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 were received from Cllr Ryan for whom Cllr Rice substituted.

Cllr Bevan identified that he had previously made comments regarding the Devonshire Hill Lane scheme but having sought legal advice, affirmed that he had not formed a pre-determined view on the application and did not have a closed mind in determining the application.

Cllr Mallett identified in relation to the Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School item that she was a Holy Trinity Church congregation member.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 7 September.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 7 September be approved.

The Committee received a report providing details of a Local Government Ombudsman’s report into a complaint made by a local resident regarding a planning application report that went before Committee for determination in October 2014. The Ombudsman’s investigation report identified that the Council was not at fault in respect of 4 of the points raised by the complainant but was at fault for not identifying to the Committee that the application in question was contrary to the Local Development Plan, despite the officer view that there were reasons to make an exception based on the scheme design. 

The Head of Development Management outlined the officer response to the Ombudsman’s findings including extending an apology to the Committee for the error identified by the investigation. An apology would also be made to the complainant. It was advised that officers would be reviewing the way in which future Planning Committee reports reflected the London Plan density matrix and would take forward any other lessons learnt.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

Demolition of existing 5 terrace dwelling houses and their replacement with 6 terrace dwelling houses including associated landscaping and parking.

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

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of 5 existing terrace dwelling houses and their replacement with 6 terrace dwelling houses including associated landscaping and parking. 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 number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The design was overbearing, unsympathetic to the surrounding area and would result in overlooking to neighbouring properties due to its aspect and proximity.

·         A high number of objections had been made by local residents to the scheme.

·         A reduction was sought to the proposed height of the scheme to bring it inline with existing properties in the area.

·         The proposed metal roof was out of keeping with the surrounding area.

·         The scheme exceeded Local Plan density guidelines and as such would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity including increased footfall and loss of open space.

·         The scheme constituted overdevelopment through site cramming.

·         The change of building orientation would impact negatively on neighbouring properties to the east, exacerbated by the slope of the site.

·         Consideration should be given to planting trees as a boundary treatment instead of fences.

Cllrs Engert and M Blake addressed the Committee as local ward councillors and raised the following points:

·         The scheme exceeded London Plan density matrix guidelines.

·         Concerns were raised over the cumulative impact of development schemes coming forward in the immediate area on the amenity of local residents.

·         Assessments made by the planning officer regarding density were subjective and the opposing views of local residents should be given equal consideration.

·         Objections were outlined to the height, bulk and size of the scheme and loss of green space and trees in the vicinity. 

·         Local people making objections were generally not against development of the site per se but had concern over the current design on the basis of size, its intrusive nature and the major excavation works required.

·         The impact on parking pressure in the area didn’t take into account additional demand from the redevelopment of a nearby flat scheme.

The legal officer emphasised to the Committee that advice provided by professional planning officers was objective in nature and not subjective as incorrectly claimed, and as such should not be called into question.  

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Plans for the scheme had been through a number of consultation events with local people as well as the Quality Review Panel (QRP), with subsequent amendments made to the design as a result.

·         The density of the scheme was London Plan compliant based on the number of units per hectare calculation, which at 42 units per hectare was within the 35-55 London Plan guidelines.

·         The design was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Part demolition and part retention and extension of existing buildings and change of use from former residential institution use (Class C2) to residential (Class C3), comprising 3 x 4-bedroom 3-storey (plus basement) houses. Construction of 6 new maisonettes comprising 3 x 3-bedroom 2-storey (plus basement) apartments and 3 x 2-bedroom 2-storey apartments. Erection of 1 replacement dwelling comprising 4 bedrooms in a 2-storey (plus basement) house.  Provision of associated car parking, open space and landscaping and tree work.

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

[Cllr Basu was absent from the room for the start of the officer presentation on this item and as such did not take any part in determining the item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the part demolition and part retention and extension of existing buildings and change of use from former residential institution use (Class C2) to residential (Class C3), comprising 3 x 4-bedroom 3-storey (plus basement) houses. Construction of 6 new maisonettes comprising 3 x 3-bedroom 2-storey (plus basement) apartments and 3 x 2-bedroom 2-storey apartments. Erection of 1 replacement dwelling comprising 4 bedrooms in a 2-storey (plus basement) house. 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 raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         Clarification was sought on why a higher level of affordable housing contribution was not being sought for a scheme exceeding ten units. Officers advised that the contribution was policy compliant as the overall uplift was 9 units due to the retention of some of the existing building and therefore constituted a small scheme. 

·         Concerns were raised over the divergence of views over viability expressed by the applicant and the Council’s independent assessor. Officers advised that this was not uncommon and in this case arose from differences in opinion over future sales values due to an absence of comparable properties. The compromise reached was inclusion of a review mechanism within the s106 should the development not commence within 18 months.

·         In response to a question, the applicant’s representative confirmed that the scheme design took into account the retention of the mature tree onsite inline with the tree survey undertaken.

Cllr Bevan put forward a motion to reject the scheme based on the s106 affordable housing contribution which did not support the view of the Council’s independent consultant appointed to assess the viability assessment that the scheme could support the full 20% affordable housing contribution due under Council policy. Cllr Carroll seconded this motion.

In response, the legal officer advised that the Council’s independent consultant had agreed, despite the divergence in views over viability, that the final officer recommendation for the revised £180k affordable housing contribution subject to imposition of the review mechanism to the s106 agreement, was an appropriate compromise. In light of this, Cllr Bevan revised his motion to propose approval of the application subject to a s106 agreement affordable housing contribution of £355,750 inline with Council policy and in consideration of high sales valuations in the area. Cllr Carroll seconded the revised motion. At a vote, the motion fell. 

The applicant’s representative emphasised to the Committee their experience in residential sales in the local Fortis Green Conservation Area and the high demand for new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Change of use from B1 office use to C1 hotel use, including external refurbishment works and extension into the car park on the second, third and fourth floors.

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

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the change of use from B1 office use to C1 hotel use, including external refurbishment works and extension into the car park on the second, third and fourth floors. 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 raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         Clarification was requested on outstanding issues relating to drainage. Officers advised that discussions were ongoing with the applicant to seek a resolution and which would be secured under condition.

·         Officers outlined the basis of the calculation used to generate the proposed contribution towards education and training in lieu of the loss of employment floorspace. The Committee raised concern over the justification for the loss of employment land. The applicant advised that robust marketing of the space had been undertaken over eighteen months to no success, with the building largely vacant since 2011. It was considered that the hotel would be a positive addition to the local economy and aspirations for Wood Green town centre. 

·         Concerns were raised over the practicalities of providing cycle parking spaces on level 2 of the car park. The applicant outlined the difficulties in locating them at ground floor due to the constraints of working with an existing building with a tight curtiledge. The site chosen was the most appropriate with regards to security although it was recognised it was not optimal.

·         In response to a question regarding the nil Haringey CIL charge due, it was confirmed this was inline with policy for a non residential and non retail operation.

·         The potential for overlooking to the adjacent residential block was questioned. Confirmation was provided that there was currently intervisibility between the block and the current office occupation, the site was in a busy town centre location and the design incorporated the installation of panels in place of existing windows to avoid giving rise to a material level of overlooking.

·         Clarification was provided that dedicated waste collection facilities for the hotel would be located within the closed compound to the rear.

·         With regards to employment related to the hotel, it was advised it would generate 4 full time and 8 part time positions, recruited through a partnership arrangement with Job Centre Plus.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/2395 be approved subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates.

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

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Demolition of existing detached house and erection of a new development comprising one 4 bedroom house, four 2 bedroom flats, and two 1 bedroom flats, with car parking, landscaping, and refuse and cycle stores.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing detached house and erection of a new development comprising one 4 bedroom house, four 2 bedroom flats, and two 1 bedroom flats, with car parking, landscaping, and refuse and cycle stores. 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.

An objector addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The design was considered ugly and generic in nature, replicating a similar scheme in South London. It had not been tailored to sympathetically enhance the surrounding area and would not be a suitable replacement for the current landmark house on site.

·         The increased density of development would impact on the amenity of neighbours.

Cllr G Bull addressed the Committee in his capacity as a local ward councillor and raised the following points:

·         Concerns regarding the size of the site and cramming of development

·         The proposed render finish would discolour overtime and become unsightly

·         The affordable housing contribution was small when compared to the original sale price of the site

·         Transport links in the area were poor and a contribution was requested from the applicant towards a hopper bus.

·         The heritage value of the air raid shelter to the rear of the site was questioned.

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The site was large and the current house onsite was in poor condition.

·         Changes had been made to the design following comments from officers

·         The scheme aimed to optimise the use of the site

·         The air raid shelter was small and not considered significant on a heritage basis

·         Clarification was provided that the design for the scheme was bespoke, with elements taken from local new developments.

The legal officer directed the Committee to disregard the point raised regarding the affordable housing contribution and the sale price of the site, and emphasised that the contribution put forward was policy compliant. Additionally, a contribution to a hopper bus was outside the Committee’s purview.

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

·         Clarification was sought on claims the scheme was generic in design. Officers and the applicant’s representative advised that the design was not standard but a customised design with elements taken from recent developments at the Lordship Pub site and Watsons Road following officer recommendation and picking up features in the street.

·         Further details were sought on the proposed use of render. Confirmation was provided that a rendered finish was proposed to the bay of the house only although the applicant would be willing to consider an alternative finish.

·         Concern was raised over separation distances to adjacent buildings and potential overlooking from side facing windows. Confirmation was provided that these windows serving bathrooms and kitchens  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Fencing off of a small parcel of land within the boundaries of Holy Trinity Primary School to enable the creation of a new pathway leading from Fairbanks Road to Monument Way leading onto the High Road.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the fencing off of a small parcel of land within the boundaries of the school to enable the creation of a new pathway leading from Fairbanks Road to Monument Way leading onto the High Road. 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.

In response to questions, confirmation was provided that the land in question was not designated open land and suffered from persistent littering problems linked to open access outside of school hours. The applicant advised that fencing off part of the land would provide enhanced opportunities for play and outdoor activity for pupils of the school.

Concerns were raised over the material used for the fencing and as such, officers proposed inclusion of an additional condition requiring the fence to be constructed of open mesh, of a green colour. 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report including the proposed additional condition covering materials for the fencing, and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/0438 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 accordance with the following approved plans and specifications: MWP/01/01.

Reason: In order to avoid doubt and in the interests of good planning.

3.   The new footpath and the opening in the wall on Monument Way should be completed prior to the stopping of the existing footpath. The footpath shall be permanently maintained. The footway and carriageway on Monument Way should not be  blocked during the construction and maintenance of the proposal and no servicing vehicles associated with the proposal shall park/ load/ unload on the footway/ carriageway of Monument Way at any time.

Reason: In order to safeguard pedestrian connectivity and not impede traffic flow.

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.

In response to a question, confirmation was provided that there were two alternative proposals at pre-application stage currently for 163 Tottenham Lane.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

To advise the Planning Sub Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period from 24 August to 18 September 2015. 

The Committee considered an update report on applications determined under delegated powers between 24 August and 18 September 2015.

270-274 West Green Road

The application went to appeal over the affordable housing contribution, which was subsequently lost. The applicant had then put forward a second scheme based on a nil affordable housing contribution which was against refused and a second appeal lodged.

Highgate Police Station

Confirmation was provided that the three delegated decisions did not relate to the Construction Management Plan or construction route for the site.   

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

29 October – pre-application briefing.

29 October.