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 disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ 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 9 July 2012, and the special Planning Sub Committees held on 25 June, 28 June and 30 July 2012.

Cllr Schmitz indicated that he would abstain from approving the minutes of the special Planning Sub Committee held on 25 June 2012.

It was agreed that the informative in respect of the naming of the new development at 7 Bruce Grove, considered on 9 July 2012, be amended to include the Committee suggestion of the rear building being Luke Howard Close and the house being Trades House.

Cllr Mallett’s declaration of interest from the minutes of the special Planning Sub Committee on 25 June 2012 was amended to read ‘Clyde Road Residents’ Association’.

In response to a request from Cllr Allison to ask a question on this item, the Chair declined to allow non-Committee members to raise questions in respect of the minutes. It was confirmed that the Chair had discretion in the running of the meeting.

RESOLVED

That, subject to the amendments agreed above, the minutes of the meetings held on 25 June, 28 June, 9 July and 30 July 2012 be agreed and signed by the Chair.

Demolition and rebuilding of existing dwelling with basement floor and erection of a new two-storey house with basement floor to the front of the site (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for planning permission at 12 Denewood Road, N6. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, images of the site as existing and proposed, details of the proposal, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, assessment of the application and human rights and equalities issues and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report, and circulated two letters received after the circulation of the Committee report, one from Geotechnical and Environmental Associates and one from a neighbouring resident in objection to the application.

In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that the application remained unchanged from that deferred from the special Sub-Committee meeting on 30 July.

Cllr Rachel Allison addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of local residents and the Highgate Society, and Dr Tom Davidson also spoke in objection. The following points were raised by the objectors:

• The proposal represented overdevelopment of the site, as there had never been two houses on the site at the same time.
• Allowing two houses on the site would set a worrying precedent for the area and could lead to a erosion of the character of the Conservation Area.
• This application would involve two large basements, one of double-depth as it would contain a swimming pool; there were recognised problems in the area in respect of the water table, and concern was expressed that this may lead to further problems.
• There was concern that no intrusive assessment of the potential impact of the basement had been undertaken at the site itself.
• Given the existing problems in the area and the size of the proposed basements, the proposal would lead to a significant risk of harm being caused.

The Committee questioned the objectors, and the following issues were raised in the course of the questions and responses:

·        The objectors recognised that the street was diverse architecturally and so there were no specific concerns in respect of the design of the proposal, but the character of the Conservation Area lay in the overall streetscape, the large gardens and sense of open space and having two houses on this site would have a negative impact on this.

·        There was a strong objection to the principle of having two houses on the site.

·        The Committee asked for information on the criteria on which the area had been designated a Conservation Area in the first place; officers advised that the designation was in 1967 and that there was no existing character appraisal other than that summarised as ‘large houses on large plots’. It was noted that work was currently underway on a character appraisal for the Highgate Conservation Area.

·        Marc Dorfman, Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy, advised that the key policies relating to this application were UD3 and UD4 on the impact on amenity and quality of design, and that these would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 215.

Conservation area consent for demolition and rebuilding of existing dwelling and erection of a new two-storey house with basement floor to the front of the site.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, for Conservation Area Consent in respect of 12 Denewood Road, N6. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, the proposal, planning history, relevant planning policy and assessment of the application, and recommended that consent be granted.

On a vote, it was:

RESOLVED

That Conservation Area Consent in respect of application HGY/2011/2285 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

No.(s) 390-000, 390-010, 390-011, 390-310, 390-311, 390-001, 390-003, 390-004, 390-005, 390-006, 390-300, 390-301, 390-302, 390-303 & 390-304 and the following conditions:

1.      The works hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the end of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.      The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been made and full planning permission has been 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 demolition of the building on this site is acceptable in principle as it makes a neutral contribution on the character and appearance of Highgate Conservation Area. Subject to conditions, demolition is acceptable and accords with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011, policy CSV7 ‘Demolition in Conservation Areas’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary development Plan 2006 and SPG2 'Conservation & Archaeology'.

Development of three storey residential block comprising eight two bedroom flats, and one three bedroom flat with associated parking.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to condition(s) and s106 agreement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, in respect of a planning application for development of a three storey residential block at 115-118 Park Road, N8. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, planning history, description and images of the proposal, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis of the application, human rights and equalities considerations, and recommended that consent be granted, subject to conditions and to a section 106 agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and responded to questions from the Committee.

The following points were raised as a result of questions from the Committee and the responses provided by the officers:

• The main change from the previous application was that the footprint of the proposed building was pulled further away from the road and number 121 in order to avoid the existing sewer.
• 6 parking spaces were proposed on-site for the 9 flats; the remaining three flats would be designated car-free, and residents of those flats would not be permitted to apply for parking permits. The parking spaces would be allocated to specific flats when the flats were sold.
• The Committee asked whether permitting parking spaces for this development was consistent with the Council’s transport policies; it was confirmed that the site was designated as medium in terms of PTAL (public transport accessibility level) and that some parking provision was therefore considered acceptable at this site.
• It was confirmed that the balconies were currently applied for as clear glazed, but that this could be addressed by means of condition.
• The level of parking was reported as the same as at the existing consented scheme, but this proposal was moved further away from number 121 and should therefore have less of an impact on neighbouring properties.
• It was confirmed that the parking provision was additional to the amenity space outlined in the report.
• It was suggested that a report on parking policy should be considered by the Regulatory Committee.

Cllr Lyn Weber, ward councillor, and a local resident addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and raised the following points:

·        Pre-application discussions with the architect had led to a number of changes to the scheme, including the removal of the proposed roof garden and rear balconies and the reorientation of the entrance. These changes were welcomed and it was felt that more developers should engage in pre-application discussions.

·        It was suggested that the colour of the window frames should be white, and not bare metal, to be more in keeping with the area.

·        It was felt that the proposal would result in a very narrow pavement, which would be out of keeping with the area and would impact on accessibility.

·        The three-storey height, with an additional block on top for the elevator, would be overly imposing. Although there were similar developments in the vicinity, these were set further back from the road.

The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application, and raised the following points:

• The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 217.

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission HGY/2009/0723, in order to extend the time limit for implementation, for creation of 6 x multi use games areas and two tennis courts together with close netted wire fence 4 metres high; new gravel footpath and 1 metre high retaining wall along with the insertion of 3 x underground rainwater collect and holding tanks. Placing of 10 x new seating benches and planting of trees and refurbishment of existing building into changing room.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission to replace extant permission.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on an application for a new planning permission to replace an extant permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation of development at 185a Park Road N8 to create six multi-use games areas and two tennis courts. The report set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, human rights and equalities issues and recommended that permission be granted to replace the extant permission. The planning officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report and responded to questions from the Committee.

At 9.35pm, the Committee resolved to suspend standing orders in order to complete the business under consideration.

• The planning officer advised the Committee that could reconsider the application in its entirety.
• It was confirmed that maintenance of the boundary fences was a condition on the existing planning consent.

A local resident representing Creos (Crouch End Open Space) addressed the Committee in objection to the application and raised the following points:

• At the time of the original consent being granted, the Committee had been told that there would be no application for floodlighting, which there subsequently was and was granted on appeal.
• The site had been blighted by neglect and was in a state of disrepair.
• No habitat or bat survey had been submitted to the Council .
• The tennis facilities were felt to be inadequate, due to lack of space.
• There were issues with parking, traffic and access associated with the proposal.
• Activities at the Pavilion were causing noise pollution affecting residents at night.
• The applicants had failed in their commitments, had alienated residents, and the extant permission should be allowed to lapse.

The Committee asked questions of the objector, as a result of which the following points were raised:

• In response to a question regarding the Planning Inspector’s view that a limited degree of floodlighting would be incongruous and that there was no evidence that the area was of particular significance for the environment or wildlife, the objectors advised that they were aware of bats in the area, and did not believe that a bat survey had been undertaken.
• The objector noted that there were other floodlit tennis courts in the local area, and that there was no need for more.
• Concern was raised regarding the predominance of football in the use of the site.
• The objector stated that the applicants had had three years in which to enact the conditions on the original permission and had not done any of the things required.

The applicant and the Headteacher of Heartlands High School, addressed the Committee in support of the application:

• Developing the site would lead to regeneration of the site and would be good for the community and local schools.
• The conditions proposed would all be met.
• When Heartlands High School had been opened, it was recommended that they should find suitable playing fields; this was a great opportunity to secure playing field provision for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Monday, 8 October 2012, 7pm.

Monday, 8 October 2012, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 10:10pm.