Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Beacham, for whom Cllr Erskine was substituting, and from Cllr Solomon, for whom Cllr Newton 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 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

Cllr Schmitz declared a personal interest as he had discussed matters on the agenda in general terms with Cllr Allison, but had not discussed the merits or otherwise of any particular application.

Cllr Demirci declared a personal interest as one of the applicants had spoken to him during the site visit, but they had not discussed any aspect of the application.

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.

Paul Smith, Head of Development Management, presented the report on the interim draft guidance for applicants in dealing with the submission of planning applications including basement development. Mr Smith advised the Committee that paragraph 1 of the report should be amended to read “For Planning Sub-Committee to consider and note…”. Mr Smith advised that the list of appendices on page 7 of the agenda pack should be amended to include appendix 9 “CPG4 Basements and Lightwells” and appendix 10 “Barnet – Design Guidance No.5”. Mr Smith advised that the report had been amended in respect of the mandatory conditions, such that the Hydrological and Hydro-Geological Condition as set out at paragraph 20, on page 27 of the agenda pack, would apply to applications of Type 2, as well as Types 3 and 4. Mr Smith advised that in relation to cumulative development, on page 29, the definition should read “where two or more basements adjacent to one another, or in close proximity, are proposed or already exist (including a nearby neighbouring street if the construction is close to a corner junction where more than one site in any one street is under construction at any one point in time)”.

The committee asked whether there was any difference in the guidance relating to Basement Impact Assessment (BIA) between Haringey and Camden, when the special condition in relation to monitoring by engineer would be applied, and whether there was any guidance on whether a local authority could be sued in the event that someone’s land was damaged as a result of permission being granted for a neighbouring basement development. Allan Ledden, Legal Officer, advised that the relevant case was that of Murphy v Brentwood District Council 1991, where the House of Lords determined that there was no liability on the grounds that the loss caused was pure economic loss. Mr Ledden advised that the circumstances posited by the Committee were very similar, and that any such claim would be unlikely to succeed on the same basis. There was a range of other legislation in place to protect homeowners. Officers advised that the Haringey guidance was largely based on the Camden guidance, but that Haringey guidance did differ from Camden in respect of the information required at validation stage, as the Haringey guidance only proposed that a BIA was required at this stage for type 4 applications. This was on the risk-based assessment that all attached conditions needed to be satisfied before a development could proceed, and that requiring further information from applicants at an early stage for other types of application would be an additional financial burden on the applicants. Monitoring by Engineer was a condition which could be added where the Committee felt that this was required, and it was noted that this condition had been applied in respect of the Channing School application.

In response to a further question from the Committee, it was confirmed that hydrological and hydro-geological surveys would be based on trial holes on site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

Variation of condition 2 (plans and specifications) attached to planning permission HGY/2009/1122, to substitute existing drawings scheduled in the decision notice with revised drawings.

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

The Committee agreed to vary the order of the agenda to take the application for 700-702 High Road next.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for variation of condition 2 (plans and specifications) attached to planning permission HGY/2009/1122, to substitute existing drawings scheduled in the decision notice with revised drawings. The report set out details of the site and its surroundings, the proposal, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, human rights and equalities issues, and recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions and a variation to the current s106 Agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and advised that the architect had indicated that they would be amenable to using brickwork across the frontage, and taking references for detail from number 704 High Road. The wording of condition 17 reflected this.

The Committee asked about the Section 73 application, and it was reported that such an application could be made in respect of any planning permission and was a legitimate way of addressing issues. The Committee asked about the size of the windows on the Bromley Road frontage, and it was agreed that under condition 17 the local authority could look to maximise the window size. It was confirmed that waste storage would be at the rear of the property.

Mr Dorfman suggested that condition 15 be amended to make it clear that retail floorspace permission was for A1 use, and that in any case the premises was not to be used for a loan service or betting shop. Mr Dorfman suggested that an informative be added requesting that the applicant engage with the Council as to whether the ground floor units were proposed for retail, business or residential use.

In respect of conditions 3 and 4, it was suggested that Committee Members be invited to get involved in the process for approving the proposed materials.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report, including the proposed amendment to condition 15 in respect of approved uses and the additional informative, and it was:

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2012/0996 subject to a pre-condition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into a deed of variation to the current s106 Agreement (attached to planning ref: HGY/2009/1122) and following completion planning permission be granted in accordance with drawing No’s 1704/C/002, 100B, 101B, 103B, 110B, 120B, 121A, 130B, 151A, 152A, 153, 161A, 162A, 171A, 172A, 181A, 182A, 451A and 452A and subject to the following conditions, with the wording of condition 15 amended in respect of approved uses and an additional informative requesting that the applicant engage with the Council as to whether the ground floor units were proposed for retail, business or residential use:

IMPLEMENTATION

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.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

Demolition of existing house and erection of a 2 storey, 5 bedroom house with rooms at basement level and in the roofspace.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered reports, previously circulated, on the Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications relating to 6A Grange Road, N6. The reports set out details of the proposal, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis and assessment, human rights and equalities issues, and recommended that the applications for planning permission and Conservation Area Consent be granted, subject to conditions. The planning officer gave a presentation on key aspects of the report, and responded to questions from the Committee.

The Committee asked whether the proposed basement for the previous scheme, which went to appeal on the grounds of non-determination, had been of a similar size to the one currently proposed, and whether the Planning Inspector had made any comment regarding the basement element of the application. Mr Smith advised that the previous application had a basement of a similar size to the current proposal; the fact that the Inspector had not raised any issues in respect of the previous basement suggested that this had been considered acceptable. Mr Smith further confirmed that the Inspector had had information with regards to other basements constructed in the area and the issues raised by Professor Wright earlier in the meeting. The Committee asked whether it would be possible to mitigate against any issues that might be revealed by a hydrological survey, in response to which Mr Smith advised that measures could be taken as long as the issues were known and that this was why a hydrological and hydro-geological survey condition was proposed. It was unlikely that the outcome of a survey would mean that construction of a basement would not be possible.

The Committee asked further about whether it was possible for hydrological surveys to look at neighbouring properties to ensure all relevant issues were identified, and whether the authors of such surveys made firm recommendations or conclusions on the basis of their findings, or whether they presented the evidence and final conclusions were made by planning officers. Mr Smith reported that such surveys did take into account the impact of cumulative development in an area, and that any conclusions were made by the professional who was qualified in relation to basement issues, and not planning officers. If the Council were to have concerns regarding a surveyor’s professional qualifications then it would be open to them to challenge their findings with an independent survey of its own, but this would be in extraordinary circumstances only. Mr Dorfman suggested that in order to address any concerns, an informative could be added highlighting those concerns, an additional condition could be imposed requiring construction to be monitored and a further condition could be imposed in respect of cumulative effects, with suggested wording along the lines of “No work shall be carried out on the site until a detailed report examining the cumulative impact of all basements granted planning permission, built and not built, and all permitted development basements built, with regard to ground water flow, land stability, surface water flooding in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

Demolition of existing house and erection of a 2 storey, 5 bedroom house with rooms at basement level and in the roofspace.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conservation Area Consent, subject to conditions.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report and on a vote it was:

RESOLVED

That Conservation Area Consent application HGY/2011/2237 be granted, subject to conditions:

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 limited 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'.

Section 106: No

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

As no objectors had attended to speak on the following items, the Committee agreed to delegate the following applications to officers:

Bracken Knoll

31 Sheldon Avenue

17 Denewood Road

26 Lordship Lane

In response to concerns regarding delegating these items, Mr Smith advised that the items on Bracken Knoll, 31 Sheldon Avenue and 17 Denewood Road would have usually been dealt with under delegated powers but had been brought to Committee as the planning issues involved related to those covered under the interim guidance note relating to basement developments. In line with the now agreed interim guidance, all the appropriate conditions would be applied as necessary to these applications and in fact for several of the sites technical information such as survey data had already been submitted. The Committee noted that it would not be good practice to make a habit of running out of time at meetings and delegating the remaining items, and that this should be avoided in future. The Committee requested that the discretionary condition in respect of construction monitoring should be applied to any such basement application delegated to officers, and it was agreed that this would be implemented.

With regard to the application in respect of Ridgefield, Courtenay Avenue, it was reported that this application had gone to appeal for non-determination. The Committee considered the application and indicated that, had the application come before them for determination prior to the appeal being lodged, they would have been minded to grant permission, in line with officers’ recommendations.

The remaining applications in respect of 54 Sheldon Avenue and 12 Denewood Road would be brought back for consideration by the Committee.

Monday, 10 September 2012, 7pm.

Monday, 10 September 2012, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 23:25hrs.