Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Carter for whom Cllr Newton substituted.

Cllr Bevan identified that he had submitted an objection in response to item 12, 814A and B High Road and as such would absent himself as a Committee member for that item in order to make a representation.

Cllr Newton identified in relation to item 5, Holly Bank Cottage that he was married to Cllr Engert who was objecting to the application as a local ward Councillor and as such would absent himself as a Committee member for that item.

Cllr Rice identified that a number of local residents had approached him at his ward surgery regarding item 7, Holly Bank Cottage but stated that he had not expressed any views that could be construed as pre-determination and therefore would not recuse himself for that item. In addition, item 10, Hampden Lane was located within his ward and as such he had made comments on a previous application for the site which had subsequently been withdrawn and therefore he would absent himself as a Committee member for that item in order to make a representation. 

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 14 July.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 July  be approved

Demolition of 32 garages and Holly Bank Cottage and construction of 6 x2 storey dwellings comprising 1 x4 bed and 5 x3 bed units, car parking and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Newton absented himself as a member of the Committee for the duration of discussions on this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing garages and Holly Bank Cottage on site and redevelopment to provide 6x 2 storey dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping. 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. A correction was outlined to point 5.5 within the Committee report in that drainage did constitute a material planning consideration but that officers considered the details provided by the applicant in this regard to be acceptable and noted that Thames Water had made no objection to the application. Three additional representations received since the publication of the agenda were also set out.

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

·         The access way to the site was narrow in nature and restricted to less than 3m wide at some points due to overhanging first floor bay windows to the adjacent block of flats and was therefore unsuitable for two way traffic and large delivery vans or refuse vehicles.  

·         Separation was not proposed between vehicles and pedestrians using the access way giving rise to safety concerns in particular for the residents of Holly Bank flats who utilised the route to access the side gate to their development. This route was the sole access pathway for one of the residents as a wheelchair user and was also used frequently used by parents with pushchairs.

·         The development would result in increased traffic using the access way and a change to the hours of use which would cause disturbance to the residents of Holly Bank flats.

·         It was proposed that the communal bin store for the new development be located adjacent to the Holly Bank flats which would further narrow the access way and cause a nuisance to residents due to the proximity to their windows. 

·         The access junction onto Muswell Hill was dangerous.

·         Parking pressures in the area would be exacerbated including from the loss of the existing garages.

·         The scheme would have a detrimental impact on mature trees on the site, with the design requiring a number to be felled and potentially damaging the roots of those located to the boundary.

·         The depth of the basement development works would extend below the water table and could cause future flooding problems.

·         Neighbouring properties on Etheldene Avenue would suffer from overlooking from the new houses.

·         Development of the site was not opposed but it was considered that this design sought to cram too many properties onto a constrained site. 

Members sought clarification from officers on a number of points:

·         A response was requested on the issues raised by the objectors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Demolition of side and rear extensions. Conversion of part ground, first and second floors into 4 flats and erection of 10 houses at the rear of the site with associated access road, parking spaces and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Newton returned to sitting on the Committee]

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of side and rear extensions, conversion of part ground, first and second floors into four flats and the erection of 10 houses at the rear of the site. 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. The Committee’s attention was drawn to a tabled addendum report setting out three additional conditions.

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

·         It was requested that determination of the application be deferred until a further site visit could be undertaken to the billiard (or pool) room in the listed building which had not been possible at the previous visit. It was considered that the room should not be demolished to permit access to the development as although located in one of the extensions, the room was part of the historic character of the building. English Heritage had indicated that they would revisit their assessment of the room given the opportunity for further access. The application failed to consider alternative access routes in order to preserve this room.  

·         The application was not comprehensive and constituted a cramped, opportunistic design that didn’t do justice to the site.

·         Access from the upper floor units directly onto the access road to the rear units would be dangerous for pedestrians.

·         The development would exacerbate congestion in the area by generating additional access points exiting onto Bruce Grove, a busy red route area.

·         There was agreement that the listed building required renovation but that the design proposed under the application was not good enough.

·         The noise assessment undertaken for the Conservative Club had been undertaken outside of the football season which was when the bulk of events were held and was therefore misleading.

·         No details of the representation from TfL had been included within the agenda pack.

Members sought clarification regarding the standing of the billiard room. The conservation officer confirmed that she had visited the room and was unaware of the assertion that English Heritage would revisit their representation should access be granted. It was considered that the ancilliary extension which contained the billiard room made limited contribution to the Listed Building and therefore demolition was considered acceptable.

Elucidation was sought on whether a representation had been received from TfL following conflicting detail within the report. The transport team identified that they did not have any concerns with the scheme following their assessment of the application and confirmed that no representation had been received from TfL. The access road complied with the Manual for Streets and would permit access by emergency vehicles.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Committee and raised the following points:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Listed Building Consent for the demolition of side and rear extensions. Conversion of part ground, first and second floors into 4 flats and erection of 10 houses at the rear of the site with associated access road, parking spaces and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions.

In line with the decision to defer the previous item seeking planning permission for the site, the Listed Building consent application was also deferred.

Extension to existing residential two storey flat development by adding a third storey to create 2 x2 bed flats with associated internal and external alterations and refurbishment to the front of the building.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

[Cllr Rice absented himself as a member of the Committee for the duration of discussions on this item]

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the extension of the existing residential two storey flat development by adding a third storey to create 2 x2 bed flats and refurbishment works to the front of the building. 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 Committee’s attention was drawn to a tabled addendum report setting out details of a schedule of proposed works submitted by the applicant and an additional condition.

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

·         There were already existing concerns regarding the structural stability of the building, with a number of flats in the block suffering from cracked ceilings, raising the risk that the new floor would worsen this issue.

·         The additional flats would result in increased vehicle movements causing access problems to the site and add to existing parking pressures in the area.

·         Arrangements had not been outlined for additional refuse storage for the new units or for the future of the communal aerial system.

·         The design proposed was ugly and would devalue existing flats.

·         The additional storey would block light to the building opposite.

·         The proposed new gate would be directly in front of flat 58.

Officers acknowledge that the issue relating to the refuse bins and storage needed to be resolved and as such was covered by condition. Any structural issues with the building during the construction works would fall within the remit of the Building Control department and would require resolution before works could be signed off. 

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

·         The scheme would provide additional residential units which were in demand.

·         Works would be undertaken to modernise the existing block through the installation of cladding to the front façade, new windows to the rear and new garden fencing and gating.

·         The new roof would be in line with other properties on the road.

·         Plans for the refuse area would be revisited in order to seek to house all the bins from the development.

·         A structural survey would be undertaken before works commenced.

·         Construction works would be limited to weekdays only.

Cllr Rice addressed the Committee as a local ward Councillor and raised the following points:

·         The windows to the additional flats would result in overlooking to the building opposite.

·         Parking pressures were already significant in the area and would be exacerbated by the additional units.

·         The block was in poor condition and required total redevelopment and not an additional floor.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether an additional condition could be imposed covering the refurbishment of the block. Officers advised that the additional condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Construction of 3 residential apartments on the roof of 35-39 The Broadway comprising 2 x2 bed flats and 1 x2 bed + study flat with amenity spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred.

Demolition of existing building and erection of 1 x3 storey building with A1 space on ground floor and 2 x2 bed 2 x1 bed flats on upper floors.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred.

Erection of 4 new dwellings to include 3x single storey with basement 2 bed terraced dwellings and 1x 2 storey 2 bed detached dwelling with provision of refuse/recycling store and cycle store.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 and s278 legal agreements.

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred.

Provision of a new smoking shelter building.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred.

To advise of decisions taken under delegated powers between 1 June and 31 August 2014.  

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred.

To advise of major proposals in the pipeline including those awaiting the issue of the decision notice following a committee resolution and subsequent signature of the section 106 agreement; applications submitted and awaiting determination; and proposals being discussed at the pre-application stage.

Due to time constraints, this item was deferred.

The next scheduled meeting is on 13 October.

A Special Planning Committee is scheduled for 30 September to consider the applications deferred from this meeting.