(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee A, 10/11/2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MEETING PLANNING COMMITTEE A DATE AND TIME TUESDAY 10TH NOVEMBER, 2020 AT 7.00 PM VENUE VIRTUAL LINK TO VIRTUAL MEETING https://bit.ly/3mNFJg3 TO: MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMITTEE A (Quorum 3) Chairman: Councillor Eva Greenspan Vice Chairman: Councillor Helene Richman BA (Engineering), JD (Juris Doctor), Barrister (Middle Temple), TEP Cllr Richard Cornelius Cllr Tim Roberts Cllr Elliot Simberg Cllr Danny Rich Cllr Gill Sargeant Substitute Members Paul Edwards Cllr Kath McGuirk Cllr Shimon Ryde Cllr Mark Shooter Cllr Thomas Smith Cllr Reuben Thompstone Cllr Zakia Zubairi You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached. Andrew Charlwood – Head of Governance Governance Service contact: [email protected] Media Relations Contact: Tristan Garrick 020 8359 2454 ASSURANCE GROUP Please consider the environment before printing. ORDER OF BUSINESS Item No Title of Report Pages 1. Minutes of the last meeting 2. Absence of Members 3. Disclosure of Members Pecuniary and other interests 4. Report of the Monitoring Office (if any) 5. Addendum (if applicable) Hampstead Garden Suburb 6. 18 Sutcliffe Close, London NW11 6NT - TPP/0218/19GS 5 - 18 East Finchley 7. 34 Pulham Avenue London N2 0LR - 20/2747/FUL 19 - 34 Edgware 8. 68 Francklyn Gardens Edgware HA8 8RZ - 20/3262/RCU 35 - 44 9. 49 Francklyn Gardens Edgware HA8 8RU - 20/3857/HSE 45 - 54 10. Any item(s) that the Chairman decides are urgent This page is intentionally left blank AGENDA ITEM 6 COMMITTEE REPORT LOCATION: 18 Sutcliffe Close, London NW11 6NT REFERENCE: TPP/0218/19 Received: 29 January 2020 WARD: GS Expiry: 25 March 2020 CONSERVATION AREA Hampstead Garden Suburb APPLICANT: Mr John Dodds PROPOSAL: 1 x Oak (applicant’s ref. T1) – Reduce crown by 4m – 5m all round. T14 of Tree Preservation Order RECOMMENDATION: That Members of the Planning Committee REFUSE CONSENT for the proposed crown reduction by 4m – 5m all round of 1 x Oak (applicant’s ref T1), T14 of Tree Preservation Order for the following reason: The proposed treatment detrimentally affects the health and appearance of the tree of special amenity value, fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area, and is not justified as a remedy for the alleged subsidence damage on the basis of the information provided. Consultations Date of Site Notice: 13th February 2020 Consultees: None Representations received: None MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Relevant Recent Planning History: C11333A/05/TRE – 1 x Oak – 10% Reduction in density. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 18th July 2005 TCA/00463/09/F – 1 x Apple – Fell. - Six week notification period expired 8th October 2009 1 5 TPO/00462/09/F – 1 x Oak – Crown Clean, Remove Limb Growing over Number 16 as Specified, Thin by 20% as Specified, Reduce Limbs Growing Towards Number 16 by 2m. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Refused 21st October 2009 TPO/00179/10/F – 1 x Oak – Crown Clean, Thin by 20% as Specified, Tip back property side laterals by 2m. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 20th May 2010 TPP/00468/15 – 1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Crown thin by 20% including removal of deadwood, lifting of low branches and shortening of branches encroaching towards house. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 1st September 2015 TPP/0375/20 – 1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Cut roots as necessary to install root barrier to rear of the property in accordance with Optera Structural Solutions Arboricultural Method Statement. T14 of Tree Preservation Order - Conditional approval 3rd July 2020 PLANNING APPRAISAL 1. Introduction The applicant initially submitted an application form, sketch plan, arboricultural report, drainage report and soil testing on 28th March 2019 via the Planning Portal. However, insufficient information was provided to allow validation of the application and there ensued considerable discussion and correspondence with both the applicant and his subsequently appointed agent (representing Direct Group / Davies Property Solutions) as to what clarification and additional information was required. It should be noted that if 'subsidence' is cited as a reason for proposed treatment of tree(s) included in a Tree Preservation Order, it is necessary to submit specified supporting documentary evidence: - the application form stating: "For works to trees covered by a TPO Please indicate whether the reasons for carrying out the proposed works include any of the following. If so, your application must be accompanied by the necessary evidence to support your proposals. (See guidance notes for further details)....... If YES, you are required to provide for: .... Subsidence A report by an engineer or surveyor, to include a description of damage, vegetation, monitoring data, soil, roots and repair proposals. Also a report from an arboriculturist to support the tree work proposals." - the associated guidance clarifying: "Reports should be provided by a structural engineer and/or a chartered surveyor and be supported by technical analysis from other experts (ie for root and soil analysis). These reports must include the following information: * A description of the property, including a description of the damage and the crack pattern, the date that the damage first occurred/was noted, details of any previous underpinning or building work, the geological strata for the site identified from the geological map. * Details of vegetation in the vicinity and its management since discovery of the damage. Include a plan showing the vegetation and affected building. 2 6 * Measurement of the extent and distribution of vertical movement using level monitoring. Where level monitoring is not possible, state why and provide crack- monitoring data. Data provided must be sufficient to show a pattern of movement consistent with the presence of the implicated tree(s). * A profile of a trial/bore hole dug to identify foundation type and depth and soil characteristics. * The sub-soil characteristics including soil type (particularly that on which the foundations rest), liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index. * The location and identification of roots found. Where identification is inconclusive, DNA testing should be carried out. * Proposals and estimated costs of options to repair the damage. In addition, you must include a report from an arboriculturalist to support the tree work proposals, including arboricultural options for avoidance or remediation of indirect tree-related damage.” There was significant delay in the requisite supporting information being provided. Initially incomplete, the application was validated on 29th January 2020 following receipt of clarification and the relevant additional information. There followed subsequent delay thereafter in formal consideration of the application because of site visiting constraints imposed as a result of Covid 19. The applicant said that arrangements had been made to board up the ground floor windows and glass doors at the back of the house in August 2019 (5 months prior to validation of the application), on the advice of his builder because of fears of the glass shattering and leaving the house vulnerable in the absence of the residents. However, during the site visit he confirmed that, with the onset of Covid restrictions, the boarding was removed as the house was continually occupied. He also clarified that early cracking had been filled due to concerns about possible entry of insects etc. As discussed in more detail in the main body below, subsequent to the validation of the application subject of this report, during the period when site visiting was precluded by Council adopted protocols based on Government Guidance and following extensive correspondence between the applicant; agent; Ward Members; Case Officer; and the Service Director – Planning and Building Control, an e-mail was received from James Reeves, Regional Technical Manager, Davies Subsidence and Surveying (as representative for the agent for TPP/0218/19) stating "As a result, should you not be able to give planning consent for the Oak's reduction, I will be proposing the installation of a copper-lined geotextile root barrier across the rear garden of the site to prevent any further movement occurring to the building through this Summer and beyond." A separate application, submitted by an agent who has made several 'root barrier' applications through the borough in the recent past, was made accordingly. This separate application, received on 2nd June 2020, was registered under reference TPP/0375/20 “1 x Oak (applicant's ref. T1) - Cut roots as necessary to install root barrier to rear of the property in accordance with Optera Structural Solutions Arboricultural Method Statement. T14 of Tree Preservation Order”. Although originally stating on the application form "The reasons for the work are due to subsidence damage to the property.", amended application documents were subsequently submitted via the Planning Portal which clarified that the reason for the application was not 'Subsidence' per se but the proposed work of installing a barrier was for the purpose of preventing potential subsidence damage to property - thus the requirement for specified mandatory supporting documentary evidence was circumvented. Particularly in the light of the Covid 19 uncertainties, consideration of the ‘root barrier 3 7 application’ was expedited and conditional approval was granted on 3rd July 2020 under delegated powers. 2. Appraisal Tree and Amenity Value