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 Cllr Mitchell and lateness from Cllr Bevan.

Cllr Patterson identified in relation to item 7, Alexandra Palace, that he was a member of the Alexandra Palace and Park Advisory Committee.

Cllr J Mann identified in relation to item 8, Gisburn Mansions, that she and her fellow Hornsey ward councillors had attended a meeting with the applicant in 2015 to discuss their proposals for the site.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 9 May.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 May be approved.

Proposal 1: Planning permission for Alterations to north west corner of existing building ‘West Yard Site’ including reinstatement of existing arches, refurbishment of north west tower, construction of two storey building within the west wing, creation of two new openings in east elevation, creation of new function room at 5^th level, and installation of new gates and hard surfacing (amended description)

Proposal 2: Listed Building Consent for Alterations to north west corner of existing building ‘West Yard Site’ including reinstatement of existing arches, refurbishment of north west tower, construction of two storey building within the west wing, creation of two new openings in east elevation, creation of new function room at 5^th level, and installation of new gates and hard surfacing (amended description)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.    Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s111 legal agreement.

2.    Grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions

[19.30: Cllr Bevan entered the meeting late and as such did not take part in the determination of this item]. 

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission and Listed Building consent for alterations to the north west corner of the existing building ‘West Yard Site’ including reinstatement of existing arches, refurbishment of north west tower, construction of two storey building within the west wing, creation of two new openings in east elevation, creation of new function room at 5^th level, and installation of new gates and hard surfacing. 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 planning permission and Listed Building consent subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

An objector addressed the Committee and outlined the following points:

·         It was recognised that the applicant had made positive changes to the original plans following concerns raised including the provision of obscured glazing to the new windows and omitting the proposed roof terrace.

·         Nearby residents remained concerned over the potential for noise pollution associated with the use of the new function room, particularly if the new windows were openable. 

·         The application would result in increased vehicular movements from the north service yard causing additional noise disturbance to residents on the roads adjacent to the site.

·         Concerns were expressed over the change of use sought for this part of the Palace considering it was the only location backing onto a residential area and as such was not the most appropriate location for a function room which could cause noise problems to nearby properties, particularly on Dukes Avenue.

The Committee raised the following points following consideration of the objector’s representation:

·         Clarification was sought from officers as to whether potential noise nuisance arising from the operation of the function room was a planning issue. In response it was advised that officers had taken this issue into account when assessing the application but considered it acceptable taking into account the distance of the site to the closest neighbouring garden of 40m and the closest rear facing habitable windows on Dukes Avenue at 55-60m. Additional safeguards in terms of noise nuisance would also apply under the licensing legislative regime for any functions requiring a licence. 

·         Further details were sought on proposed glazing to the new window openings created. It was advised that the applicant had yet to confirm but the Conservation Officer outlined her view that the use of triple glazing would not be acceptable as the bulk of the frame would detract from the attractive northern wall. More slimline secondary glazing would likely be acceptable.

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

·         The concerns expressed by neighbouring residents had been taken seriously, with changes made to the plans following the feedback received.

·         The application was broadly inline with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Erection of new third storey and new roof to provide 12no. two bedroom flats

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 erection of new third storey and new roof to provide 12 two bedroom flats. 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 amendment was advised to the wording of conditions 3, 5 and 7 to ensure they were robust and enforceable and in accordance with the approved plans.

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

·         Current residents were entitled to quiet enjoyment of their properties and which also needed to be fit for habitation

·         The construction works would generate significant dust and noise nuisance and result in loss of privacy for current residents over a significant period of time. The quality of life of the current top floor residents would particularly be impacted

·         The 5% rent reduction offered by the applicant as landlord to existing residents to compensate for disruption from the works was inadequate

·         There were existing maintenance issues with the building including damp and mould which hadn’t been addressed by the applicant

·         The new units would not be affordable family housing

·         There were already a number of new housing developments being constructed in the area

·         Long running issues with the existing refuse arrangements for the development would be exacerbated by 12 additional flats

·         Concerns were expressed over the removal of the roof and the impact on TV aerials and chimneys for the dual fuel burners provided in a number of existing flats

·         The construction timeframe was unrealistic taking into account the poor condition of the building

·         The provision of 3 new parking bays was insufficient to serve the additional demand from the new flats and residents would circumvent the car free designation despite being located in a CPZ. This would also result in increased traffic on a one way road

·         The objections made by the Conservation Officer to the application had not been addressed

·         Sunlight and daylight surveys identified that one of the windows to 2 Gisburn Road would not comply with BRE guidelines in relation to daylight. In total, 12 windows to the property would be adversely impacted by the development, infringing on the resident’s right to light. It was commented that a survey commissioned by the applicant was unlikely to be impartial.

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the objector’s representations:

·         Assurances were sought on the concerns raised over increased car parking demand from the new flats. Transport officers outlined that parking would not be available onsite and new residents would not be eligible for parking permits. Census figures demonstrated low car ownership levels in the area and the site had high accessibility to public transport. Cycle parking and access to car club membership would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Submission of reserved matters, namely a) Scale; b) Layout; c) Landscaping; and d) Appearance, pursuant to Outline Planning Permission ref. HGY/2009/0503 (EIA Development) (as varied by refs. HGY/2013/2455 and HGY/2016/0026), comprising a total of 1056 residential homes; 2,500sqm (GEA) of commercial floorspace uses (A1-A4/ B1/D1); 225 car parking spaces and car club facility; new pedestrian routes; new Pressure Reduction Station (PRS); and landscaping throughout the site including: a tree lined boulevard down Mary Neuer Road; a 'Pocket Park' off Hornsey Park Road; a public Garden Square; a private residential courtyard garden; and ecological gardens.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant reserved matters approval a)scale; b)layout; c)landscaping; and d)appearance, pursuant to Outline Planning Permission ref. HGY/2009/0503 (EIA Development) (as varied by refs. HGY/2013/2455 and HGY/2016/0026), comprising a total of 1056 residential homes; 2,500sqm (GEA) of commercial floorspace uses (A1-A4/ B1/D1); 225 car parking spaces and car club facility; new pedestrian routes; new Pressure Reduction Station (PRS); and landscaping throughout the site including: a tree lined boulevard down Mary Neuner Road; a 'Pocket Park' off Hornsey Park Road; a public Garden Square; a private residential courtyard garden; and ecological gardens. 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 explained that the layout of the development and the form of the main elements had been set with the granting of the outline planning permission by the Committee in March 2012. As such, the Committee were limited in terms of the changes that could be made to the scheme under the current reserved matters application. It was further advised that the majority of the comments made by the Quality Review Panel related to elements of the scheme that had been fixed under approval of the outline planning application.

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

·         Concerns were raised over the long corridors within the residential blocks and the number of single aspect flats. Officers identified that these were a design consequence of the perimeter plans for the scheme set under the outline planning approval.

·         Clarification was sought on the lack of provision of a separate kitchen to the three bed units. Officers advised that this also arose from design constraints from the building perimeter. The affordable housing provision predominantly consisted of the larger units and as such any layout changes to include a separate kitchen would result in a reduction in the number of units.  

·         Concern was raised over the level of affordable housing to be achieved. Officers advised that the 14-24% level had been approved under the outline permission and could not be revisited.

·         Clarification was sought on local employment opportunities linked to construction of the scheme. Officers advised that a local employment target had not been imposed under the original permission but that a £200k contribution to skills and training for local people would be secured.

·         Clarification was sought from the applicant on the timescales for completion of the scheme and the phasing of delivery of the affordable housing units. In response it was advised that first occupation was expected at the end of 2019 with completion by 2026. Affordable housing units would be located to both sides of the scheme, with those to the southern end to be delivered in late 2019/20.

·         Concerns were raised that the level of parking proposed would be insufficient. Transport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications

taken under delegated powers for the period from 30 May to 24 June 2016.

The Committee considered a report setting out decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 30 May to 24 June 2016.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

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:

255 Lordship Lane: it was updated that there had been a delay in signing off the s106 agreement but that negotiations were ongoing.

Apex House: concerns were raised about the retention of the original architect and delays signing off the s106 agreement. Officers advised that the permission had been signed off a couple of weeks ago and included a condition covering the retention of the architect or Council approval of any proposed replacement.

Lawrence Road: concerns were raised over the lack of cohesion in design between the schemes coming forward for this area. Officers confirmed they were aware of these concerns. The provision of local space was also being looked into.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

5 September.

5 September.