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 Cllrs Beacham (for whom Cllr Hare substituted) and Ryan.

Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a minor material amendment to Planning Permission Reference HGY/2010/1000 granted on 21 September 2011.

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

The Committee considered a report on the application under s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a minor material amendment to planning permission HGY/2010/1000 granted on 21 September 2011 to provide a new basement level beneath the approved stadium and amendment to the consented ground floor layout. 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:

·         An update was sough on the status of the Club’s plans for the submission of a further planning application for the stadium site. Officers advised that pre-application discussions were underway on a revised scheme and which would likely come before the Committee as a pre-application briefing in July.

·         In response to a question regarding the removal of conditions under the s73 application, it was identified that only those already discharged or no longer relevant to the stadium phase would be affected.

·         The Committee asked that consideration be given under any revised planning application to the inclusion of a condition covering the use of sustainable surface water drainage systems and the inclusion of reference to radio within the current condition requiring investigation of the potential impact of the stadium on TV reception. 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/0964 be approved subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

1.    The ’Stadium' part of the development (see plan A600 Rev 00), shall commence within five years of the date of the original planning permission (HGY/2010/2011) 20.09.2010.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2.    Before any works or development commence on the retained Heritage assets 746,748,750, Tottenham High Road , the following details in respect of each of the retained buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority:

a. samples of all external materials comprising wall facing materials and cladding, window glass, door and window frames, decorative features, rainwater goods and paving

b. elevational drawings, plans, roof plans, and sections at 1:100 scale of all the buildings, sample elevations and sections at 1:20 scale of bays, windows and doors, balconies, parapets and eaves

c. drawings at 1:1 scale of sectional profiles of the window and door frames, cornices, string courses and other decorative mouldings

d. detailed drawings of any roof mounted plant and equipment and screening measures

e. details of the architectural treatment of the northern and eastern elevations of the Old White Hart Public House (No. 750)

Reason: To ensure a high quality development to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the North Tottenham Conservation Area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Retention and renovation of the existing Tottenham Lane façade and side façade and erection of two additional floors comprising 6 x residential flats (Class C3) and 47sqm of flexible retail (Class A1) office floor space (Class B1(a)) and a building comprising 3 x 2 storey houses (amended plans) (amended description).

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 retention and renovation of the existing Tottenham Lane façade and side façade and erection of two additional floors and a building comprising 3x 2 storey houses. 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 a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. A correction was made to an error contained within the report to the s106 heads of terms where the contribution to the future review of the existing Crouch End Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) would be £8k and not £7k.

An objector addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application:

·         Gratitude was expressed for the Development Management Forum held on the application and the subsequent changes made to the design in light of comments raised by the local community.

·         Significant concerns remained outstanding on the scheme and it was felt that the officer report did not reflect the scale and scope of objections received from local residents.

·         The height of the building was of objection, in particular the out of scale fourth floor extension, a  viewpoint inline with comments made by the planning inspector on the context of building heights in the area under a 2012 appeal decision on the adjacent KwikFit site.

·         A modern addition would be out of keeping with the art deco façade of the existing building.

·         The scheme would have a detrimental impact on adjacent Fairfield Road properties, in particular their gardens, from the cramming of 3 houses to the rear of the site up the boundary.

·         The Committee were urged to reject the application or at the least add a condition requiring the new brickwork to the art deco building to be the same colour and type as the existing façade. 

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

·         The scheme would bring back into use an urban brownfield site including vacant, low amenity land to the rear.

·         Planning permission had been granted in 2014 for a 6 unit scheme within the existing building envelope and the current application was considered to be an improvement on this scheme.

·         The existing art deco façade would be retained, with one additional setback floor visible from the frontage.

·         The approved scheme at neighbouring 159 Tottenham Lane would raise building heights in the vicinity and obscure to a large extent the proposed extensions.

·         In terms of the impact on Fairfield Road properties, there would be a separation distance of 46m between the rear building line of the main building and the rear windows of the closest Fairfield Road properties. In addition, the mews houses to the rear would be stepped down in nature.

·         The scheme would be designated car free.

·         All the new units would have private amenity space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Demolition of extensions and outbuildings and conversion of former Police Station to erect new residential building to provide 32 dwelling units in a mixture of unit sizes, including one, two and three bedroom flats and four bedroom houses, parking provision, cycle and refuse storage.

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 extensions and outbuildings and conversion of the former St Ann’s Police Station to erect a new residential building to provide 32 dwelling units and four bedroom houses. 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 were read out a letter of objection received from David Lammy MP concerned with the low proposed affordable housing contribution and an email from local ward councillors B. Blake and Morton expressing broad support for the scheme.

An objector addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Demolition should not be permitted of the rear extension to the police station.

·         The scale and massing of the new building would create a street canyon effect for pollution.

·         Additional concerns with the scheme were raised over parking provision, site cramming and the low affordable housing contribution.

·         The accuracy of the PTAL rating (public transport accessibility level) awarded to the site was questioned, including the disparity with the rating given to the nearby St Ann’s hospital site and errors given in the details of bus routes serving the area.

·         Concerns were raised about the proposed height of the new building, particularly as it would overlook a children’s playground.

·         A lack of detail had been provided on waste management arrangements for the site.

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

·         The applicant, One Housing, was a non profit housing organisation.

·         The scheme would bring a heritage asset back into use including securing ongoing maintenance as well as providing a good mix of new housing units.

·         The applicant had consulted with local residents on the scheme and taken concerns raised into account.

·         The scheme was of high design quality.

·         The physical constraints of the conversion of the locally listed police station building impacted on the cost of the scheme and thereby the viability assessment.

·         Onsite parking spaces would be allocated to the larger family and disabled access units. 

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

·         Although a copy of the viability assessment had been circulated to members of the Committee under confidential copy, concern remained on the low 13% affordable housing contribution proposed. The applicant advised that this figure reflected the maximum possible taking into account the costs associated with the conversion of the locally listed building. Additional benefits associated with the scheme were emphasised including s106 contributions, the provision of new housing and local employment opportunities.

Further assurances were sought from officers regarding the contribution put forward by the applicant. Officers informed that the viability assessment had been independently assessed and which had validated the 13% level as a consequence of the sales values  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

6 July.

6 July.