Agenda item

       9.1       The Lodge, Creighton Avenue N10       

                               Demolition of existing park keeper’s lodge and erection of 2 x 2 storey four bedroom dwelling houses with rooms at lower ground and first floor level, with associated car parking and landscaping.

                               Recommendation: GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions

       9.2       Silver Industrial Estate, Reform Row N17 

            Redevelopment of site to include demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 2/part 3 storey block providing 10 x one bed, 12 x two bed and 3 x three bed self-contained flats with associated bike and refuse storage.

            Recommendation: GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions and Section 106 Agreement

       9.3       14-16 Creighton Avenue N10 1NU  

            Demolition of existing pair of houses and erection of 6 x 3 storey four bedroom houses with parking.

            Recommendation: GRANT PERMISSION subject to Section 106 Agreement

       9.4       14 Fountayne Road N15    

            Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new 6 storey building comprising 3365 sqm B1 floorspace, 3365 sqm B2 floorspace and 227 sqm A3 floorspace with 15 car spaces and 14 cycle spaces

                               Recommendation: GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions

       9.5       Harvey Mews, Harvey Road N8     

            Demolition of existing garages and erection of 5 x 3 storey 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling houses with rooms at lower ground floor, upper ground and first floor levels, balconies to front elevation and parking for 5 cars.

            Recommendation: GRANT PERMISION subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

       9.6       Cecile Mews, Rear of 60-88 Cecile Park N8 - ref HGY/2005/1084   

            Demolition of existing garages and erection of 4 x part single, part 2 storey houses, together with six replacement garages.  Duplicate application as above under reference HGY/2005/1086

                               Recommendation: REFUSE

       9.6       (a) Cecile Mews, Rear of 60-88 Cecile Park N8 ref HGY/2005/1086        

            Demolition of existing garages and erection of park single, part two storey houses, together with 6 replacement garages (duplicate of HGY/2005/1084 above) amended drawings

                               Recommendation : REFUSE

9.7             Cecile Mews, Rear of 60-88 Cecile Park N8 ref HGY/2005/1087   

Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages and erection of part single, part two storey houses, together with replacement garages (duplicate of HGY/2005/1087)

Recommendation: REFUSE

9.7       (a)Cecile Mews, Rear of 60-88 Cecile Park N8 ref HGY/2005/1090  

            Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garages and erection of part single, part two storey houses, together with replacement garages (duplicate of HGY/2005/1087)

                        Recommendation: REFUSE

9.8             4 Marsh Lane N17 OXE    

Erection of new 2 storey building (1372 sq m gross floor area) to provide new Victoria Line control centre and 10 car spaces

Recommendation: GRANT subject to conditions

RESOLVED

That the decisions of the Sub Committee on the planning applications and related matters, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes, be approved or refused, with the following points noted:

1.                     The Lodge, Creighton Avenue N10

Several objectors were present representing Muswell Hill and Fortis Green Residents Association and the Friends of Coldfall Wood Playing Field.  The ward councillor also spoke on behalf of his constituents.  The objectors set out their concerns in that the application contravened the local planning brief and threatened the amenity, light and privacy of woods users; especially in that Coldfall Wood was ancient woodland which had never been cultivated or built on.  They were also concerned about the bulk, mass and over-development abutting the footpath to the woods. 

The applicant spoke in support of his application and advised members that he was an architect who wished to build a quality family home for his personal use.  He had employed the services of London Conservation Services and felt that his scheme was of a high quality design and would enhance the area.  His choice of materials was traditional, although the design was contemporary.  Officers advised Members that although the scheme was not in accordance with the site’s Planning Brief; it was open to applicants to apply to develop the site in a different way from that brief, and the application had to be determined in the light of UDP Policies, and it complied with a number of these, eg. on density and parking

There was some division between the members in reaching an agreement; ie the chair felt that the scheme was an enhancement to the existing area and Councillor Santry agreed.  Councillors Hare, Newton and Engert sympathised with the objectors.  The decision was voted on 5 to 3 in favour of approving the application. 

2.                     Silver Industrial Estate, Reform Row N17

Members agreed to receive a late tabled memo from Councillor Stanton to Cllr Bevan about this item and the planning officer advised that the concerns set out had been addressed in pages 61 and 74 of the report, with regard to unit size, layout and stacking.   There were no objectors present at the meeting and a recent DC forum had been very poorly attended.  Councillor Dodds asked if some of the 106 funds could be allocated to improving the playground and nursery facilities at the local school and this was noted by the planning officers.  Councillor Peacock also asked about the possibility of a naming tribute to the new development.  Members noted an error on page 81 in that there should be no reference to a car free development in the 106 agreement.   

The application was agreed with existing conditions, an additional condition re boundary treatment to the north boundary wall, a hard landscaping scheme (to be approved) and an informative that in the future the development would be car free (ie. no parking permits would be issued).

3.                     14-16 Creighton Avenue N10

Members were advised that this application was the resubmission of a scheme previously recommended for refusal.

The residents of Pages Hill and Creighton Avenue outlined their concerns about this application in that they felt that the resubmission was not significantly different; it was still out of character with the residential area and street scene; the loss of amenity, overlooking and over-development; it was not affordable housing; and sited on a hazardous camber in the road.  The ward councillor felt that the application should have been considered as a backland development and asked members of PASC to consider deferring a decision to after a site visit.   

The applicant spoke in support of the development and explained to members that he had tried to use a sympathetic design and the new development would be set out so as vehicles could enter and leave the site in a forward direction.  However, he was very happy for members to visit before making their decision.  The transport officer commented that the camber on the road was not considered hazardous and the proposed entrance to the site was of satisfactory width.

Members agreed to defer a decision until after a site visit.

4.                     14 Fountayne Road N15

               Members were asked to note that this application was not in outline.  The application was agreed and members were advised that their concerns about materials and energy efficiency had been covered in existing conditions.  Cllr Peacock suggested a naming tribute to a local employer; Gestetner.

5.                     Harvey Mews, Harvey Road N8

                     The ward councillor spoke on behalf of the residents to set out their concerns about the loss of this car repair facility and also asked members to consider whether the section 106 agreement for Education, at just 0.8%, was sufficient.  Officers advised members that this figure had been calculated using the old formula.  This application had been submitted the day before the revised formula had been implemented and, under the new system; the contribution could be higher if Members considered that the £16,836 offered in the report was insufficient.  The chair adjourned the meeting for 5 minutes for the applicant to discuss a revised figure with the planning officers. A new section 106 agreement of £25,000 for Education was offered and accepted by members.  The application was agreed subject to conditions; with informatives about the use of ‘brown roofing’ (ie. the use of a thicker layer of soil able to support taller plants), as opposed to ‘green roofing’ with sedum moss; a permeable car parking surface; and refuse and recycling.  

6.                     Cecile Mews, r/o 60-88 Cecile Park N8 (4 applications)

               Members were advised that this was a double application; that each application also included Conservation Area Consent for demolition and that one of them was subject to appeal.   A similar application had been refused several months ago and was also the subject of an appeal; co joined to the recent one but no date had been set as yet.  Members were advised that some 71 letters of objection had been received, including local ward councillors and the MP, with 15 more since the report had been published.  Officers advised that they had received some late amended plans but it had been too close to the meeting to reconsider them.   Members agreed to refuse the application for the reasons as set in detail on pages 151 and 152 of the report, in summary; the siting of unit 4 in proximity to the Oak Tree and the height, width and overlooking of unit 4.

7.                     Marsh Lane, N17

                     Members were asked to note an error on page 189 of the report in that the £50k improvements referred to should be £25k.   Councillor Peacock advised members of a funding scheme to improve the Bus Shelter on the site.  Cllr Hare commented on a similar scheme at the Highgate Control centre which had incorporated tree planting and Cllr Peacock suggested displaying a map of the nearby Tottenham Marshes and a possible naming tribute to the new development.

                     The transport officer commented that this scheme had been the subject of a bid to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for £365k improvements to the pedestrian area of Marsh Lane and that public transport was not pertinent to this development.  Members noted that, for security, the development had to be as far away from the public area as possible. 

                     The application was agreed, subject to existing conditions and 106 agreement, amended in respect of trees, landscaping, and permeability of the hardstanding and choice of materials.