Agenda item

In accordance with Sub Committee's protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations.  Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, normally no speakers will be heard.  For items considered previously by the sub committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations.  Where the recommendation is to refuse permission, normally no speakers will be heard.

1.         35A Wood Vale, N10                                                                     

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a two storey 4 bedroom dwelling with rooms at lower ground floor level.   Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions

2.         57 Mount Pleasant Road N17

Retropsective Planning application for the erection of single storey out building in rear garden (Certificate of Lawfulness).  A site inspection was conducted on 9 February 2006 by Council Officers who confirmed that the outbuilding has been built within the boundary of 57 Mount Pleasant Road.   Therefore the out building is considered to be permitted Development.

3&4.    R/O Palm Court, Lionel House, Maxwell House and Lawrence House, Palmerston Road N22

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 3 x 2 storey blocks comprising 4 x 2 bed and 5 x 3 bed dwelling houses with integral garages, 5 parking bays, 3 bin stores and landscaping.  Recommendation: Refuse Permission.   Also Conservation Area Consent for the above development.  Recommendation: Refuse Permission. 

5.         7 Cromwell Place, N6 5HR

Retrospective Planning Permission for the reconstruction of the front wall of the property involving further changes to the wall as it currently stands including the formation of a pedestrian gateway near the middle of the wall and the retention of the vehicle entranceway; off street car park and drop kerb. Recommendation : Grant Permission

6.         Land r/o 14 High Road and Adjacent to 2 Whymark Avenue N22

Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3/part 4 storey building comprising office space at ground floor level and 5 x two bed and 4 x one bed self-contained flats at 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floor levels.  Provision of cycle storage at ground floor level.  Recommendation : Grant Permission subject to conditions.

7.         22-24 High Road, N22

Erection of part 2/3/5 storey building comprising retail at found and rear first floor level and residential at 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th floor levels consisting of 4 x one bed and 5 x two bed flats.  Associated refuse and cycle storage at ground floor level.  Recommendation : Grant Permission subject to conditions.

8.         33 Clarendon Road, N8

Erection of 3-storey side extension comprising offices and associated rooms.  Recommendation : Grant Permission subject to conditions

9.         Unit 4 Arena Estate, Green Lanes N4

Provision of additional retail floor space at mezzanine level (Use Class A1) associated with Unit 4

Provision of additional retail floor space at mezzanine level (Use Class A1) Associated with Unit 4.  Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions.

10.       159 Tottenham Lane N8

Amendments to planning application HGY/2005/1129 granted on 03.08.05 for erectionof part 3/part 4 storey building with gym/leisure at basement and ground floor level and 6 x two bed and 1 x three bed maisonettes and 1 x two bed and 1 x three bed flats at 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floor levels, with 22 car park spaces at rear.  Recommendation : Grant permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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.      35A Wood Vale, N10.  

Two objectors spoke and asked members to note the 11 objections and the fact that they would favour a two storey development but not three.   They also tabled photographs showing the building line intrusion and, in their opinion, that the development was out of character for Wood Vale.   The applicant spoke in support of the development and advised members that he had followed an extensive consultation process, he felt that   it would provide an attractive landscape (replacing a current eyesore) and it had strong eco credentials.  Officers advised members that a number of Wood Vale properties had been extended at the rear.  Members commented of the impact of the correct choice of brick and felt that this should be inspected on the site.   Officers confirmed that Permitted Development rights in respect of rear extensions and roof extensions etc would be withdrawn by condition already on the Recommendation.  Members agreed the application,  subject to conditions, with an additional condition regarding brick detailing on the front elevation.

2.      57 Mount Pleasant Road N17

An objector spoke outlining his concerns about the retrospective planning application for this development as he felt it was an eyesore, out of character and he was concerned about its proposed future commercial use.  He was also unhappy that the objections he has raised were not detailed in the report but officers confirmed that only the number of complaints was reported; not detail.  Officers also confirmed that under permitted development status, the UDP would not apply and any future change of use would be subject to a further planning application.  The applicant spoke and felt that the objections were speculative and frivolous.   Members agreed to grant the Certificate of Lawfulness.  Councillors Adamou, Peacock and Santry abstained and Cllr Engert did not participate in the debate and decision as she was not present at the start of this item.

3.      Unit 4, Arena Estate, Green Lanes N4

Members noted that mezzanine floors do not usually require planning permission but outline planning permission in this case had limited the floor space and this mezzanine covered units 4 and 5.  Members agreed the application, subject to conditions. 

4.      r/o Palm Court, Lionel House, Maxell House and Lawrence House, Palmerston Road N22

Members noted that this application had been refused 4 years ago.  Officers had recommended it again for refusal as the density was in excess of UDP Policy for backland development; intrusive amenity on the existing residents, impact on the river view and the deficiency in external amenity space.  Members decided to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and overbearing impact.

                    5. 17 Cromwell Place N6

As Cllr Hare had earlier declared an interest he left the meeting at this point.   Members noted this was a retrospective application, that a previous application had been refused and enforcement action was pending.  Officers advised members that they had received 18 letters in support of this application.   Members noted that the Conservation Officer had expressed concern about the reconfiguration of entrances and members generally did not favour cars parked on front gardens; however officers reminded them that this was within permitted development.   Members decided to refuse the application on the grounds of impact on the street scene, the impact on the conservation area (ie reconfiguration of entrances) and that the application would set a precedent.  However, they expressed a view that a pedestrian, not vehicle access, would be favourable.  Cllr Rice asked for his dissent to be recorded on this decision. 

6.      Land r/o 14 High Road and Adjacent to 1 Whymark Avenue N22

The Planning Officer pointed out that this application was rather similar to a scheme already approved in 2004, except for the introduction of offices at ground floor instead of residential.  On the subject of renewable energy (raised by Cllr Dodds); it was pointed out that Condition 17 covered this. The Assistant Director advised that the policy was under review to include renewable energy in the main section of reports, not by condition, for all major schemes.  Members also noted that a ‘Green Guide’ for all householders had recently been launched by the Planning Policy team.  Members first voted on whether to defer this item pending further information about the design and it was agreed to take a decision at the meeting.  Members then voted 7 for and 3 against the application, subject to existing conditions, an extra condition re brickwork and section 106 agreement.

7.   22-24 High Road N22

Councillors Hare and Engert commented on the good design of this development but Councillors Bevan and Adamou felt that it was a little out of character and were concerned about the safety of children from the balconies and traffic fumes.  Members agreed the application, subject to conditions and 106 agreement, with an extra condition closing the railings for safety and an informative prohibiting hanging any items from the balconies

8.   33 Clarendon Road N8

Agreed, subject to conditions

9.         159 Tottenham Lane N8

Agreed, subject to conditions and 106 agreement