Agenda and minutes

Cllr Mallett identified that she was a member of the Haringey Cycling Campaign who had submitted a consultation response on item 5, Protheroe House. She also identified that she wished to make an objection as a local ward Councillor to item 6, rear of 199-207 Downhills Way and as such would take no part in deliberations or decision making for this item. 

Cllr Reid identified that he wished to object to item 7, The Nightingale, as a local resident and as such would take no part in deliberations or decision making on this item.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a new 4 storey building housing 50 extra care residential units (Use Class C3) comprising a mix of 36 no.1 bed and 14 no.2 bed units with ancillary facilities for use by residents including dining area with catering kitchen, wellbeing centre, communal rooms and facilities, staff areas, storage, energy centre, disabled parking, cycle/buggy parking and associated landscaping including public space, communal gardens and roof terraces.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking (UU)

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide a new four storey building housing 50 extra care residential units with ancillary facilities for use by residents including dinning area, wellbeing centre, communal rooms and public space, communal gardens and roof terrace. 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 and the completion of a legal agreement in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was updated that condition 12 covering the travel plan would be amended to include reference to the provision of a resident’s welcome induction pack detailing walking/cycling information as approved by the Council’s Transport Team and that all residents of the scheme must be offered free membership to a local car club for at least the first two years of occupation with evidence provided to the Transport Team. An additional pre-commencement condition would also be added to require the details of a Construction Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan and storage locations and electrical charging points for electric scooters to be submitted.

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

·         Plans for the naming of the scheme were queried. The applicant indicated the intention to retain the name Prothero House. The Committee requested however that an informative be added to encourage the applicant to consult local ward Councillors regarding the naming of the scheme.

·         Clarification was sought on whether the scheme would incorporate guest rooms for use by visitors. Confirmation was provided that a guest suite would be provided to the second floor. 

·         In response to a query as to why restrictions on the hours of construction had been attached to the permission as an informative instead of a condition, officers confirmed that this was best practice as enforcement was covered under a separate legislative regime.

Cllr Peacock addressed the Committee in support of the scheme and made the following points:

·         The design of the scheme appeared to be excellent and an improvement on the current buildings which were no longer fit for purpose.

·         A request that the name of the scheme be retained for historical purposes.

·         With regards to the communal gardens, it was requested that the applicant protect and retain where possible apple trees and roses planted in memory of previous residents and to encourage future residents to take part in the Gardens in Bloom scheme covering the communal gardens.

Members requested an amendment to condition 3 to require the submission for approval of samples of the type and shade of zinc cladding, window frames and balcony glass and frames to be used for the scheme.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report including the amendment to conditions and additional informative listed above and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Demolition of six sheds / garages and construction of 6 semi-detached dwelling houses comprising 4 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed houses.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to sec. 106 Legal Agreement

[Cllr Mallett did not sit as a member of the Committee for the duration of this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of six sheds/garages and construction of 6 terraced dwelling houses comprising 4 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 beds. 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 and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

In response to questions from the Committee, officers confirmed that one of the houses would be required to be wheelchair accessible and that the applicant owned the footpath/alleyway leading from Penniston Close which transected the application site.

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

·        The new properties would cause overlooking to the houses directly opposite on Penniston Close and adjacent properties on Downhills Way and negatively impact on privacy.

·        The scheme would result in overshadowing to the gardens and rear windows of adjacent houses on Downhills Way.

·        Local residents would be subject to nuisance from construction works including noise and odour.

·        The parking provision proposed was insufficient and would have a knock on effect on parking pressure in the local area.

·        The application was contrary to new approaches to prevent ‘garden grabbing’ and would set a precedent in the area.

·        The application did not include important details such as refuse and surface water management.

·        It was asserted that residents of Downhills Way had right of access to the alleyway on site inline with their deeds and was used regularly by local residents.

·        The plans did not accurately illustrate the close proximity of the new properties to existing houses on Penniston Close.

·        The applicant had allowed the garages currently on the site to deteriorate and become dilapidated to justify the planning application.

·        The scheme would constitute overdevelopment of the area for financial gain by exploiting the large gardens to Downhills Way houses.

·        The development would result in an increase in traffic in the area and exacerbate existing parking issues.

·        A pavement was not proposed to the front of the new properties necessitating access directly off the road which would be dangerous for family accommodation.

Cllrs Griffith and Mallett addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application on the following grounds:

·        The development would change the nature of the area of houses that enjoyed large gardens and would set a precedent for their development.

·        The scheme would increase parking pressures in the area which were already exacerbated by parking restrictions and proximity to a nearby CPZ.

·        The new properties would result in overlooking and overshadowing to houses opposite, especially due to the narrow width of Penniston Close.

·        Local people would be impacted by the loss of access to the alleyway.

·        The proposed scheme didn’t meet dwelling mix or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Variation of condition 2 (plans) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/1258 to increase the number of units from 7 to 9.

RECOMMENDATION: grant variation subject to conditions and s106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Reid did not sit as a member of the Committee for the duration of this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant a variation of condition 2 (plans) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/1258 to increase the number of units from 7 to 9. 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 the variation subject to conditions and a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. Confirmation was provided that the increase in units would be achieved through a minor extension to the roof of the public house as well as reconfiguring and optimising the layout of the flats. The Committee were advised of an error within the report setting out the dwelling mix of the consented scheme with 2x two bedroom units and not 1 as listed.

An objector addressed the Committee to raise the following points:

·        The density of the development would be too high with the inclusion of the additional units.

·        The new unit proposed on the top storey would result in overlooking to the houses opposite with windows now to habitable rooms.

·        The application would exacerbate existing problems with traffic in the area due to the two schools in the vicinity and the pub as well as displacement parking from the Crouch End CPZ resulting in parking and traffic pressures.

Officers from the transport team advised that the development did not meet the criteria for car free designation as it was not located in a CPZ and had a low Public Transport Accessibility rating.

Cllr Reid addressed the Committee as a local resident and raised the following points:

·        Traffic was a particular problem in Nightingale Lane and would be exacerbated as a result of this development plus other schemes approved in the area such as Cleopatra House and Pembroke Works.

·        Overlooking would be caused from the pub to houses opposite.

The applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        Planning permission had already been granted for the substantive scheme.

·        The variation sought a minor 300mm reconfiguration to the roof to incorporate an extra residential unit.

·        No evidence had been proffered regarding the alleged traffic problems in the area.

·        The applicant would be willing to consider the use of obscure glass to the top floor windows to mitigate overlooking concerns.

Members expressed concern that the determination of the consented scheme by Planning Committee in 2008 had rejected the provision of 9 units, with final approval granted for 7 units and that the variation now sought would undermine this decision. Officers advised that new housing targets had been introduced since 2008, including seeking to optimise schemes and therefore it was the officer view that there would not be a material additional impact on the scheme from the additional units sought.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Minor variation of the affordable housing obligation between Sanctuary Housing Association and the Council attached to Planning Permission HGY/2010/1428.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant variation to s106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant a minor variation to the affordable housing obligation for Sanctuary Housing Association attached to planning permission HGY/2010/1428. 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 to the variation subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was advised that the applicant was seeking permission under new appeal procedures in the Town and Country Planning Act to amend the tenure mix secured under the s106 agreement from 13 social rent to 3 intermediate tenure/shared ownership and 10 affordable rent units. This was on the grounds of viability due to changes in the national affordable housing regime, a reduction in grant funding and an increase in the final build costs.  

The Committee expressed disappointment that the applicant was seeking the variation at such a late stage in proceedings, particularly as it had been advised that the units were being advertised for occupation to prospective residents. That the applicant had elected not to attend the meeting to answer any questions from the Committee was also of concern to Members and it was asked that officers conveyed to Sanctuary Housing that this was unacceptable. It was advised that the Environment and Housing Scrutiny Panel would be looking at the Council’s relationship with housing providers as part of next years work programme and as such this issue could be referred there.  

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·        That permission HGY/2014/0574 be granted for the variation to application HGY/2010/1428 subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The next scheduled Planning Committee will be on 7 April. 

The last meeting of the municipal year was scheduled for 7 April.