Agenda and draft 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.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  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 and using the public seating area, 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.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2017.  A factsheet covering some of the key points within the protocol as well as some of the context for Haringey’s planning process is provided alongside the agenda pack available to the public at each meeting as well as on the Haringey Planning Committee webpage.

The planning system manages the use and development of land and buildings.  The overall aim of the system is to ensure a balance between enabling development to take place and conserving and protecting the environment and local amenities.  Planning can also help tackle climate change and overall seeks to create better public places for people to live, work and play.  It is important that the public understand that the committee makes planning decisions in this context.  These decisions are rarely simple and often involve balancing competing priorities.  Councillors and officers have a duty to ensure that the public are consulted, involved and where possible, understand the decisions being made.

Neither the number of objectors or supporters nor the extent of their opposition or support are of themselves material planning considerations.

The Planning Committee is held as a meeting in public and not a public meeting.  The right to speak from the floor is agreed beforehand in consultation with officers and the Chair.  Any interruptions from the public may mean that the Chamber needs to be cleared.

The Chair referred to the planning protocol and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence have been received from Cllr Emery and Cllr Bartlett. Cllr Cawley-Harrison was in attendance as his substitute in accordance with committee standing orders 53-56.

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 at item 11 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

Cllr Bevan declared an interest in regard to item 8 as he met with Spurs on a regular basis, this would not affect his judgement and he would be viewing the item with an open mind. Cllr Ibrahim declared an interest in regard to item 8 as she was a member of ASA, she would be viewing the item with an open mind. She also declared an interest for item 10 as she is a ward councillor for Noel Park, she would be viewing this item with an open mind.

TO FOLLOW

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 8^th July as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To approve the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on the 8^th July as a correct record.

In accordance with the Sub Committee’s protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations. Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, the applicant and supporters will be allowed to address the Committee. For items considered previously by the Committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations.

The Chair referred to the note on planning applications and this information was noted.

Proposal: Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a replacement building of up four storeys to include purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.

Phillip Elliot, planning officer introduced the report forFull planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a replacement building of up four storeys to include purpose built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

• There was no policy reason as to why the dentist would have been required, this idea was proposed by the applicant.
• The intention was to provide onsite affordable housing or affordable housing within the neighbouring depot site.

• The London Plan H15 student policy essentially talks about having the option of the accommodation being used outside the academic year for certain groups to improve viability of the accommodation. In that particular part of the policy it refers to delegates, interns on university placements and students on short term education courses.
• The potential of a change to multiple occupancy would be a change of use application that officers would have control over. There is a nominations agreement in the section 10 and evidence to show there was a demand for student accommodation. Furthermore, there is a letter of support from university institutions which detailed that they supported the scheme and would like to take up the accommodation.
• On affordable housing, the applicant had other land holdings within the same site allocation. Therefore, there was potential to provide conventional affordable housing within a site close by. Whilst it was London plan policy compliant to provide affordable student accommodation within it, there was also the other option where it could potentially provide for Haringey residents.
• In terms of archaeology, comments were made previously under the last application and two conditions were settled on. The archaeological advisors from Greater London Archaeological service have said that if you members were to grant planning permission again, then these conditions needed to be reapplied.
• Condition 27 required the parking space to have an electric vehicle charging point. It also required details of the allocation and management of the disabled parking space. In terms of sufficient space on Percival Court, the applicants had sought to make as much space possible.
• In terms of the affordable aspect outside of term time. Officers had largely looked at this based on the supporting text in policy H15 and the London plan. There could be difficulties of viability, being able to keep this open at a time where there might be groups of people leaving would give officers a buffer for the running of the building to have that additional income. There was not any policy requirement or text that says that should be retained at a level akin to the actual student accommodation in terms of a percentage being affordable
• In terms of demand for student accommodation, the London plan displayed a lot of evidence behind this and shows that there was growing demand for purpose built student accommodation in London. A few years ago an evidence based document  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The following items are pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub Committee and discussion of proposals. Notwithstanding that this is a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no  decision will be taken on the following items and any subsequent applications  will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

The provisions of the Localism Act 2011 specifically provide that a Councillor

should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they

previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicated what view

they might take in relation to any particular matter. Pre-application briefings

provide the opportunity for Members to raise queries and identify any

concerns about proposals.

The Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol 2016 continue to

apply for pre-application meeting proposals even though Members will not be

exercising the statutory function of determining an application. Members

should nevertheless ensure that they are not seen to pre-determine or close

their mind to any such proposal otherwise they will be precluded from

participating in determining the application or leave any decision in which they

have subsequently participated open to challenge.

The Chair referred to the note on pre-application briefings and this information was noted.

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site consisting of the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a mixed use scheme comprising workspace and co-living accommodation

John McRory, Principal Planning Officer introduced the report for Redevelopment of the site consisting of the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a mixed-use scheme comprising workspace and co-living accommodation.

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

• On the maximum stay of three years, the planning policy stipulated a minimum stay of three months maximum of three years.In terms of the 49 homes, that was an estimate and the purpose of it was to give an indication of the fact that there was the opportunity for existing homes that were HMO’s to be freed up. There was a significant demand for rented properties. There was the risk of further properties that could end up being converted into HMO’s and this scheme had the capacity to be able to reduce that.
• All studios would have a kitchenette, and everyone would have access to the shared kitchen.
• Concerns were raised about the design lacked a homely aspect, this would be taken away and discussed with the design team.
• There was a community consultation event where 900 local properties were invited. This event did not have a high turnout as there were only 10 attendees but all feedback on this proposal was positive.
• This application was designed to be in line with HMO’s, rent would always be the same.
• The commercial space would pay business rates.
• At the first QRP panel, the cycles and the bin store were at the southern end. Their concerns were that people bringing their cycles in or taking the bins out was going to disturb the piece of public realm. For the second design review panel, the applicant put together a comparison of the size of the space with the spaces further up along in Clarendon Square.That allowed them to understand that they were offering a decent sized space.
• This would be a car free development and within the lease residents would not be able to own a car.
• This development wasn’t solely for single occupancy.
• Single aspect units would be daylight tested. Residents would have access to many other communal rooms.

There were no new items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 9^th September.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 1^ST August .