Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

RESOLVED

·         That the Chair’s announcement regarding the filming of the meeting for live or subsequent broadcast be noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Carroll and apologies for lateness from Cllrs Doron and Mallett.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 5 March, 10 March, 16 March and 25 March.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Special Planning Committees held on 5 and 25 March and the Planning Committees on 10 and 16 March be approved.

[19.10 - Cllr Mallett arrived and joined the Committee]

It was advised that item 9, Thames Water land off Woodside Avenue had been withdrawn from the agenda following an error with the notification letters sent to objectors. The application would be deferred to the 6 July meeting and which would also allow for continuing negotiation with the applicant.

Construction of single storey temporary cafe / restaurant on a vacant site accessed from The Broadway via Rose Place, formed from four recycled shipping containers, including parking for two cars, bicycle storage and refuse and recycling storage.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the construction of single storey temporary café/restaurant on a vacant site accessed from the Broadway formed from four recycled shipping containers. 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. Temporary planning permission was being sought for a 1 year period.

[19.12 – Cllr Doron arrived and by virtue of missing the officer introduction to the report, took no part in the determination of the application].

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

• The application would cause harm to the Conservation Area and Listed Building setting and that the Council’s Conservation Officer’s concurring view in this regard had been misrepresented within the report.
• The scope of the noise impact assessment undertaken had not included noise emanating from patrons of the café, the aspect of primary concern for neighbouring properties. It was considered that the Council had taken a cavalier approach to the risk of potential noise nuisance from an uninsulated building located in a residential area and which was contrary to the NPPF.
• The noise mitigation steps proposed were insufficient.
• The Council, as the freeholder of the site, had a vested interest in approving the application despite the concerns expressed by local residents.
• The Committee could not make an informed decision on the application without the provision of appropriate noise assessments and the subsequent consideration of appropriate mitigation. As such, the application should be refused or deferred.
• Crouch End was already well served with restaurants and cafes and the application would not enhance the Conservation Area.

Cllr Arthur addressed the Committee on behalf of the local Crouch End ward councillors. He identified that although the applicant had sought to engage with local residents and councillors and had good intentions for the business, the proximity of the site to properties on Weston Park and the insufficient mitigation measures proposed covering noise and litter meant that the application should be refused.  

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

·         The venture would support local businesses used as suppliers, and provide employment and a service to the local community.

·         Despite the application being supported by the Planning Service, the applicant proposed a number of additional conditions be imposed to provide further assurance to local residents; no ancillary takeaway service provided, restricting the maximum number of covers to 38 inside and 12 outside, closure of the outside area from 7pm and requiring details of noise insulation works to be approved by the Council under condition. 

·         The orientation of the building in reference to neighbouring properties would mitigate any noise issues. Reports had shown that the structure would not cause overshadowing.

·         Emphasis was made of the non-permanent nature of the permission sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Change of use of land to horticultural use related to an existing educational establishment. Construction of 12 planting beds, 1 shed and two polytunnels which will be capable of being moved around the site. Erection of a 1.8m fence with access from the existing footpath and management of trees located on the site including those subject to Tree Preservation Orders. (AMENDED PLANS).

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

This application was deferred to the 6 July meeting.

Installation of gas fired condensing boilers complete with new stainless steel flue and screening (Planning Application)

Listed Building consent for installation of gas fired condensing boilers complete with new stainless steel flue and screening (Listed Building Application).

RECOMMENDATION: grant planning permission subject to condition and grant Listed Building consent subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission and Listed Building consent for the installation of gas fired condensing boilers complete with new stainless steel flue and screening. 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 planning and Listed Building permissions subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report which was being determined by Committee as a Council application.

In response to a question, officers confirmed that the vertical element of the flue would be shielded behind a decorative quoin detail and the horizontal element physically screened from view.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

• That planning application HGY/2015/0734 be approved subject to conditions:

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.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2.    The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans (Drawing’s 2001 & 2002) as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority with the colouration of the external flue to be in a terracotta colour coating to match the existing brickwork.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and to safeguard the architectural character and appearance of this Listed Building.

·         That Listed Building consent HGY/2015/0735 be approved subject to conditions

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.

Reason: Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.    The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans (Drawing’s 2001 & 2002) as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority with the colouration of the external flue to be in a terracotta colour coating to match the existing brickwork.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and to safeguard the architectural character and appearance of this Listed Building.

Items ##### are pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals.

Notwithstanding that this is a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decisions will be taken on these items and any subsequent applications will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

The provisions of the Localism Act 2011 specifically provide that a councillor should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicated what view they might take in relation to any particular matter. Pre-application briefings provide the opportunity for Members to raise queries and identify any concerns about proposals.

The Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol 2014 continue to apply for pre-application meeting proposals even though Members will not be exercising the statutory function of determining an application. Members should nevertheless ensure that they are not seen to pre-determine or close their mind to any such proposal otherwise they will be precluded from participating in determining the application or leave any decision in which they have subsequently participated open to challenge.

The following items were considered as pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub-Committee in order to allow the discussion of proposals related thereto.

Notwithstanding that this was a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decisions on the following items were taken at the meeting, and any subsequent applications will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

The proposal had been presented to the Quality Review Panel in May to broad support, subject to further architectural refinement. Concerns had been raised regarding the density of the scheme and whether this could be mitigated to a degree through the provision of additional workspace.

·         The applicant’s early intentions in relation to affordable housing provision were questioned within the context of the Council’s 50% target. The applicant advised that consultants had been engaged to undertake a viability assessment but that initial proposals were for a tenure blind development with affordable units provided onsite, potentially layered at first floor level.

·         In response to concerns regarding the loss of the current employment space onsite, it was advised that the space was of low quality and hence suffered from low occupancy rates. 

·         The demand for additional A1 units on Archway Road was questioned. The applicant advised that discussions were progressing with a number of interested businesses in the retail/leisure sector.

·         Clarification was given on the intention to provide 7 parking spaces onsite allocated to the larger residential units and wheelchair accessible unit, with the remainder of the site designated car free.

·         The Committee requested that consideration be given to design features to make the front fascia less prominent and the use of the space in front of the bay windows as an accessible green roof space.

·         Confirmation was provided that the amenity space provided would exceed the minimum standards required.

·         A request from the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum for the retention of the workshop space currently provided onsite was passed onto the applicant.

·         The applicant provided assurance that external metal roller shutters would not be used to the ground floor commercial units.

·         The Committee queried the future management of deliveries to the proposed commercial units. The applicant advised that a management plan was currently being developed, with likely continuation of current loading arrangements off Causton Road, with accompanying restrictions on hours of use. 

It was anticipated that the full application would come before Committee for determination in September following the completion of further consultation including the hosting of a local exhibition.

The proposal had been presented to the Quality Review Panel in May to broad support subject to the provision of further architectural details and plans for the relocation of the access road.

·         The applicant’s early intentions in relation to affordable housing provision were questions within the context of the Council’s 50% target. The applicant advised that the viability assessment was at early stage and would need to factor in the cost of providing a new central access road to the site but that hopefully affordable housing and affordable rent workspace would be provided onsite.

·         Some concern was raised over the scheme design including its height within the context of largely two storey surrounding properties and the view that some of the architectural design features were akin to those of a multi-storey car park.

·         Confirmation was provided by the applicant that screening would be used to mitigate any overlooking caused by the differing ground levels between the proposed communal garden and adjacent Lido Square properties. 

·         The applicant outlined that the intention behind the new access road was to improve the streetscene and enhance the potential for extending redevelopment to the rear of the site which was currently occupied by a Council depot.

The Committee recommended to the applicant that invites to the planned onsite open day be extended to local ward councillors. A new Development Management Forum would also be scheduled for the application. It was anticipated that the application would come before the Committee for determination in October.

·         Clarification was sought on the low number of units proposed relative to the size of the site and whether this was a conscious decision linked to affordable housing obligations. The applicant outlined that the reason for this was the inherent constraints of the site including the number of Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) in place and its backland nature.

·         In response to concerns regarding the impact of construction on the TPO trees on site, it was confirmed that a full tree survey would be undertaken to establish full root protection zones to secure the retention of all trees subject to TPOs.

It was anticipated that the application would come before the Committee for determination in September.

The Committee requested that details of the new revamped Quality Review Panel be circulated to members now the new structure was in place.

It was also requested that going forward, pre-application briefings be presented to Development Management Forums prior to coming before the Committee as a briefing.  

To advise of decisions taken under delegated powers between 1 March and 30 April 2015.

The Committee considered an update report on applications determined under delegated powers between 1 March and 30 April 2015.

92 Tenterton Road

Cllr Bevan provided an update that although planning application had been granted, Homes for Haringey as the freeholder would not be permitting the works to go ahead.

26 Lordship Lane

Permission had been refused for security gates and satellite dish installation and a request for enforcement action would be made.

270-274 West Green Road

Clarification was sought on the reasons behind the refusal of an approval of details application for condition 7 for the granted planning permission. Officers agreed to forward details of the reasons for refusal to Cllr Mallett. It reflected the new non-negotiation approach to the discharge of planning conditions adopted by the Council due to new government rules on the automatic default approval of discharge of conditions if not determined within 8 weeks. It was also updated that there was a parallel application at appeal for this scheme as well as an outstanding application covering changes to the approved scheme.

232 Archway Road

The flue installed to the rear been raised as an issue of variation from approved plans. Officers agreed to provide feedback on this case to Cllr Carter.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

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.

The Committee considered an update on major planning proposals in the pipeline.

Hale Village

Clarification was sought on the implications of the removal of the hotel from the tower and the status of the 5^th pavilion block. Officers advised that approval of this application to vary the permission would render the block solely residential and that 6 pavilion blocks had been consented although a number of discharge of conditions were outstanding covering blocks 5 and 6.

St Ann’s Hospital

Clarification was sought on progress with the sign off of the s106 agreement. Officers advised that there had been some delays from the applicants side during the drafting and negotiation of the agreement and also by the need to achieve sign off from the BEH Mental Health Trust board at their next meeting in mid June.

Special Planning Committee 22 June.

Special Planning Committee on 22 June to determine a Spurs basement application and St Ann’s police station redevelopment.