Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Solomon, for whom Cllr Erskine was substituting.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late reports in relation to the items shown on the agenda.

(Please note that under the Council’s Constitution – Part 4 Section B paragraph 17 – no other business shall be considered).

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.

Cllr Mallett declared a personal interest as a member of Holy Trinity Church, which was in the same parish as the GLS Depot site.

Cllr Beacham declared a personal interest as a member of the British Humanist Association.

For the Committee to consider and adopt as interim draft guidance for applicants in dealing with the submission of planning applications including basement development.

It was noted that this item, and all the applications relating to basement development, had been deferred from this agenda.

NOTED

Proposed development of 890sqm Community Centre (Use Class D1) and 64 residential units in a part 7/part 8 storey block on Block NE within Hale Village - a reserved matters application (including appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) in relation to outline consent no HGY/2010/1897 and discharge of Conditions 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 41 and 42 attached to the outline consent.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve reserved matters, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the planning application in respect of the former GLS Depot, Ferry Lane, Tottenham (‘Hale Village’). The report set out the proposal, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and analysis, human rights and equalities and additional details regarding the way in which it was proposed that the facility would operate in practice. The Committee was asked to note that paragraph 9.10 in the report was incorrect, and that the dwelling mix should in fact read:

No.          %

Studio                4          6%

1-bed               10        16%

2-bed               46        72%

3-bed                 3          5%    

4-bed                 1          2%

The recommendation of the report was that permission be granted, subject to conditions. A proposed additional condition in respect of hours of use was tabled at the meeting, along with a detailed plan of the ground floor of the proposed block, marked up to indicate proposed use. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the application, and responded to questions from the Committee.

The following points were raised in discussion of the officer report:

• It was confirmed that the agreed ground floor layout would form part of the approved plans, and that any substantial change in layout would require further planning approval. It was further reported that a management committee was proposed, who would monitor the use of the space.
• The nursery space was leased to a nursery operator for a minimum of 15 years, indicating the commitment to long term retention of the nursery function at the site.
• In response to a question regarding legal controls over the use of the space, were the Diocese of London to dispose of the premises, it was reported that there was a risk of the use of the space changing within the D1 use class. It was suggested that a condition could be added that permission would need to be sought for any proposed change in the layout in order to have a degree of control over use of the space, however concern were expressed that such a condition would have a negative impact on the flexibility of the centre.
• The Committee was provided with clarification of the Funding and Timing section of Appendix 4 of the report, which set out that under the s106 agreement Lee Valley Estates had provided the Council with £800k for off-site school provision, with £950k in construction costs for the shell of the building as a community space.
• It was confirmed that it would be a decision for the Council as to whether to accept the officer of having Council involvement in the management committee for the community centre.
• With regards to parking, it was confirmed that, in line with Council policy on sustainable transport and the high public transport accessibility rating of the site, the developer had been asked to look at reducing the number of spaces from the 850 maximum number originally granted under the outline planning permission. It was proposed that some private residential units would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

Erection of a two storey building comprising of a two-bedroom house

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for planning permission for erection of a two storey building comprising of a two-bedroom house at The Cornerways, Ellington Road, Muswell Hill N10. The report set out images and details of the site and surroundings, details of the application, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, human rights and equalities issues and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation on key aspects of the report, and advised of the following amendments to the conditions as set out in the report:

Condition 3: “….approved in writing and thereafter implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority”

Condition 7: “…no development otherwise permitted by any part of Class A, B, C, D, E & F of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of that Order shall be carried out on site.”

Condition 11: “… The approved plans should must be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall provide details on:….”

The Committee discussed the application, and the following points were raised during this discussion:

• Officers felt that the current application was more discreet than the previous, refused, application. As a consequence, it was not felt to compete with the character of the surrounding area.
• Concern was expressed that there did not appear to be a policy in respect of developments of this nature, however it was noted that this was a highly unusual garden site, and that it was necessary to assess every application on the basis of its merits. This site did not constitute a backland site, as it fronted onto two roads.
• Mr Dorfman acknowledged that the report was not explicit with regards to the policies relevant to this application, and this would be addressed in future reports. Supporting policies were in place within the UDP and would also be incorporated into the Local Development Framework; consideration would then be given as to whether there were any elements of these policies required strengthening.
• The Committee noted the Planning Inspector’s opinion that the previous scheme was not in keeping with the surrounding area.

A local resident who lived next door to the site addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and made the following points:

• The primary concern was the height of the building in relation to the window of the neighbouring property, as this was an important source of light to the house next door.
• The pictures shown in the officer’s presentation were out of date, as there was significantly less screening of the site now.
• If the height of the building were below the 6ft fence between the properties, this would be acceptable in terms of light levels, but if it were higher than the 6ft fence, as was indicated by the drawings, then the neighbours would strongly object.
• The neighbouring property had been designed as an end-site, and the residents had enjoyed light from the side-window for many years. Any proposal which would block this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

Monday, 9 July, 7pm.

Monday, 9 July 2012, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 9.30pm.