Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Erskine, for whom Cllr Wilson 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. It being a special meeting of the Sub Committee, under Part Four, Section B, Paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

There were no new items of urgent business.

The Committee was advised that agenda items 6 and 7, in respect of 274 Archway Road, were to be deferred to the next meeting, as well as agenda item 9.2, in respect of a TPO at St Luke’s Hospital.

NOTED

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.

Demolition of existing workshop and erection of new 3 storey block to provide 2 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 2 bedroom self contained units incorporating garden area to front and rear.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing workshop and erection of new 3 storey block to provide 2 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 2 bedroom self contained units incorporating garden area to front and rear.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent, subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

To confirm the following Tree Preservation Orders:

1. 1 Parham Way, N10
2. St Luke’s Hospital, Woodside Avenue, N10
3. Cascade Avenue, Tennis Courts, N10

The Chair requested that the agenda be varied in order to take items 9 and 10 next.

St Luke’s Hospital, Woodside Avenue, N10

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee.

1 Parham Way, N10

The Committee considered a report seeking to confirm the TPO placed on a tree at 1 Parham Way. Alex Fraser, Arboricultural Officer, advised that a number of TPOs had been implemented at this site – the location of the tree in question was not that as set out in the plan attached report, but was located south of the specimen identified on the plan. An objection had been submitted that a TPO would prevent work being undertaken on the tree, although it was confirmed that permission could be sought in order to carry out necessary works. It was also felt that the distance of the tree from the nearest property meant that damage to the property was unlikely. The specimen was described as a mature ash in good health, with a predicted remaining lifespan of over 40 years. The tree was felt to be beneficial to wildlife and the local amenity.

The Committee noted that the report provided referred to a Lawson Cypress – it was confirmed that this was not the tree under discussion, but was one of the other trees on the site where TPOs had been implemented.

The Committee sought legal advice on making a decision based on a report which referred to a different tree. Serinther Atkar, Legal Officer, advised that the TPO procedure was predicated on consultation; in the event that local residents may not have had the correct information on which to take a view, it was advised that this decision should be deferred and brought back with a correct report. Otherwise there was a risk that the decision could be challenged.

The Committee requested that, when the report was brought back to the Committee, information be provided on the height of the tree and its distance from the closest structural foundations. It was also requested that report title should be updated to reflect the correct location of the specimen in question.

The Committee noted that, as the tree was situated within a Conservation Area, it had a level of protection under the legislation governing Conservation Areas, regardless of the implementation of a TPO.

RESOLVED

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

Cascade Avenue, Tennis Courts, N10

Mr Fraser reported that the TPO had been requested as the site was being sold and may be developed. An inspection of the trees in question had found them to be of high amenity value, in good health and with a predicted remaining lifespan of more than 40 years. Objections had been received on the grounds that the trees were ill-formed, of low amenity value and in an inappropriate location, and a local resident had expressed concern regarding the proximity of one of the trees to their property. It was the view  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

To advise the Sub Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during December 2011 and January 2012.

The Committee considered the report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during December 2011 and January 2012. It was noted that the proportion of appeals allowed during this period was higher than earlier in the year and impacted negatively on performance rates overall for the year.

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Dorfman advised that no single reason had been identified for number of appeals allowed during the period. Increased resources were now available for management of appeals and an improved system was in place; performance had been positive for the rest of the year, and it was felt that this period represented an anomaly.

The Committee asked about the decision in respect of 30 Alexandra Park road, which had been allowed when other crossovers on the same road had been refused. It was reported that a decision would only be contested in the event that the Inspector had made a procedural or legal error – Mr Dorfman confirmed that he would look into the case to determine whether it was felt that there were grounds to challenge the decision, and would also consider whether it was felt that there was the risk of a precedent being set, and would write to the Committee regarding these issues. Malcolm Smith, Transportation, also agreed that he would look into this case in more detail.

The Committee questioned the win / loss approach to appeals, as it was most important that good planning decisions were being made for the benefit of the Borough. It was also suggested that it might be useful to have a summary of each decision included in the report. Mr Dorfman advised that it was expected nationally that a planning authority would lose around 30-40% of appeals; previous performance had demonstrated that Haringey had been supporting planning policy well and that decisions made had been robust. Each appeal report was up to 10 pages in length – Mr Dorfman agreed that he was happy to make these available to Committee Members if they wished, but that it might be cumbersome to incorporate them into the report. It was suggested that analysis of appeals performance could be considered at Regulatory Committee.

In response to a request from Cllr Schmitz, Mr Dorfman agreed to supply him with a copy of the Inspector’s report in respect of 155 Lordship Lane.

RESOLVED

That the content of the report be noted.

Residential development comprising 2 x one bed flats, 31 x two bed flats, 2 x three bed houses and 4 x four bed houses, together with open space, parking and access.

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

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for planning permission for land at Gilson Place and Coppetts Road, N10. The report set out details of the proposal, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis of the application. The report recommended that consent 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 of changes to the report as circulated, namely;

·        The contribution towards education facilities at (1.1) of Recommendation 1 of the report be amended to £178,000.00.

·        That affordable social housing in the penultimate line of (1.2) of Recommendation 1 of the report be amended to “affordable rent housing”.

·        That the total amount given in (1.6) of Recommendation 1 in the report be amended to £293,000.00.

·        In addition it was noted that the s106 would secure local employment and the offer of apprenticeships (during construction); the details of which would be considered by Officers

·        There were a number of revised plan numbers as follows: 012C, 013C, 014C, 15C, 016D, 22D & 23A

·        The wording of condition 10 as set out in the report to be amended to “A supporting statement shall be submitted demonstrating consistency with submitted Energy Assessment including the siting of the PV panels. Thereafter the renewable energy technology/ system shall be installed in accordance with the details approved and an independent post-instillation review, or other verification process as agreed, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority confirming the agreed technology has been installed prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved.”

·        The wording of condition 14 as set out in the report to be amended to “Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) and a serving and delivery management plan should be submitted for the approval of the LPA. The CLP should show the routeing of traffic around the immediate road network and reasonable endeavours ensure that deliveries are timed to avoid the peak traffic hours.”

The Committee was referred to PPS4 of the national guidance, which established a flexible approach to employment land, and was also advised of the new ‘Haringey Employment Land Update’, February 2012, which indicated a general need to assess sites on their individual merits.

The Planning Officer responded to questions from the Committee, and the following points were covered in discussion:

• In response to a question as to why change of use was recommended, it was reported that the site had been vacant for a long time, there was no current employment use and there were constraints regarding the delivery of employment use such as warehousing or distribution, as this would disturb neighbouring residents. It was further reported that there was an oversupply of B1 floor space, and that this was not an ideal location for such use, as it was in an area with a low PTAL assessment.
• The Committee asked about access to the North Circular, and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

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 19 December 2011 and 29 January 2012.

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 19 December 2011 and 29 January 2012.

RESOLVED

That the content of the report be noted.

Monday ,12 March 2012, 7pm.

Monday, 12 March 2012.

The meeting closed at 8:55pm.