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.

51 Whymark Avenue N22 6DJ

Proposal:   Continuation of use of premises as a hostel for the homeless

Recommendation:  Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to sec. 106 Legal Agreement.

278 -296 High Road  N15 4AJ

Proposal:   Approval of details pursuant to conditions 3,5,6,9,11&13 (materials, hard landscaping, tree protection, refuse, archaeological work programme & 13  boundary treatments ) attached to planning reference HGY/2004/2292  and approval of details pursuant to conditions 3,5,6,7,8,11,12,13 &14 (Materials, boundary treatments, hard landscaping, refuse, landscaping treatments and protection of sycamore tree, detail scale drawings, shopfront fascia drawings, permeable hard landscaping and central satellite dish) attached to planning reference HGY/2005/1173

Recommendation:  Agree to discharge conditions

314 High Road, N22 8JR

Proposal: Erection of a three storey building and conversion of existing upper floors to create 2 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed flats at first, second and roof levels and two shop units at ground floor.  Alteration to elevations

Recommednation : Grant permission subject to conditions

Pembroke Works, Campsbourne Road N8

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 3/part 4 storey block comprising 8 x one bed, 23 x two bed and 2 x three bed self contained flats.  Provision of 21 car park spaces, refuse storage and communal landscaped courtyard.

Recommendation : Refuse permission

315 The Roundway N17

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and erection of 1 x 4 storey block comprising 13 x 1 bed, 35 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed and 4 x 4 bed flats.  Provision of 20 car parking spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces and 25 bicycle spaces

Recommendation: grant permission subject to conditions and Section 106 Legal Agreement.

673 Lordship Lane N22 5LA

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to include demolition of existing building and erection of 1 x 5 storey building fronting Lordship Lane comprising 5 x 1 bed, 6 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed including 14 bicycles stands, 5 car parking spaces and an area for refuse and recycling to the rear (amended description)

Recommendation: Grant Permission, subject to conditions

Former Council Depot, Stoneleigh Road N17

Demolition of existing Council depot and erection of three storey building comprising managed workspace.

Recommendation : Grant Permission, subject to conditions

Hornsey Treatment Works, High Street N8

Proposal: Erection of pre-treatment building on disuses filter bed comprising new main process building and chemical storage and dosing building associated plant and equipment and provision of new access road via New river Village and adjacent to the New River.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement and conditions and subject to referral to the Greater London Authority who have 14 days in which to decide whether or not to direct refusal. 

Middlesex University, White Hart Lane N17

Proposal: Discharge of the following conditions attached to planning reference HGY/2005/1439:

E16 – site investigation; E18 – soil contamination; E5 – storage and collection of refuse

E12, E13, E14, E15 & E19 - parking, access, levels and thresholds; E17 – cycle parking

E20 and E21 – landscaping and hard landscaping; E25 – routing of lorries; E27 – Methodology Statement

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:

                    Pembroke Works, Campsbourne Road N8

                    This application had been withdrawn.

            314 High Road, N22 8JR

            Members noted that this application had been granted conditional permission but that amended plans had been submitted.  No objectors were present and the Chair commented that the amendments showed considerable improvement.  Members agreed the application, subject to conditions, with the amended plans and with an extra condition for a shared satellite dish.  

            673 Lordship Lane, N22 5LA

            Members noted that amended elevational plans had been submitted for this application.  No objectors were present.  Members agreed the application subject to conditions and section 106 agreement and an extra security condition for a door entry system.  In answer to members questions about car parking, officers explained this was a car free development (in line with current Government Policy); that only 5 car spaces would be provided, with  no CPZ permits and that a communal satellite dish was also included in the conditions.

            Hornsey Treatment Works,  High Street N8

            Members were advised that this item had been discussed at a Development Control Forum on 15 December (the minutes of which were attached as an appendix to the report).   The first scheme had been refused and members noted that the GLA were happier with the resubmission (their comments were also attached as an appendix to the report) 

            Three objectors spoke (2 from local residents groups and one from the Alexandra Palace Advisory Committee)  and set out their concerns about potential pollution levels from increased traffic, the size and bulk of the development, the lack of a phase 2 plan, environmental impact generally, inappropriate proximity to Alexandra Palace and Park and chemical deliveries in close proximity of a residential area and local playscheme.  The Alexandra Palace Advisory Committee representative tabled their objections and were also concerned that the conditions of the 1998 Pumping Station approval had not been complied with. 

            The local Ward Councillor and Executive Member for Children and Young People spoke and endorsed these concerns and were concerned as to the impact the development could have for many years to come. 

            The Chair reminded all members speaking at Planning Committee that the Council had now entered ‘Purdah’ (the period prior to the local elections) and therefore Committees were only meeting to fulfil statutory obligations; i.e planning and licensing applications, and members should therefore conduct themselves accordingly. 

A representative from Thames Water spoke in support of the application and explained to members the Water Authority’s obligations to ensure that bromate levels in drinking water were kept as low as possible as this chemical could be cacogenic.  The current treatment methods for bromate were not sustainable; a fact which had been verified by OFWAT and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Phase 1 of the development was for a pre-treatment works and phase 2 would be to actually remove the bromate.  The Water Authority had worked with planning officers and was respectful of the amenity of local residents but felt that water treatment had unique circumstances.  They anticipated 1 delivery a day, with a worse case scenario of possibly 3, and all deliveries would be supervised by Thames Water staff.  In response to members’ queries about the feasibility of sinking the development and piping in the chemicals; the Thames Water Project Engineer said that, due to the presence of underground pipework, and because it would be unwise to put at risk the walls of the adjacent reservoir immediately to the north, it was not possible to sink the treatment plant any further, nor could they site it on another disused filter bed further away.  To pipe in the chemicals would involve 4 separate pipes being laid, over a long distance, this could be unsightly and a security risk. Bringing in chemicals by tanker was the only option.

            Members decided to refuse the application on the grounds of design, height, bulk and proximity to the residential and play group area, loss of amenity on the conservation area and metropolitan open land and lack of 106 agreement and with an informative that any future submission should include information on phase 2.

                    51 Whymark Avenue, N22 6DJ

                     Members noted that this premises had been in use as a hostel for 4 years and agreed to grant temporary permission until 1 April 2008, subject to conditions and 106 agreement.  In answer to members questions, officers replied that permission was personal and not transferable.

                    315 The Roundway, N17

                     Members noted that this application has been refused in May 2005 and had been the subject of an Appeal.  Recent photographs of the key changes and minutes of recent DC and Design Forums, where this application had been discussed, were tabled. The Chair allowed members time to consider the points in these minutes as they had not had sight of the documents before the meeting. In response to members questions about provision of family units, officers advised that in response to local pressure, developers were now rewarded on the number of rooms provided and not just on the number of units. 

                     Two objectors spoke and outlined their concerns about the height and bulk of the development, the impact on the 3 bordering conservation areas, the vehicle access through Church Road, the lack of family housing and amenity and generally their views that the development would be bad for Tottenham.  The local Ward Councillor spoke supporting the objections; however, he felt that the area was derelict and in need of regeneration. 

                     In answer to members’ questions, officers advised that English Heritage had not expressed an opinion and that traffic management had no specific concerns.  CABE had stated that although they supported this proposal; they preferred the first submission. 

                     The applicant spoke and summarised the improvements made which were shown in the photographs tabled for members; i.e. reduced number of units, a greater expanse of brickwork, reduction in the building line (giving a wider pavement), reduction of the roof pitch, improved security, boundary treatment and tree planting.  Members were advised that they had held 2 public exhibitions, local meetings and posted some 2,000 leaflets consulting local residents. 

                     In response to members’ questions, the applicant advised that the development would have 2 separate bin stores (for refuse and recycling; accessible by a key fob) and a door entry system.  There was no play area but they had proposed a section 106 contribution for environmental improvements to Bruce Castle Park. 

                     Members felt that the improvements were not sufficient and decided to refuse the application on the grounds of size, design, mass, bulk, height, loss of amenity and character in context of the nearby conservation area and not in keeping with the street scene.

                     Members also expressed a view that the derelict site could be better served as one large area; possibly the subject of a CPO.  Officers advised members of the new CPO Act which could be considered in similar cases in the future.

                     278-296 High Road, N15 4AJ

                     This application had already received planning permission, conditional on materials which members approved.  Members were also advised that the extra drawing available at the meeting was different to the one despatched with the agenda and reports. 

                     Former Council Depot, Stoneleigh Road N17

                     Members approved this application, subject to conditions, but expressed some concerns about the flat roof and quality of materials.  In response to members’ questions, the applicant advised that the timber finish had a 50 year Guarantee (documentary evidence of this would be produced for members’ inspection); the black paint finish was anti-fly posting and anti- graffiti and that they would investigate the lifespan of polycarbons and report back to a future PASC.  In response to concerns about the flat roof, members were advised that this had a 1 in 64 gradient (in accordance with building regulations).

                     Middlesex University, White Hart lane N17

                     This application asked members to discharge conditions in a previously approved planning permission.  In response to members concerns about contamination; a series of emails addressing these were tabled.  Although, not a planning consideration; the legal representative had investigated the possibility of indemnity insurance based on a risk assessment.  With regard to materials; members felt that the colour scheme should be softened from stark white to a warmer tone.  Members also remained concerned about the passage of lorries; so they agreed to defer the decision on this condition, under delegated powers, to the Assistant Director following further consultation with traffic management.  The trees and methodology statements were agreed.