Agenda item

Outline application for erection of 9 x 3 storey, four bedroom townhouses with associated parking and access.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant outline permission subject to reserved matters and subject to Section 106 Agreement.

The Officer presented the report and advised the Committee that at page 116 there was an error by the Transportation Group that referred to business use which was not in the application.  A further error was highlighted in term of a reference to an underground car park which should have read undercroft also not in this application.

The application site was currently vacant and situated on the northern side of Tottenham Lane adjoining the existing Texaco petrol filling station.  The site was directly opposite the roundabout that intersected Ferme Park Road and Tottenham Lane.  To the north was Rokesly Infants and Junior Schools.  The current proposal sought outline consent for the erection of 9 x 3 storey, four bedroom townhouses with associated parking and access.

An appeal decision concerning the Texaco petrol filling station and the current application site which was dismissed was a material consideration and acted as a benchmark which further application were assessed.  The inspector identified the main issues as:

1. The design of the proposal and its visual impact within the street scene, including longer views.
2. The effect upon the amenity of the users of adjoining Rokesly School in terms of overlooking and overshadowing of the school playground.

The dwellings were considered to be of an acceptable standard in terms of layout and room size, the overall dwelling being above the Council’s minimum space standard.  It was considered that the design approach was modern and could fit in with the surrounding area.  The proposed schemed had a density of 305hrh, which was in line with the London Plan.

The scale and height of the proposal was consistent along its length and considered that the proposed development would not exceed the existing height of neighbouring residential buildings and it would not have a significant overbearing affect on neighbouring properties.  Given the proposed use, adjoining residential properties and proximity to public transport options, the principle of residential use on the site was considered appropriate.

The BRE study found that the School buildings and playgrounds would not suffer a significant loss of daylight.   It was considered that the change in circumstance by the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm in terms of overlooking of the school playground.  The report also concluded that the development would result in a greater degree of overshadowing than currently existed but for most of the year the playground would be mostly unaffected.

Car parking for the scheme would be provided at the front of the site with direct access from Tottenham Lane.  The Transportation Group was satisfied with the access and levels of parking proposed. 

The Chair of Governors at Rokesly Junior School addressed the Committee to object that no consultation had taken place with the school and requested that the decision on the application be deferred.  The school objected to the intrusion of overlooking of the playground used by pupils for physical education throughout the day.  The proposal included balconies and a roof dais which had no purpose as the proposal would have gardens. There would be overshadowing as the development would take away some light from the playground, particularly in the winter months. 

Cllr Gorrie addressed the Committee and stated that page 114 of the report referred to the pre-application history.  There was no reference to other planning applications.  This application was for 9 units and therefore below the affordable housing threshold.  The head teacher of Rokesly School was only made aware of the application in the previous week and it was considered that a serious mistake would have been made were the application granted without consultation of a significant neighbour.  The application was lodged during the school summer holiday.

Cllr Winskill entered the meeting at 9:05pm.

The Committee was requested to defer the application pending a detailed consultation with the applicant and the School.

The applicant in response addressed the Committee and confirmed that the application was for 9 family houses.  There had previously been a number of applications submitted, however this application sought to address the previous planning issues and was in accordance with the UDP and Housing SPD.  Access to the proposed development had been agreed with the Highways department.    The current proposed development was one and a half storeys lower than the appeal scheme. The applicant further agreed to accept a condition to heighten the boundary and place a screen on the balconies in order to remove access.   There was confusion why the school was not aware of the application as this had been published in the Hornsey Journal on 18 September 2008.

The Committee enquired of the applicant whether they were agreeable to Juliette balconies and in response the applicant stated he would be happy to accept that condition.

The Committee then viewed the plans.

Members enquired when the consultation had taken place and whether this was during the school summer holiday.  The Officer responded that a list of two hundred people were consulted and letters were sent out in accordance with the consultation procedures.  Planning applications were submitted at all times of the year.  There had been time for the school to have responded to the consultation up until the Committee meeting.  The Committee was reminded that this application was for outline permission and that some of the details of the application would come before the Committee again, however others would be dealt with under delegated powers.  It was also possible that no details would be presented to a future meeting of the Committee.

Cllr Weber moved a motion to delay the decision on the application pending a consultation with the school.  Cllr Wilson seconded the motion.

The Chair moved to a vote to defer consideration of the application.  There being five in favour and four against, the decision to defer the application was deferred.

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred pending a consultation with the school.