Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 3 no. family sized dwellings (over two levels) and associated refuse shelters, cycle parking and additional landscaping (2nd AMENDED PROPOSAL, Revision E: relocation of Houses 2 and 3, obscure glazing to rear of House 3, levelling off site ground level, relocation of House 2 lighwell to avoid Root Protection Zone of Tree 004)

Recommendation: GRANT, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 3 no. family sized dwellings (over two levels) and associated refuse shelters, cycle parking and additional landscaping (2nd AMENDED PROPOSAL, Revision E: relocation of Houses 2 and 3, obscure glazing to rear of House 3, levelling off site ground level, relocation of House 2 lightwell to avoid Root Protection Zone of Tree 004).

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Kenny Jones addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He owned the recording studio next to the land, and the access road leading up to it.  He submitted to the Committee that the application was in contravention of the planning policies DM1 and DM2.  He stated that there would be a detrimental effect to his business, as any structural or building works would impact on clients’ ability to carry out any recordings in the studio.  He requested that the Committee took into account the comments of the Fire Authority, who had indicated that they were not satisfied with the access to the properties.

Simon Fedida addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He requested that the Committee refuse the application, due to the damage that it would cause to Mr Jones’ business, the poor design of the site (the creation of a gated community with poor access), the potential loss of light to gardens from boundary planting, and the damage to a conservation area.

Councillor Mitchell addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He suggested that building within the Wood Green Conservation Area was in contravention of planning policy DM9.  There had been previous refusals of applications at the site on the basis of loss of open space and the impact on visual amenity.  The proposal was for modern style housing which was not in keeping with the traditional housing in the surrounding roads.

Councillor Wright addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  The site was in the Wood Green Conservation Area, and previous appeals to refusals had been upheld on this basis, which should provide the Committee with a strong argument for refusing the application.  There were a number of approved applications which would provide thousands of homes, and it was unnecessary to allow an application which was in contravention to the planning policy for only three homes.

The Committee noted the following in response to their comments and questions:

-           The previous application was for a different site area, which would have been more prominent and overdeveloped.  The site for this application was not visible from the public realm, and there had been a lot of thought put into the architecture to ensure it fits in with the local area.

-           Ownerships issues were not a material planning consideration, however, the applicant would not be permitted to use the access road to the site without the permission of the landowner.

-           There would be no parking on the site, and residents would be able to apply for on-street parking permits.

-           Access for emergency vehicles was not a material planning consideration.  It would be controlled by Building Regulations.

-           It could be conditioned that the gate be removed from the access road to the site to avoid a gated development, however, this would require permission from the landowner.

Matt Humphreys, Applicant Representative, addressed the Committee.  He advised that the applicant had attended two pre-application meetings, and had worked with officers to reduce the height and scale of the proposal.  He considered that the development would retain the character and appearance of the conservation area.  All properties would be at least dual aspect, whilst remaining sensitive to the local context. 

The Chair moved that the application be granted, and following a vote, with 3 Members voting in favour, 4 Members voting against and no abstentions, the motion was NOT AGREED.

The Chair moved that the application be refused, and following a vote, with 4 Members voting in favour, and 3 abstentions, the motion was AGREED, and the application was REFUSED, for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development, by reason of the quantum of development and domestication of the land, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and represent an overdevelopment of the site. This would be contrary to polices 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan 2016, SP11 of the adopted Haringey Local Plan 2013 and DM1, DM7 and DM9 of the adopted Haringey Development Management DPD 2017, and the provisions of the NPPF.

2.         The general access arrangements proposed to service the development would not result in a high quality residential environment and would be contrary to policies DM2 and DM7 of the adopted Haringey Development Management DPD 2017, and the provisions of the NPPF.