a plaque to indicate the year in which the building was rebuilt.

The recommendation of the report was moved, with the additional condition in respect of waste management details and an informative regarding the possibility of having a plaque indicating the year in which the building was rebuilt and it was:

RESOLVED

That, subject to an additional condition in respect of waste management details and an informative regarding the possibility of having a plaque indicating the year in which the building was rebuilt, planning application HGY/2012/0427 be granted, subject to conditions.

EXPIRATION OF CONSENT

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.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans, specifications and other documents listed on the decision letter, which have been 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 & EXTERNAL APPEARANCE

3. The materials and external finishes for the building must be carried out in accordance with the drawings and samples submitted and approved as set out in the approved drawings and submitted samples, unless alternative materials are subsequently approved by the borough council as planning authority in writing. 

Reason: In order to ensure a high quality design finish and external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area including the conservation area.

SHOPFRONTS

4. The shopfronts hereby approved shall be built in accordance with the approved drawings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

Erection of an extension to the Commercial Laundry at the eastern end of the site (Use Class B2), the formation of a loading bay for two delivery vehicles, erection of vehicle maintenance building and the erection of a new retaining wall and an acoustic fence, retention of existing retaining wall and hardstanding and use of hardstanding for parking of domestic passenger vehicles for staff. Reconsulting due to amended plans.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee agreed that, in the absence of any parties wishing to speak in respect of the other application on the agenda, the order of the agenda be varied to take the planning application for 555 White Hart Lane next.

The Committee considered a report on the planning application in respect of 555 White Hart Lane, N17. The report set out details of the proposal and site, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, human rights and equalities, and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and advised that an additional letter had been submitted by a local resident, stating that the points raised in the petition submitted in response to the previous application on the site were still valid, despite the amendments made to the application, and that the operation of the site continued to be very disruptive to local residents throughout the night.

Cllr Bull, ward councillor, and a local resident, Ms Chorley, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and raised the following points:

• The level of noise from the site was unacceptable; the applicant had not engaged with residents at all and ignored complaints. Cllr Bull confirmed that he had personally experienced the noise nuisance emanating from the site, as reported by residents.
• As a result of the previous unauthorised removal of the embankment, there had been significant slippage of residents’ gardens, resulting in the collapse of garden structures and trees in places, and large parts of the gardens becoming unusable. This had significantly affected residents’ quality of life.
• Anything that would alleviate residents’ concerns would be beneficial, and the best outcome would be for the applicant to start to work meaningfully with residents.
• Residents were disturbed by lorries driving on the site throughout the early hours of the morning, particularly travelling over speed humps and making constant noise.
• The proposed parking would be very close to residential gardens, with all the attendant noise and fumes – residents should not have to put up with this level of disturbance.

The Committee asked questions of Mr Holland, the acoustic consultant working on behalf of the Council, and the following points were raised in respect of acoustic matters:

• In response to questions regarding the effective height and recommended materials for an acoustic barrier, Mr Holland advised that the proposed height of 4.4m was significant, and that the material proposed was similar to that used on motorways, which looked like timber, but incorporated specialist noise absorbing material.
• Restricting the use of the hardstanding near to residential properties to domestic vehicles was expected to reduce disturbance caused by lorries, etc on this part of the site.
• It was confirmed that sound insulation of the laundry building was a proposed condition, in addition to the blocking off of the doorway facing residential properties.
• In response to a question regarding the most effective way of addressing residents’ concerns regarding noise, Mr Holland reported that replacement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

Demolition of existing house and erection of three storey block comprising of 6 x 2 bed flats and 3 x 3 bed flats.

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

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application for planning permission in respect of 2 Maidstone Road, N11 2TP. The report set out details of the site and proposals, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis and human rights and equalities considerations, and recommended that approval be granted, subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and advised that the S106 amounts as set out in the report should also include £30k Open Space contributions, taking the total S106 amount to £89,500. It was noted that the application would also be subject to the Mayoral CIL.

The Committee asked question of the officers, and the following points were discussed:

• It was confirmed that there was an existing drop-kerb for access to the site from Brownlow Road.
• In response to concerns regarding the quality and appearance of the building being in keeping with the surrounding area, it was reported that the incorporation of a significant amount of fenestration, the use of the south corner of the building as a design feature and the design of the building so that it had a presence on both Brownlow Road and Maidstone Road had been considerations in officers recommending this design for approval.
• The Committee welcomed the proposal for larger, family-sized units in order to address local housing needs.
• In response to questions regarding the space standards as set out in the report, it was confirmed that the proposals were felt acceptable in this regard as they exceeded Haringey’s local standards, and also met the London Plan standards for three bedroom, four person flats.
• With regards to parking spaces, it was proposed that the 2-bed flat directly adjacent to the two available spaces on site should be allocated one space, and one of the 3-bed units be allocated the other space. The remaining two 3-bed units would be eligible to apply for a parking permit in the surrounding CPZ, and the rest of the 2-bed flats would be designated car-free.
• It was suggested that the Design Panel might make site visits in future.
• The possibility of removing the concrete slab at the southern tip of the site was discussed, as this would increase the amount of space for tree-planting, and it was agreed that this could be explored.

The Committee examined the plans.

At 9.50pm, the Committee agreed to suspend standing orders to enable the business in hand to be completed after 10pm, if necessary.

The Committee discussed the details of the materials to be used, and it was noted that proposed conditions 3 and 4 ensured that the Local Planning Authority had control of the use of materials.

The recommendations of the report were moved and it was:

RESOLVED

(1)               That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2011/2220, 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday 11 June 2012 (tbc)

Monday, 11 June 7pm (tbc)

The meeting closed at 9.55pm.