Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.  (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 8 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution

There were no deputations / petitions / presentations / questions.

Proposal: Hybrid planning application seeking outline permission for the demolition of existing buildings and for the creation of a new mixed-use development comprising residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Use Class E), leisure (Use Class E and Sui Generis) and community uses (Use Class F1/F2) together with the creation of a new public square, park and associated access, parking and public realm works with matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access within the site reserved for subsequent approval; and full planning permission for Plot A including the demolition of existing buildings and the creation of 60 residential units (Use Class C3) together with landscaping, parking  and other associated works.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the hybrid planning application seeking outline permission for the demolition of existing buildings and for the creation of a new mixed-use development comprising residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Use Class E), leisure (Use Class E and Sui Generis) and community uses (Use Class F1/F2) together with the creation of a new public square, park and associated access, parking and public realm works with matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access within the site reserved for subsequent approval; and full planning permission for Plot A including the demolition of existing buildings and the creation of 60 residential units (Use Class C3) together with landscaping, parking and other associated works.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was clarified that the proposal would provide space for a possible bridge over the railway, as set out in the masterplan. It was also confirmed that it was intended to provide the library on the ground floor.

·         It was noted that the proposals would aim to provide at least 35% affordable units by habitable room, with 500 social rent units, 406 shared ownership units, and the remaining units for market sale. The Committee understood that the current proposal was just under 35% and that, under the London Plan, the Mayor was seeking at least 50% affordable units to be delivered on publicly owned land. It was noted that the council owned the majority of the land south of White Hart Lane but that the proposals did not appear to be seeking this level of affordability. The applicant team explained that the figure of 50% related to surplus public owned land, for example where public bodies were disposing of land that was surplus to requirement. It was noted that the applicant was aiming to deliver at least 35% affordable housing across the masterplan and was achieving 40% in the south of the site; they were exploring different funding options and would provide additional affordable housing if possible.

·         The Committee noted that there were multiple density figures set out in the report and enquired what the density of the proposal would be. The applicant team commented that there were different ways to calculate density, with varying levels of detail, which could produce slightly different figures. It was also noted that the density calculations which related to land area would be affected by green spaces, such as Peacock Park, which could explain some of the differences.

·         The Committee welcomed the size of the social rent units, including the higher proportion of 3-bed and 4-bed units, and enquired whether additional larger units could be provided. The applicant team explained that the social rent unit proposals were bespoke to the needs of community based on the results of consultation. It was added that the initial phase of delivery would focus on rehousing the existing residents.

·         In relation to car parking, it was set out in the report that, if needed, a further 7% car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider a report on the work of the Planning Service for Quarters 1 and 2.

The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability introduced the report which provided an update on the work of the Planning Service for Quarters 1 and 2.

The Head of Development Management provided an update in relation to development management as set out in the report. It was noted that applications had increased by approximately 15% but that performance remained high, with 100% for major applications and good rates for other categories. It was highlighted that there had been roughly a 30% increase in other applications and that, although the service was under significant pressure, the average time for decisions had reduced from 87 to 81 days. It was noted that the service had introduced a fast track process for certificates of lawfulness, with decisions made within five working days, which had received positive reviews.

The Committee heard that the council had been subject to a number of overturns of refusals in relation to major applications, with a figure of 10%. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had confirmed that the council had avoided designation this year. However, it was noted that the council had recently lost an appeal in relation to 300-306 West Green Road which was not yet included in the statistics in the report. It was noted that this could impact the next assessment and would be a risk for next year. It was added that there would be significant pressure for the service to process major applications to prevent reaching the level for designation. The Head of Development Management explained that the reason for refusal in relation to 300-306 West Green Road was the design, density, and the effect on neighbouring properties; it was added that there had been no cost implications for the council.

Attention was drawn to page 35 of the agenda pack and it was enquired why the figures relating to the total number of applications did not add up to 100%. The Head of Development Management explained that this was due to the fact that some applications were withdrawn or were not determined and not appealed.

In relation to the appeals that had been allowed, the Head of Development Management explained that there were two ‘Ashley Houses’ and that the appeal labelled as ‘Ashley House’ related to Ashley Road, Tottenham, and that this was also known as Ashley Park. It was noted that the Goods Yard application had been appealed for non-determination but it was queried whether this had been presented to the Planning Sub Committee. The Head of Development Management confirmed that the reasons for refusal in relation to the Goods Yard application had been brought to the Planning Sub Committee and had been effectively considered as a recommendation to refuse after an appeal had been submitted. It was confirmed that the decision in relation to 423-435 Lordship Lane had been made by officers under delegated powers.

The Head of Development Management explained that only one category was currently close to the threshold for designation and that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

There were no items of urgent business.

To note the dates of future meetings:

22 February 2022

To note the dates of future meetings:

22 February 2022