Agenda item

Continued use of the existing building as an Archery Clubhouse (D2 use) and changes to the elevations of the existing clubhouse building including re-cladding, the creation of a south facing pavilion, relocation of air conditioning units to the west elevation, installation of an access ramp (amended description) (updated documents)

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the continued use of the existing building as an Archery Clubhouse (D2 use) and changes to the elevations of the existing clubhouse building including re-cladding, the creation of a south facing pavilion, relocation of air conditioning units to the west elevation, installation of an access ramp. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an additional representation received since the publication of the agenda from Catherine West MP in support of the application.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The temporary planning permission covering the current structure had expired and as such should be removed and the application to convert to a permanent structure refused.

·         An application for a permanent clubhouse had been refused by Planning Committee in 2013, an application not substantially different to the current.

·         The height restriction imposed on the current clubhouse had been exceeded but no enforcement taken on the grounds that it was a temporary structure.

·         The applicant had not engaged sufficiently with local people in bringing forward plans for a permanent building.

·         The new clubhouse would be 40% larger than the previous structures onsite and was disproportionate to the Club’s needs. 

·         Planning officers at one of the consultation events had commented that the plans for a permanent structure required further development.

·         The clubhouse was unsuitable for the site in terms of height, design and siting. The square and bulky design would not make a positive contribution to the Significant Local Open Land (SLOL) and would block views across the field.

·         A precedent would be set for the development of SLOL.

·         Concerns were expressed that the extension of the clubhouse opening hours to 11pm would result in noise disturbance to neighbouring properties particularly as the function of the building would be extended beyond storage to include office space.

·         The siting of the building blocked access to the car park meaning cars were parked at the end of neighbour’s gardens.

·         If the Committee were minded to accept the application, it was requested that additional conditions be added; for the planning permission to be temporary for two years to allow further consultation on designs for a permanent structure; use of the building to be limited to Class D1; opening hours to remain as current; for use to be limited to the Aquarius Archery Club and permanent removal of the two storage portacabins secured.

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Concerns raised by the neighbours had been addressed under the current plans following the hosting of three consultation events.

·         The plans were supported by Catherine West MP.

·         There were restrictions on the siting of the clubhouse due to presence of the Thames Water reservoir.

·         The applicant had met with planning officers at pre-application stage to discuss plans for extensive cladding of the temporary building and which had been supported as a way forward. 

·         The plans were compliant with Council policy including the impact on SLOL.

·         The design proposed would improve the current temporary building, creating a building of high quality and improved architectural merit.

·         Assurances were provided that the building was intended only for use as a clubhouse, not external hire, and that there was no planned increase in use from the current.

·         The separation distances to the closest neighbouring properties exceeded 40m due to their large gardens and the differences in ground levels further minimised any impact.

·         No objections had been raised by the Council’s Transport Team.  

The Committee’s legal advisor provided advice on the additional conditions put forward by the objectors. He outlined that Government guidance relating to the imposition of temporary planning conditions was clear in setting out that the granting of a second temporary permission where one had previously been granted would only be justified under rare circumstances, a category within which the application did not fall. He outlined therefore that the options available to the Committee were to grant the application as recommended within the report or to refuse subject to reasonable planning grounds. It was emphasised there was no presumption that a permanent granting of permission would follow a temporary planning permission. Additionally, the imposition of a condition requiring the demolition after a stated period of time of a building intended to be permanent would likely not meet the tests required to be met for the imposition of a planning condition.

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         Clarification was sought on the views alleged to have been made by officers at a consultation event regarding the quality of the plans. Officers reiterated their position that the current design solution to adapt the temporary structure was considered acceptable in recognition of the constraints of the site.

·         Clarification was sought on proposed changes to the clubhouse’s hours of operation. In response, it was explained that the Club wished to revert to the hours of the original historic clubhouse, with 11pm close as opposed to 10pm under the temporary permission. Any use outside of these hours could be dealt with as a planning enforcement issue. The Committee queried whether any complaints regarding noise from the clubhouse had been raised. Officers and the objectors stated that they were unaware of any complaints made. The legal officer identified that any statutory nuisance arising from the clubhouse would be actionable irrespective of the hours of operation and reminded the Committee of the need to only determine the application placed before them.

·         In response to a question from the Committee, the objectors confirmed their key points of objection to the application; the blocky design restricting sightlines across the field; a flat roof design which was out of keeping in the area and which acted like a mirror due to pooled water; the measurements given for the building were disputed depending whether or not the veranda was included and concerns that the space would be rented out for community use causing disturbance to local residents.

·         Members queried the position regarding the two storage portacabins and whether any action could be taken. Officers confirmed that they required planning permission but that none was in place. Action would not be within the scope of the application but officers agreed to look at the enforcement issue outside of the meeting although it was cautioned that potentially they would be immune from enforcement action due to the time they had been in position. It was noted that the applicant had made a good will gesture to remove one of the sheds.  

·         The drainage arrangements for the flat roof were queried following the comments around glare from pooled water raised by the objectors. The applicant advised that the new roof would be covered in timber boards to reduce pooling. In response to concern raised about the visual deterioration of the proposed wooden cladding over time, the applicant advised that the cladding would likely be high quality western red cedar, with material samples to be subject to approval by the Council.   

·         In response to a question, the applicant confirmed the clubhouse would be DDA compliant.

In response to the comments made by the objectors that the Committee had refused a previous application for the scheme, officers corrected that the temporary planning permission had been consented under officer delegation. The legal officer advised that the details of historic permissions were not relevant to the determination of the current application.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2016/0109 be approved subject to conditions

1.   Notwithstanding any indication of materials given in the application within 2 months of the date of this permission and prior to commencement of the works samples of all materials to be used in the proposed development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within 6 months of the approval of details the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details with all associated external works carried out and completed.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area and consistent with Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013 and Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

2.   The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications: PP01, PP02, PP03 & PP04.

Reason: In order to avoid doubt and in the interests of good planning.

3.   The clubhouse hereby permitted shall not be operated before 08.00 or after 23.00 hours Monday to Saturday or before 09.00 or after 23.00 hours on Sunday and Public Holidays.

Reason: This permission is given to facilitate the beneficial use of the premises whilst ensuring that the amenities of adjacent residential properties are not diminished.

4.   Noise emitted by air conditioning units shall be lower than the lowest existing background noise level by at least 10dBA, as assessed according to BS4142:1997 at the nearest and/or most affected noise sensitive premises. The plant equipment shall be serviced regularly in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and as necessary to ensure that the requirements of the condition are maintained.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers consistent with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan 2011 and Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006

Informatives:

INFORMATIVE: In dealing with this application, Haringey Council has implemented the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.