Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of a 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling with associated access re-surfacing works and lighting.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling with associated access re-surfacing works and lighting.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           In regard to the previous case – HGY 2017/2314 – two schemes had been put together as part of the appeal.  Appeal A related to access being from the unnamed private road and Appeal B related to access being allowed between 29 Haringey Park and the public highway to the north.  Appeal B was allowed on the basis that it was accessible from the main road.  The difference between the extant permission (Appeal B) and the last application refused at the site was the basement.  The impact assessment had been reviewed by the Council and was considered to be acceptable.

-           In order to excavate the site, more vehicles would be moving to and from the site.  This had been detailed in the Construction Management Plan which had been deemed acceptable by Officers.

Karen Morrison spoke in objection to the application.  She had grave concerns on the physical impact on Abbots Terrace.  The properties had no front gardens and residents could be put in danger when accessing their properties due to construction traffic.  Excavating the site would cause significant removal of soil from the site.  Impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area also needed to be considered.

Jacqueline Veater spoke in objection to the application.  The Council had refused six applications for the site, and the current scheme should be refused as it could not provide safe access to the site.  Ms Veater stated that the application was in contravention of Development Management Policies DM2 and DM7.  Ms Veater informed the Committee that the applicants were not one of the owners of the private lane and the position in 2018 was to not grant permission to resurface the lane.  The lane could not support a project of this size and so the application should be refused as the previous applications had been.

Councillor Palmer spoke in objection to the application.  Previous reasons for refusals had focused on access and safety, and this application should be refused on the same basis.  The use of Abbots Terrace would be prejudicial for residents.  The narrowness of the lane was only suitable for light vans and cars, and not construction traffic.  The applicant appeared to assume that they had permission to resurface and light the lane, however key stakeholders had not given permission for this.  There was a lack of designated footway for pedestrians, and there were serious concerns that residents may end up footing the bill for any works carried out on the lane.  Cllr Palmer concluded by stating that the site has had a detrimental impact on local residents over a decade of repeated applications.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Planning permission was not contingent on the ownership of the lane.  Third parties were able to propose works to land which was not owned by then but permission would be required to take the works forward.  If this was not in place then the applicant would not be able to live in the house once the build was complete.  The applicants would have right of access to the site via the lane, but any works to resurface or install lighting would be subject to a third party agreement with the owners.  The addendum provided further clarity to the s106 agreement in that no development could commence until permission had been provided to carry out works to the entire lane.

-           Connections to sewerage or services was not a material planning consideration and would be an issue for the applicants to resolve if permission was granted.

-           The lane was a shared surface with no separate pavement and road.  There would be some disruption during construction, but as this was one dwelling it would be minimal.

-           The report contained a condition on tree preservation (condition 7), but this could be amended to add “including off-site trees”, if the Committee were minded to do so.

The Applicant Party - Tom Lacey: Architect / Agent; Ally Carboni: Applicant, Andy Roberts: Transport Consultant – Lime Transport, David Marsden: Property Litigation Partner – Freeths, and Robert Bruce: Planning Legislation – Freeths - addressed the Committee.  The development of the site had been a long process, and the team had worked hard with Haringey to develop an acceptable scheme for the site.  The applicants had an agreement in principle with the owners of the lane to carry out works to the lane.  The applicants were also prepared to pay for the long term maintenance of the lane.  Resurfacing would take 1-2 weeks, and the lane would not be dug up for services to be run to the site as these would be run through the garden of 29 Haringey Park.

The applicants added that they had spoken with local police and community support officers, ward councillors and neighbours and informed the Committee that 30 local residents were in support of the application and asked that this be considered in balance with the objectors.

The development would generate a small number of additional vehicle movements, and the Construction Management Plan sets out the maximum size of vehicle to access the lane and for the use of traffic marshalls.

The applicants stated that if the application was to be granted, they would work with neighbours to ensure that the build was as safe and smooth process as possible

The applicant team responded along with officers to questions from the Committee:

-           There would be no requirement for a crane on site as the works requirement to excavate the basement were minor.

-           All known landowners had agreed in principle to the works being carried out on the lane. 

-           Lighting on the lane would be installed after Abbots Terrace, which already had lighting.

-           The applicant had the right to connect services across the rear of 29 Haringey Park.

-           A Basement Impact Assessment had been submitted to the Council.

-           The CIL rate as set out on page 42 of the agenda pack was the correct level.

Mr Hermitage summed up the report and advised that the recommendation was to grant the application with the conditions and s106 agreements as set out in the report, and the additional wording for condition 7 “to include off-site trees”.

The Chair moved that the application be granted and following a vote with 8 in favour and 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

i.          That planning permission be granted and that the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability be authorised to issue the planning permission and          impose conditions and informatives and signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below.

ii.         That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice-Chairman) of the Sub-Committee.

iii.        That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 31 January 2021 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow.

iv.        That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i)   within the time period provided for in resolution (iii) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.