Agenda item

Erection of single storey extensions to front and rear of existing library building.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.                     

At this point in the proceedings - 20.30hrs - the Committee adjourned for 15 minute and reconvened at 20.45hrs.

In a brief introduction officers advised the Committee that Coombes Croft Library occupies the ground floor of a mixed use five storey property on the corner of Tottenham High Road and Brereton Road. The block is effectively L shaped. The upper stories of the building are in residential use. The property lies within North Tottenham Conservation Area and dates from the 1950’s. To the rear of the property is a private residential courtyard, with a small children’s play area. It is understood that access to this area is restricted for the use of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties. Opposite the library on the High Road are a range of mixed use buildings, with retail properties on the ground floor, some of which are boarded up.

The library benefits from a forecourt area at its entrance, created by the setback of the building. There is a large London Plane tree and a Cherry tree within this forecourt area. The library has ramp access and decorated metal gates at the entrance. The library itself has a distinctive design, consisting of block work walls, which have a panelling effect, with high level windows. The rear elevation of the library is of brickwork.

There being no objectors to the proposals the Committee then viewed the plans.

The Committee then sought clarification in respect of the housing behind the library courtyard and who owned the properties, and whether there could additional tree planting, together with placing TPO’s on the existing trees. In response officers advised that flats were Council owned, and that when consulted there were no objections received.  With regard to additional tree planting there may be some difficulties as the Moeselle tributary ran close under there and therefore there may be difficulties with roots embedding.  However there may be a possible solution of having planters instead though the Chair reminded officers and the Committee that the area at the front right belonged to EDF and there may well then be difficulties in ensuring synergy in terms of paving replacement matching existing.

In response to further points of clarification the Committee were advised that section 106 only applied where a new build/development was happening and therefore in this instance there was no such development.   In respect of placing TPO’s on existing public trees this was generally not the normal practice as such and that this type of tree was generally well protected. However the Arboriculturalist would be consulted as to the feasibility of this.

The Committee also commented on the land issue and the Council owned land, and that a further tree be added to and balanced the existing London Plain tree, and that the trees being lost at the rear of the site be replaced with the same number, and also if the existing flower beds also be refilled.  The committee also commented on the tiles on the frontage being matched to those existing, and the need to ensure the verticality of the windows when replaced needed to be pronounced, together with cycling and motor bike racks inter-dispersed with the trees.

Officers responded that that a number of the comments could be added either as informatives and conditions in terms of landscaping although there may be difficulties matching the existing tiles on the building as these were originally 1950’s tiles.

There being no further matters raised, on a MOTION by the Chair it was unanimously

RESOLVED 

That the application be granted subject to conditions.