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 Cllrs Ahmet, Doron and Mallett. Cllr Weston submitted apologies for lateness.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committees held on 29 October and 9 November.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committees held on 29 October and 9 November be approved.

Erection of a part single-storey, part two-storey rear extension

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a part single-storey, part two-storey rear extension. 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.

[19.08 – Cllr Weston entered the room late and as such took no part in determining the application].

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and with the Chair’s permission, circulated to the Committee a short document outlining their main objections to the application. The objectors raised the following points in their presentations:

·         The application would impact negatively on the views from nos. 1 and 5 Fordington Road as well as privacy from the planned dormer windows and excessive glazing.

·         Objections centred on the out of keeping design and the overbearing bulk and height of the extension and not the overall principle of the development.

·         The flat roof construction would be out of keeping in a predominantly pitched roof area and the elevations of the extension would breach the building line.

·         The considerable number of objections submitted by local residents including the local resident’s association had not been given enough weight.

·         Construction materials proposed for the extension would not match in with the existing building such as rendered wall finish.

·         The appropriate planning process had not been followed in providing sufficient separation between the planning and the certificate of lawfulness applications.

Cllr Newton addressed the Committee as a local ward councillor and raised the following points:

·         The design was overbearing

·         The extension would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties including from its blocky nature at first floor level.

·         Concern was raised about the use of precedent within the report to justify the assessment of harm from the application.

·         The considerable opposition to the scheme from local residents should be given weight.

The applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The scheme was not sited in a Conservation Area

·         The modest development was essential to provide the applicant with additional living and bedroom space and make the house more accessible for occupation by a disabled relative.

·         The first floor extension would be positioned further away from no. 5 Fordington Road than if works were undertaken under Permitted Development Rights.

·         Comments submitted by neighbouring properties had been taken into account in development of the design.

·         The scheme would not compromise the amenity of local residents.

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

·         Concerns were raised over the bulk and design of the extension. Officers advised that the design was considered acceptable overall as it was not uncommon for modern extensions to older buildings and the impact of the extension had been reduced via design and the provision of a green roof. A rendered wall finish was not uncommon in the area.  

·         In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Retrospective application for change of position for new flue.  New roof mounted fence to screen flue and roof plant.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to a future meeting.

New build refuse facility on existing site and associated outbuildings.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditons.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for a new build refuse facility on an existing site and associated outbuilding. 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 attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out a number of amendments to conditions including omission of nos. 20 and 21 and amendments to current conditions 22 and 24.

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

·         Assurances were sought that the design would be aesthetically pleasing,  despite it being an industrial building. The applicant’s representative advised that although the design was functional, efforts had been made to reduce the visual impact of the industrial site, particularly from the Watermead Way sightline, with the inclusion of areas of glazing and broken up elevations and additional tree planting. Overall, the new building would be smaller and less overbearing than the previous and surrounding buildings.

·         Concerns were raised over the potential industrial appearance of the proposed new perimeter fencing. Confirmation was provided that the fencing would be constructed of anti-climb, thin wire, with officers advising that this type of fencing was commonly used around schools and was designed not to be visible from a distance.

·         Clarification was sought on whether the application would result in displaced parking from the site. It was advised that although the site was currently used for informal parking, the site was designated for employment use.

·         In response to a question, confirmation was provided that the pumping house was not within public ownership.

·         Concerns were raised over the width of Marsh Lane and the need for widening to facilitate the entrance of industrial vehicles. Officers confirmed that occupation of the development would be restricted under condition 5 until essential highways works were completed including alterations to the existing carriageway in Marsh Lane. These works were currently at an advanced phase.

·         Clarification was sought on whether all jobs currently based at the Ashley Road depot would be transferred to the new depot. The applicant confirmed that there would be some additional expansion of operations at the new depot but which would not result in a significant increase in employment numbers to that at the current depot.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/2650 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Section 73 planning application for the variation of Condition 2 (plans and specifications) and Condition 41 (occupancy) attached to planning permission HGY/2013/2379 and an application for a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to the variation of the terms of the original section 106 Legal Agreement

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 2 (plans and specifications) and Condition 41 (occupancy) attached to planning permission HGY/2013/2379 and an application for a Deed of Variation to the s106 Legal Agreement. 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 the variation of the terms of the original section 106 Legal Agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an amendment to condition 1.

An objector addressed the Committee and expressed concern over the proposal to remove the over 55 age restriction to four of the communal housing units, undermining one of the key features of the original scheme. It was considered that the applicant had not made sufficient justification for this change, leading to concern it related solely to the sale price achievable for these units.

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

·         The application sought constituted only a minor variation when set against the scale and complexity of the scheme.

·         Proposed changes to Roseneath and Norton Lees buildings had arisen as the building design process progressed and aimed to improve their design and character.

·         The scheme would remain tenure blind despite proposals for the relocation of 4 affordable housing units to improve their management regime. Affordable housing would remain distributed across the site.

·         Changes were sought to current restrictions on the occupation of any market housing until such time as all the affordable housing units were ready for occupation. The application sought to relax this restriction in order to permit occupation linked to completion of the affordable housing units in blocks WB1-3 in order to improve management of the site and cash flow from sales receipts. No amendment would be made to the number of affordable units or delivery timescales.

·         Proposed removal of the over 55 age restriction was sought to only 4 units within one block, primarily from concerns about suitability due to location within a three storey terrace building. The units in questions would not be re-categorised as open sale housing units and as such, the applicant would make no financial gain from this change.

The legal officer outlined rewording required to the recommendation set out at point 2.1 within the report. The recommendation to the Committee should be to approve the application subject to a s106 including Heads of Terms as set out on pages 137-138 of the report, plus approval of the proposed changes to the terms of the original s106 agreement attached to the original permission and which would carry forward to the current consent. The Committee noted the amended recommendation.   

The Committee sought clarification on the objection made by the Council’s Housing Service during the consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To provide a position statement on major proposals in the pipeline for November (deferred from the last meeting) and December, 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 two update reports (one deferred from the last meeting) on major planning proposals in the pipeline.

Cllr Bevan sought updates or made comments on the following applications:

·         44 White Hart Lane: confirmation sought as to whether the site was already being used as a construction compound.

·         2 Canning Crescent: concerns around future affordable housing contribution.

·         Infill garage site, 52 Templeton Road: update sought.

·         163 Tottenham Lane: concerns regarding density levels.

·         69 Lawrence Road: uniformity of design proposed to tie in with other new schemes in the vicinity.

Officers agreed to provide feedback to Cllr Bevan via email and to note comments made.

RESOLVED

·         That the reports be noted.

To advise the Planning Sub Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the periods 21 September–23 October (deferred from the last meeting) and from 26 October-20 November 2015. 

The Committee considered two update reports on applications determined under delegated powers between 21 September-23 October (deferred from the last meeting) and 26 October-20 November 2015.

RESOLVED

That the reports be noted.

Special Planning Committee 8 December.

It was advised that the 8 December Special Planning Committee to determine the Spurs stadium scheme would be rescheduled to allow for more work to be carried out on the application. The new date would be confirmed to the Committee as soon as possible.