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 Carroll and Waters.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 14 below.

The Chair advised of one item of urgent business, an application for the Green, Town Hall Approach Road N15 4RY for the part use of Tottenham Green for Market (Sui Generis). He agreed to accept it under agenda item 14 as a new item of urgent business following consideration of the reasons for lateness outlined in the accompanying cover sheet. He proposed to vary the order of the agenda to take this item before consideration of items 12 (update on major proposals) and 13 (applications determined under delegated powers).

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 14 March.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 March be approved.

The following item is a pre-application presentation to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals.

Notwithstanding that this is a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no

decision will be taken on the following item and any subsequent

application 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 2016 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 item, Hawes and Curtis 590-598 Green Lanes, was a pre-application presentation to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals related thereto.

Notwithstanding that this was a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decision was taken on this item, and any subsequent application would be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

Officers advised of the further development of proposals since the previous pre-application briefing came before the Committee in January including the engagement of a new architect and changes to reflect early comments received including a reduction to the height of the tallest element to 7 storeys.

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

·         Clarification was sought on changes made following the second consideration by the Quality Review Panel (QRP). The applicant identified that key changes included a one storey height reduction to the tallest element and design alteration to the parapet fronting Colina Road.

·         The relationship between the scheme and the neighbouring Langham Club development site was queried. The applicant advised that although the two sites were separate, self contained developments, the applicants were in liaison. It was intended that the scheme would be built up to the boundary with a fence separating the two sites. Members suggested that it would be useful when the full application came before the Committee to show a 3D representation of the relationship between the two schemes.

·         Concerns were raised over the number of single aspect units. The applicant advised this primarily affected the 1 bed units, none of which would be north facing.

·         Concerns were raised that the funding commitment for the health centre had been shifted to the Council through the payoff with the affordable housing contribution, particularly at a time of significant budgetary pressure. The applicant advised that the NHS were in the process of applying for funding for the facility and that the s106 agreement would be a fallback mechanism should this funding not come forward and which would be part of any reassessment of the viability of the scheme. 

·         Assurances were sought that the size and layout of rooms would be London Plan compliant. The applicant advised that 90% homes would be compliant with category 2 (lifetimes home standard) and 10% category 3 (wheelchair accessible standard).

·         Further details were sought on landscape planting plans. The applicant advised that detailed plans would be set out within the design and access statement including the intention for street tree planting to Green Lanes, Colina Road and potentially Colina Mews as well as within the site.

The Development Management Forum on this application would be held on 16 June at 7pm.  

Erection of single storey front extension (householder application) (amended plans).

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a single storey front 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.

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

·         Priscilla Close had been a failed development since it opened in 2000, in breach of planning conditions for the original permission. There were ongoing issues relating to inadequate rubbish collection arrangements, problems with rats and fly tipping, no street cleaning or maintenance of the infrastructure including broken perimeter walls and non operational electric gates. Various efforts by the Council to address these issues over the years had not been successful.

·         The Close’s Joint Management Company had folded in 2009 and had not been resurrected. The land was now officially designated as abandoned, with no accountability therefore assigned for maintenance. The application should not be granted until the ongoing maintenance issues were addressed and a new management company set up for the Close. 

·         Planning breaches continued to blight the area and enforcement action was no longer being progressed despite issues not being resolved.

·         A modern square extension would be an incongruous addition to a Victorian cottage as well as ruining the integrity and historic nature of the Close through its claustrophobic wedged shaped design. It would also set a precedent for further development harming the existing character of the Close.

Cllrs Blake and Morton addressed the Committee in their role as local ward councillors and raised the following points:

·         The local community were leading on a campaign to award Priscilla Close Locally Listed status due to its heritage and architectural significance, and which would be undermined by the application.

·         Consideration should have been given to extending the building upwards to avoid the loss of the front garden to the property. The London Plan contained a presumption against development on back gardens or other private residential gardens.

·         Approval of the application would set a precedent for future development in the Close.

·         The extension would be out of keeping with the Victorian frontage and impact on the coherence of the Close as a whole and detract from its historic nature. 

·         The applicant was seeking to profit from the land whilst neglecting to ensure sufficient management arrangements were in place for the Close. Although it was acknowledged the issues arising from the failure of the JMC were not material planning considerations, they should be considered as a context to the determination of the application including the character and appearance of the Close itself. 

·         The property would be left with limited garden space due to the extension as it had no rear garden.

The legal officer to the Committee advised that the issues raised by the objectors and ward councillors regarding the failed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 9 residential units (Use Class C3) comprising 5 x residential flats and 4 mews houses, and 200sqm of flexible retail / office unit (Use Class A1 / A3 / B1) including basement car parking and other associated works.

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 demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 9 residential units (Use Class C3) comprising 5 x residential flats and 4 mews houses, and 200sqm of flexible retail / office unit (Use Class A1 / A3 / B1) including basement car parking and other associated 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.

An objector to the application addressed the Committee and outlined that the scheme would have a detrimental effect on the character and feel of the Fortis Green village area as the scheme would be built up to the boundary and not set back from the pavement inline with surrounding buildings. This would have a negative impact on the sense of space and would set an adverse precedent. The scheme should be set back to the boundary of the existing car wash to reduce the impact of a new 3 storey building and allow for improved pedestrian access. 

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

·         Further clarification was sought on the affordable housing review mechanism to be imposed. Officers advised that an independent assessment of the viability assessment had verified that the scheme was unable to support an affordable housing contribution. A review mechanism would however be imposed under the s106 agreement to reassess this position should the scheme not be implemented within 18 months. 

·         Concerns were raised over the number of cracked paving slabs in the vicinity of the site observed on the site visit and that the £15K transport and highways contribution would be insufficient to cover their refurbishment. Officers advised that plans for this contribution included the revision of two crossovers in the area, reinstatement of kerb height and pathway reconstruction. The £15k contribution reflected only an estimate of projected costs.

·         Further information was sought on the commercial workspace and whether the units would be let at an affordable rent. The applicant advised that the units would be flexible B1 retail or restaurant use let at standard market rent. In response to a further question, it was clarified that the space had originally been conceived for a gym but had been subsequently changed to flexible use.

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

·         A comprehensive consultation process had been undertaken on proposals for the site and changes made to the design following comments received.

·         The scheme would provide good quality family size residential units including amenity space.

·         The commercial space would provide flexible retail, restaurant or office floorspace and therefore help to support new jobs. Original proposals for a gym had been revised due to parking concerns.

·         The high quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Construction of new 3rd floor (roof extension) to existing block of flats. New 3rd floor to accommodate 2 new one bedroom apartments. (AMENDED PLANS)

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the construction of a new 3rd floor (roof extension) to the existing block of flats to accommodate 2 new one bedroom apartments. 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 sound proofing and insulation levels to the block were already poor.

·         The construction work would be disruptive to current residents of the block, particularly those living in the current top floor flats, rendering them uninhabitable due to noise and dust and akin to living on a building site. One of the top floor flats was occupied by two doctors working shifts who would be disturbed by noise from construction works in the daytime.

·         The construction of a new staircase extension would impact the ability of residents to access their homes during that phase of works.

·         Scaffolding erected during the building works would pose a security risk to residents.

·         There was no parking available for construction vehicles, with the road already blocked regularly by vehicles worked on a development scheme to the rear. 

·         The bin stores would not be of sufficient size to accommodate the additional refuse generated by the new units.

·         There was a significant amount of new development ongoing already in the area putting pressure on local services and amenities.

·         The current top floor flats would lose the benefits in terms of noise of having no occupants located above them.

·         Current residents should be rehoused at the expense of the applicant due to the unacceptable noise and disruption generated by the building works.

The Committee raised the following questions in response to the representations of the objectors:

·         Confirmation was sought on plans to restore the front elevation of the building through replacement windows. Officers advised that this was covered under condition 7 with the aim to unify the appearance of the block through the installation of sympathetic replacement windows, plans for which would require Council approval. Officers proposed in order to remove ambiguity to amend the wording to condition 7 to read ‘notwithstanding the approved drawings, full details of replacement windows of a common design, proportion, material and means of opening to the front elevation of the entire building shall be submitted..’

·         In response to a question, the applicant confirmed that a pitched roof design had not been explored.

·         Clarification was sought as to whether a condition could be added to restrict hours for the noisiest construction activities in response to concerns regarding noise nuisance to existing residents. Officers advised that the applicant would be required to submit a Construction Management Plan for Council approval. The applicant advised of the difficulty in predicting the level of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The Committee considered the report admitted at item 3 as an item of urgent business covering the Green Town Hall Approach Road N15 4RY seeking permission for the part use of Tottenham Green for a market (Sui Generis).

The legal officer outlined the reasons for lateness and for consideration before the next ordinary meeting of the Committee.A decision needed to be taken on the application to enable the market to continue operating as permitted development rights would expire prior to the next ordinary meeting on 27 June. The consultation period for the application did not expire until 2 June and as such the application could not have been written up in time for the date of agenda publication for 13 June Committee. If the market needed to cease to operate, there would be corresponding effects on traders, standing down of contractors, interruption to a fledgling operation at a critical time and the removal of a community event.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. 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 Committee raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         It was questioned whether the market would have a detrimental effect on a nearby food establishment in which the Council had a financial interest. A representative for the applicant advised that there were no such concerns.

·         Assurances were sought over health and safety arrangements for the monitoring of traders using gas cylinder. The applicant advised that traders were required to hold a street trading licence and under this regime would be subject to regular health and safety inspections.

·         It was advised that the Friends of Tottenham Green had raised concerns regarding WC provision and recycling arrangements for the market. The applicant advised that Veolia provided the market with two paladin bins on market day, one for recycling and general waste, and which were emptied at the end of the day. In terms of WC access, there were no dedicated facilities for the market but an informal arrangement was currently in place for the use of those in the nearby Bernie Grants Centre.

·         In response to a question, the applicant advised that the majority of supporters of the application lived in the proximity of the market.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2016/1304 be approved subject to conditions.

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.

The Committee raised the following points:

Apex House: concerns were raised that the original architect for the scheme would not be retained to oversee the scheme through to completion with a consequent loss of focus on design quality. Officers in response advised that planning permission had yet to be granted as it was subject to consideration by the Mayor for London. It was explained that the Council could not require retention of the original architect as the planning and construction phases would be let under separate contracts. However, any alternative architect proposed would require Council approval.

Lawrence Road: concerns were raised over the separate development schemes coming forward and the potential for a lack of overall cohesion in terms of design. Officers advised that the scheme submitted would be returning for further QRP consideration but identified a risk that schemes of a similar design could have a monotonous appearance. The controversies around the schemes such as over the level of parking were recognised and a further development management forum would be held.

A second question was raised regarding Elizabeth Place Park, particularly the boundary treatment and whether any contribution could be sought from the developer for improvements to the Park. Officers agreed to provide feedback on boundary treatment plans to Members and to note the request for contributions for the Park.

The Chocolate Factory: clarification was sought on the details of this scheme and the reason the scheme was within the report twice. Officers advised that the scheme had been included twice within the table in error. The existing historic Chocolate Factory building would be retained, with removal of a number of newer additions in addition to the wider provision of new residential units and commercial space on the site.

163 Tottenham Lane: clarification was provided that two options for the site had been proposed but that the scheme with the proposal for pocket living units was not considered acceptable due to the location of the site.

33 Station Road N22: clarification was sought on the future of the Anglers Public House on site and whether the building was listed. Officers advised that the pub was not Listed or currently Locally Listed although it had been put forward as a suggestion for local listing. Officers were not supportive of the proposed demolition of the pub.

The Committee requested that the chart in future contained the full address and postcode of each application.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications

taken under delegated powers for the period from 25 April and 27 May

2016.

The Committee considered a report setting out decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 25 April to 27 May 2016.

Summersby Road Conservation Area: assurances were sought over restrictions on the provision of uPVC replacement windows and doors. Officers agreed to provide feedback to Cllr Carter.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

27 June

27 June.