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.

Cllr Mallett identified a personal interest in relation to 191-201 Archway Road which incorporated a proposal for a Co-op food store to occupy the ground floor commercial unit onsite in that she was a member of the Co-operative Group and secretary of the Haringey branch of the Co-op Party.

Cllr Carroll identified in relation to the Harris Academy application that he had previously made comments in a semi-public arena related to the wider principles behind the application and as such would recuse himself from the Committee for the determination of this item.

Cllr Doron identified in relation to 11 Park Road application that he wished to make a representation to the Committee as a local ward councillor and as such would recuse himself from the Committee for the determination of this item.

Retrospective application for change of position for new flue. New roof mounted fence to screen flue and roof plant [deferred from 28 January Committee].

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant retrospective planning permission for the change of position for new flue and a new roof mounted fence to screen flue and roof plant. 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. It was updated that an additional informative would be added to outline that the requirements of the Clean Air Act s14 and 15 applied to the application.

The Committee sought clarification that the position of the flue had originally been changed without planning permission. Officers advised that small elements of the refurbishment project had been subject to change but that the main issue had been noise breakout from the new equipment contained within the plant chamber for which mitigation measures had now been put in place.

Clarification was sought as to whether the planned screening was already in place. Officers advised that the screening had yet to be installed and would serve to reduce slightly further any noise breakout.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2014/3409 be approved subject to conditions.

1. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority–No.(s) 120821/A/120; 120821/A/121; 120821/A/124; 120821/A/204;

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

2. Within 3 months of the date of this permission and the installation of the roof mounted screen, fixed maximum noise level shall be submitted and agreed with the LPA showing noise emissions do not exceed a level equivalent to 10 dB below the worst-case (lowest) prevailing background LA90 dB noise level measured at the nearest/worst-affected residential location (nightime and daytime). The agreed level shall thereafter be maintained in perpetuity unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers consistent with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2015 and Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

Enlargement of the 4 existing flats by creating a third floor extension [deferred from 11 January Committee].

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement

[Cllr Doron stood down from the Committee for the determination of this application].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the enlargement of the 4 existing flats by creating a third floor 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. Officers corrected an error within the report which set out incorrectly that approval would be 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 with the Chair’s permission, circulated to the Committee a number of photographs to support their points which were as follows:

·         The existing building was ugly and had little architectural merit as outlined within the Conservation Area character appraisal for the area. The new design would not resolve this issue or serve to enhance the Conservation Area.

·         The current application reflected only a minor reconfiguration of the original application which had been refused on May 2015.

·         The photographs and plans presented in the agenda pack were disputed in terms that the level of the neighbouring Victorian terrace roofline appeared to have been misrepresented as being higher than it actually was in order to make the additional storey to the building appear less prominent and dominating in the skyline. Issues with the accuracy of drawings had also been raised for the first application.

·         The revised plans did not address the privacy issues to the front of the building

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

·         A number of objectors had stated that they had not been notified of the Committee meeting.

·         The scheme exacerbated existing issues with privacy through the provision of an additional storey and the potential existed for planned obscured glazing to the rear windows to be replaced with plain glass in the future.

·         Plans and photographs provided by the applicant were inaccurate as highlighted by the objectors.

·         The scheme constituted a box on top of a monstrosity and did not enhance the Conservation Area

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Significant work had been undertaken on the design in conjunction with the planning service to address the reasons for refusal of the first planning application.

·         Providing an additional storey would allow for the improvement of the front façade of an acknowledged unattractive building and reduce the current horizontal emphasis which was at odds with the neighbouring Victorian terrace.

·         The heritage statement completed identified that the design plans would constitute an improvement to the Conservation Area over the current building.

·         The daylight and sunlight surveys undertaken demonstrated that no overshadowing would be caused to neighbouring properties.

·         Confirmation was provided that the buildings had been measured and assurances provided that the plans provided were more or less accurate. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Erection of building behind retained Archway Road facade and fronting Causton Road to provide 25 residential dwellings (Class C3) at basement, ground, first, second and third floor level, including retention side return wall on Causton Road.  Demolition of all existing buildings to the rear. Retention of retail floor space unit at ground floor level (Class A1). Change of use of part ground floor and part basement from retail (Class A1) to Class B1 use.  Provision of associated residential amenity space, landscaping and car parking.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a building behind the retained Archway Road facade and fronting Causton Road to provide 25 residential dwellings (Class C3) at basement, ground, first, second and third floor level, including retention side return wall on Causton Road, the demolition of all existing buildings to the rear, retention of retail floor space unit at ground floor level (Class A1), change of use of part ground floor and part basement from retail (Class A1) to Class B1 use and the provision of associated residential amenity space, landscaping and car 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. Confirmation was provided that following the deferral of the application at a previous meeting, the daylight and sunlight report had been repeated to incorporate the windows to 2 Causton Road. The results identified that the development would not have a material impact on the levels of daylight and sunlight conditions for 2 Causton Road and were within BRE guidelines.

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

·         The delivery and servicing plan condition for the food store did not make reference to the stated intention to keep delivery traffic out of Causton Road and Cholmeley Park and it was requested this be amended.

·         Concerns were raised that the revised daylight and sunlight survey had been undertaken by the same company that had made errors in producing the first survey and had not followed best practice.

·         It was commented that the application appeared to have been championed by planning officers despite considerable opposition from local people. It was alleged that the scheme had not been subject to an appropriate level of professional scepticism and that the Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) had not been properly implemented.

·         The scheme would destroy the current unique development which housed 18 small enterprises resulting in a loss of jobs and valuable services to the local community. Plans to transfer the workshops to the basement were unsuitable.

·         Although the redevelopment was welcomed, the new building would be large and incongruous and constituted overbuilding of the site for the primary motive of profit.

·         No onsite affordable housing was proposed.

·         The scheme would result in the loss of 858m² of commercial floorspace or 44% which was not clearly referenced within the officer report as it focused primarily on the provision of B1 floorspace. This loss of commercial space was in conflict with London Plan targets for the borough relating to increasing employment and employment land.

·         The current workspaces and offices onsite were highly sought after by small businesses and could easily be refurbished.

·         The provision of housing should not take precedence over employment space inline with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Demolition of existing buildings on the Ashley Road Depot site in association with the change of use from sui generis to Class D1 (school) and construction of sports hall, sports pitches and floodlights. Construction of infill extensions at first and second floor levels of existing building (previously converted to D1 (school) use using permitted development), construction of a three storey extension to provide additional educational floor space and other minor works.

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

[Cllr Carroll stood down from the Committee for the determination of this application].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings on the Ashley Road Depot site in association with the change of use from sui generis to Class D1 (school) and construction of sports hall, sports pitches and floodlights. Construction of infill extensions at first and second floor levels of existing building and of a three storey extension and other minor works. 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 attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out proposed amendments to conditions 22-24.

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

·         Assurances were sought over the comments of the Carbon Management Team regarding overheating of the building due to low rates of air permeability. Officers confirmed that under condition 18, Council approval would be required of an overheating report and the subsequent installation of any related mitigating measures prior to occupation.

·         Concern was expressed that the comments of the Design Review Panel appeared not to have been addressed. It was responded that their main criticism related to an area of land outside the ownership of the applicant. Changes had been made however in response to their feedback to the design and layout as well as improvements to play areas and footpaths.

·         Concerns were raised that the pricing for community use of the facilities outside of school hours would be set at an unaffordable level. The applicant advised that a management panel would be established to agree pricing on an annual basis as well as adherence to other obligations, and which would include representation from the Council and a third party.

·         Clarification was sought on the School’s commitment to reinvest profits into maintaining and improving the sports facilities. The legal officer advised that this element solely related to reinvestment of the profits from the sports facilities back into the facilities and not the reinvestment of profits from the wider school operation.

·         Feedback was sought on the negative comments made by Sport England regarding the proposal. The applicant outlined that the scheme constituted a £5m investment in sport including facilities for community access.

·         Concern was raised that the s106 legal agreement did not include a contribution to the Parks Service for the use of the park. The applicant advised that this had yet to be agreed but would likely only be used for summer sports for which it was recognised a charge would be levied.

·         Concern was raised over the likely unsightly discolouration over time of the proposed render element of the building design. The applicant advised that the render detail aimed to create cohesion with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Change of use of the second, third and fourth floors from B1 office to C1 hotel and roof top extension to create an additional floor. Works also include external refurbishment of existing and small extension into the car park on the second floor.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the change of use of the second, third and fourth floors from B1 office to C1 hotel and roof top extension to create an additional floor. Works also include external refurbishment of existing and small extension into the car park on the second floor. 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 had approved a previous application for the hotel on 5 October, with the current application reflecting the incorporation of an additional floor to increase the number of bedrooms from 35 to 78. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an amendment to condition 8 and regarding the energy statement and carbon offsetting obligations.

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

·         Clarification was sought on the siting of the proposed extension. Officers advised that it would be located above the existing office space and above the top level of the car park.

·         In response to a question, the applicant advised that 12 parking spaces would be allocated to the second floor of the carpark for hotel guests.

·         The Committee sought assurance that consultation letters on the application had been sent to all residents of the Sky City housing estate. Officers confirmed that notification letters had been sent to the residential blocks on both sides of the High Road.

·         It was questioned why a revised application had been submitted so soon following approval of the original scheme. The applicant confirmed that the approved scheme was considered inefficient for a hotel operation due to the small number of bedrooms. It had taken time for a structural engineer to complete the necessary assessment of the loads to the buildings to support the additional roof top extension.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/3255 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 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:

150164(D)001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007A, 008, 009, 010, 011A, 012, 0123, 014C, 015, 016A, 017, 018A, 19D

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

3.   Notwithstanding the information submitted with this application, no development shall take place until precise details of the external  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Special Planning Committee 16 February.

16 February.