Agenda and minutes

The Chair identified that Bounds Green ward councillors, of which he was one, had submitted a consultation response to item 7: works to dangerous trees on Pinkham Way. Cllr Mallett would therefore take over the Chair for the duration of that item, with Cllr Demirci taking no part in determining the aforementioned application.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the special Planning Sub Committee held on 27 June and the Planning Committee on 8 July.

RESOLVED

·        That the minutes of the special Planning Committee on 27 June and the Planning Committee on 8 July be approved and signed by the Chair.

Provision of a GRP (glass reinforced plastic) control kiosk enclosure to protect pumping station control equipment, low level vent with carbon filter and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the land adjacent to 72 Langdon Park Road and the Public Triangle on Milton Park N6 for the provision of a glass reinforced plastic (GRP) control kiosk enclosure and low level carbon filter ventilation stack. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The specified external equipment was required in order to protect wider pumping station control equipment to be installed underground. A pumping station was needed in the area to improve drainage conditions and mitigate flooding caused by storm events to a number of properties in Langdon Park Road.

The officer advised the Committee of a proposed amendment to the wording of condition 10 relating to landscaping in recognition that the applicant had submitted a landscaping plan in advance of determination of the application as opposed to submitting to the Council for approval at a later date as stated in the original wording. 

The officer advised of an error in the committee report. The last two sentences of Paragraph 9.5.9 should read as follows: ‘Although the concentrations could be slightly higher closer to the vent than at the receptor 5m from the vent, it would still be unlikely to be detectable to the public. As such, it is highly unlikely that any malodorous odours could be detected in the vicinity of the low level vent stack from the adjoining properties or parking spaces.’

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points, supported by a supplementary document circulated with the permission of the Chair:

• The Committee’s attention was drawn to reported evidence of the failure level of pumping stations across the UK and details of the impact of subsequent ecological damage and nuisance caused to local people.
• The specified external equipment would be out of keeping with existing street furniture in the local Conservation Area, with the kiosk in particular a considerable size and significantly larger than standard electric or telecom kiosks.
• Concerns were raised over the risk of odour emissions from the short vent stack proposed.
• The siting of the equipment was out of line with DEFRA guidance, particularly the proximity to nearby properties.
• It was considered that the applicant had not given sufficient consideration to alternative, more permanent solutions to mitigate the flooding issues in the area, with the current solution appearing to constitute a temporary fix.

Officers clarified that the application solely covered installation of the GRP control kiosk enclosure and low level vent, with the underground pumping station equipment constructed under permitted development rights. Therefore the functionality of the wider pumping station equipment which was not subject to planning permission was outside of the scope of consideration for the application. 

A representative for the applicant, Thames Water, addressed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Works to dangerous trees on site boundary (Amended Description)

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

[Cllr Mallett in the Chair].

The Committee considered a report on the application to undertake works to dangerous trees on the site boundary of Pinkham Way N11. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report which was seeking permission to undertake work to trees and branches on the boundaries of the site determined as posing a public safety risk, including potential hazard to nearby sections of highway and the railway network. The proposed schedule of works incorporated a number of remedial measures including felling, pollarding and crown reduction to those trees considered to be in a dangerous condition. Assurances had been provided by the applicant that the works proposed were not intended to clear the site of trees and were not connected with any future redevelopment of the site.

Confirmation was provided by the Planning Officer that a condition requiring the applicant to undertake a bat inspection prior to any works being carried out was proposed.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee with regard to the application and raised the following points:

• Significant concerns were expressed on the negative impact the proposed works could have on bat habitats, with a majority of the trees on site classified as having high potential for bat roosting.  It was emphasised that bats and their habitats were highly protected, with stringent associated legislative provisions in place including requirements around the undertaking of bat surveys, which it appeared had yet to be undertaken for the site. A comprehensive survey would allow any bat roosts to be isolated and protected prior to any tree works being undertaken.
• Although the landowners statutory duties to landusers was acknowledged, it was considered that alternative means to secure the dangerous trees should have been explored. 

A representative for the applicant, the North London Waste Authority (NLWA), addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• The dangerous trees had been identified in a survey following an emergency felling of a number of trees in November 2012. The need was emphasised to carryout works as a matter of urgency to mitigate the risks to public safety and in recognition of the landowner’s duty of care to land users.

• Confirmation was provided that the deadwood from the tree works would remain on site.
• The NLWA was in dialogue with Transport for London regarding the logistical considerations in undertaking the works.
• The NLWA had a large, ongoing bat survey running on site. 

The Committee queried as to whether any alternative means of risk reduction had been considered for the trees in question such as physical containment measures. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer confirmed that a conservative approach had been taken, inline with best practice, in determining the schedule of works, with a focus on the immediate works necessary and predominantly based on pruning. Felling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Formation of rear dormers, and partial demolition and rebuilding of two storey rear extensions to both properties with rooflights, terrace and garden wall (amended).

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions

[Cllr Demirci back in the Chair. Cllr McNamara was absent from the meeting for the remainder of proceedings]

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for 37-39 Stanhope Gardens N6 for the partial demolition and rebuilding of two storey rear extensions and the formation of rear dormers. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was identified that the applicant had submitted an indicative landscaping plan for the site.

The Planning Officer set out that new plans had been submitted clarifying the dimensions of the proposal and the relationship to surrounding properties.

The Committee raised the following issues in discussion of the application:

• In response to a question, officers confirmed that construction work had started on site without planning permission and as such had been subject to planning enforcement action.
• Members questioned the impact of the application on the character of the local Conservation Area. On balance, officers considered that the works would enhance the area by virtue of improving the condition of the properties, with the majority of changes concentrated to the rear elevations, leaving the existing front façade relatively unchanged.
• Officers confirmed that the applicant had the ability to extend the properties within certain parameters without requiring permission from the Council under permitted development rights.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• Improvements to the condition of both properties were welcomed but it was felt that those proposed did not complement and indeed were out of keeping with the character of the local Conservation Area.
• The proposed first floor balconies would result in a potential loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
• The scale of the ground floor extension was of concern, being out of proportion to neighbouring boundaries and not set in, thereby risking causing overshadowing to neighbouring properties.
• The solid wall proposed between the properties was bulky and would reduce light to neighbouring properties.

Cllr Weber addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• The bulk and scale of the works proposed was of concern, with potential impact on neighbouring properties in relation to noise, drainage issues, loss of light and privacy
• The design was not sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area.

The applicant’s representative addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• The works proposed would secure the restoration of both properties and rear gardens from their current neglected state thereby benefiting the local area
• Considerable amendments had been made to the design in light of comments from the Council and local residents in response to a previous application submitted which had subsequently been withdrawn.
• Any trees removed from the rear gardens would be replaced, with a final landscaping plan to be submitted for Council approval.
• The site was located on a bend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The next meeting is scheduled for 14 October.

The next scheduled meeting will be on 14 October.