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.

Noted.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2017.  A factsheet covering some of the key points within the protocol as well as some of the context for Haringey’s planning process is provided alongside the agenda pack available to the public at each meeting as well as on the Haringey Planning Committee webpage.

The planning system manages the use and development of land and buildings.  The overall aim of the system is to ensure a balance between enabling development to take place and conserving and protecting the environment and local amenities.  Planning can also help tackle climate change and overall seeks to create better public places for people to live, work and play.  It is important that the public understand that the committee makes planning decisions in this context.  These decisions are rarely simple and often involve balancing competing priorities.  Councillors and officers have a duty to ensure that the public are consulted, involved and where possible, understand the decisions being made.

Neither the number of objectors or supporters nor the extent of their opposition or support are of themselves material planning considerations.

The Planning Committee is held as a meeting in public and not a public meeting.  The right to speak from the floor is agreed beforehand in consultation with officers and the Chair.  Any interruptions from the public may mean that the Chamber needs to be cleared.

Noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cawley-Harrison and Hinchcliffe.

Councillors Barnes and Hare were in attendance as substitutes.

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 12 below.

None.

None.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 9 May 2019.

TO FOLLOW

The minutes of the last meeting were not available for approval.

Proposal: Alterations to existing ground floor shopfronts and excavation of basement level below; erection of three additional storeys on top of the existing ground floor to provide 6 self-contained flats (5x1bed & 1x 3bed).

Recommendation: GRANT

Clerks note – the Chair varied the order of the agenda to take agenda item 9 before agenda item 8.  The minutes follow the order of the agenda.

The Committee considered an application for alterations to existing ground floor shopfronts and excavation of basement level below; erection of three additional storeys on top of the existing ground floor to provide 6 self-contained flats (5x1bed & 1x 3bed).

Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning, advised the Committee that a supplementary document had been circulated, detailing two additional conditions.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. 

Roanna Harlan addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Muswell Hill was one of very few neighbourhoods which had managed to maintain the character of the High Street.  Businesses on the High Street would be wrecked if the application would be approved.  The new retail units were smaller than the existing units, and would likely be unaffordable for independent businesses.

Marcia Silliton addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Closing the existing units whilst the development was built would not be sustainable for the small independent businesses currently located there.  She urged the Council to refuse the application and to support small, local businesses.

Councillor Emery addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  There were over 300 comments on the planning site, and only a handful were in support of the application.  The bland façade of the building would allow a low bar to be set for development locally.  The design of the building was not in keeping with other buildings on the street.  Councillor Emery stated that he was disappointed that the applicant did not use the rejection of previous proposals to make a better application and requested that the Committee reject the application.

Councillor Hinchcliffe addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He considered that the new application had not gone far enough in allaying resident’s concerns.  The proposal was out of sync with the surrounding architecture, and could leave small, thriving businesses homeless.  He requested that the Committee reject the application.

Claudia Mastrandrea and Keiran Rafferty, representatives for the applicant, addressed the Committee.  The application sought to replace four commercial units and replace with new commercial units which would include basement space; and six flats above.  The rent for the flats would be set at market rate.  An open day had been held, with 2000 local households invited.  Assurances have been provided to tenants that they would have first refusal on the new units.  The new scheme reflected changes that had been made following public consultation.  The new application was a contemporary reinterpretation of the existing buildings, and the amount of one bedroom flats was in keeping with the London Plan Policy.  The retail units were slightly smaller at ground floor level, but each unit also had a basement level which could be used as retail space.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The CIL rate had increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.

Proposal: Demolition of existing and construction of a new dwellinghouse.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing and construction of a new dwellinghouse.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. 

David Godden addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He considered that the proposed design was not good enough, with an odd mix of architectural styles and too few traditional features.  Over 270 objections had been made to the application, along with a petition of 180 signatures.  At the appeal, the point had been made that any new houses should remain in-keeping with the Edwardian features of the road.  The demolishment of one half of a semi detached house was not the right thing to do.  Mr Godden had suggested six changes to the proposal, and these had been rejected by the applicant.

Farrol Goldblatt addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He lived in the adjoining property.  Whilst he supported the principle of development, recycling and regeneration of buildings, he supported Mr Godden’s comments in relation to this application.  The rear elevation would have a significant impact on the amenity of immediate neighbours, and the significant amount of glazing was incompatible with the architectural styles in the area.  The new application was contrary to the conclusions made by the Planning Inspector, and therefore should be deferred for changes to be made or refused.

Councillor Ogiehor addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  It had been a year since the application had been rejected by the Planning Committee on the ground that the proposal was contrary to design policy, as agreed by the Planning Inspector on appeal.  Since the decision made by the Planning Inspector, Cllr Ogiehor had met with the applicant, architect and residents to speak a proposal which would be amenable to all.  Whilst there had been some changes made, Cllr Ogiehor disagreed with officers that the new design addressed the concerns raised at appeal.  Cllr Ogiehor agreed with residents that the new decision would only meet the points raised by the Inspector if additional changes were made: 1^st floor hallway to be reduced in size to match no.78 and redesigned to ensure that it was in-keeping with other windows, and adding a sill detail; glazing bars to be added to be added to all upper sash timber windows in the front elevation; brick arch details to be added to 1^st floor hallway, 1^st floor master bedroom and ground floor windows; and the front door should be widened and placed in a more central position.  Cllr Ogiehor requested that the Committee reject the application and ask the applicant to resubmit with the suggestions made.

Isabelle Evans, applicant, addressed the Committee.  She had met with seven neighbours to discuss the plans, and despite a constructive discussion, residents have refused to acknowledge the meeting.  A pre-application meeting had been held with Council officers to ensure that each of the Planning Inspector’s comments had been addressed.  Ms Evans considered that she had done everything she could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 329.

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.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 29.4.19-17.5.19.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

8 July 2019

9 September 2019

7 October 2019

11 November 2019

9 December 2019

13 January 2020

10 February 2020

9 March 2020

8 July 2019