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 were received from Cllr Ibrahim, Cllr Collett and Cllr Bartlett

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 X 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 O’Donovan declared an interest in regard to item 9 as chair of the Alexandra Palace and Park board.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 3^rd June as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 2^nd June 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: Demolition of all buildings and structures and the construction of a building for flexible Class B2 general industrial, B8 storage and distribution, and E(g)(iii) light industrial uses with ancillary office, associated service yard, access point, car parking, and landscape planting.

Sarah Madondo, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the item for demolition of all buildings and structures and the construction of a building for flexible Class B2 general industrial, B8 storage and distribution, and E(g)(iii) light industrial uses with ancillary office, associated service yard, access point, car parking, and landscape planting.

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

• Two trees were being retained, and the section 106 would allow for 6 more trees. This is considered to bean  acceptable improvement.
• This proposal would include servicing and parking on site, taking stress off the highway, which would not interfere with Spurs event day parking
•  The exact brick to be used in the development would be decided on in the future, as the building industry is currently finding that bricks are not consistently available. The brick to be used would be secured by condition and agreed by Officers in advance of building works.
• With upskilling, the employees that they would expect on site were a mix of logistic experts and office workers. The employment initiatives that officers were securing in the section 106 was helping towards training and was also securing a portion of jobs to be for residents.
• The stage one and two road safety audits were carried out as part of the detailed design. All lorries would be able to turn within the site and enter and leave in forward gear; and visibility at the entrance and pedestrian safety have been prioritised. 
• There i is a standard condition recommended securing submission of samples and details of timber materials. Officers would make sure that the timber cladding detailing specification is robust and that it would age/weather well.
• The café currently on site does not have planning permission, the developer has not incorporated that as part of this development, but this could relocate in the area.
• In terms of the 22 car parking spaces, the proposal had been assessed in line with the London plan requirements, and it fulfils those requirements. Officers noted the issue about parking pressures and had secured a financial contribution towards reviewing parking management measures in the area which could lead to a CPZ.
• A contribution was secured from the applicant towards delivering enhanced highways conditions, which would uplift this area.
• The committee thanked the applicants for their strong response to the points raised in the QRP report.

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendation as set out in the report. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a unanimous decision.

RESOLVED

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Director of Planning and Building Standards or the Head of Development Management is authorized to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a legal agreement providing the obligations as set out in the Heads of Terms below.

2.2 That the legal agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above, is to be completed no later  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new mixed-use development up to five storeys high with commercial uses (Use Class E) at ground level, 12 no. self-contained flats (Use Class C3) to upper levels and plant room at basement level. Provision of cycle parking, refuse, recycling and storage. Lift overrun, plant enclosure and photovoltaic (PV) panels at roof level

Valerie Okeiyi, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the item for demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new mixed use development up to five storeys high with commercial uses (Use Class E) at ground level, 12 no. self-contained flats (Use Class C3) to upper levels and plant room at basement level. Provision of cycle parking, refuse, recycling and storage. Lift overrun, plant enclosure and photovoltaic (PV) panels at roof level.

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

• Condition 22 regarding the living roof related to the green roof and the green wall, there was also condition 5 which related to landscaping, so these crossed over.
• The applicants had produced a revised daylight and sunlight impact, at Officer’s request.  The impact arising from the development on neighbours’ amenity was justifiable in the circumstances.
• Every traffic management order prepared, in connection with events at Alexandra Palace, would need to take into consideration access for future residents to their property. This would be the same for the existing garage who need access to their MOT service and their customers. If there was any mass crowd movement for safety and anti-terrorism reasons, officers may not allow any access at all, but in preparing a demolition/construction management plan which is a condition attached to this application, the developer would have to take into consideration any known road closures that were proposed at Alexandra Palace.
• The affordable housing the scheme could viably deliver is 3 shared ownership homes, which equated to 25% affordable housing. However, a further appraisal was carried out to see whether any social rented homes could be delivered. In this instance it was concluded that the scheme would generate a deficit, meaning there would be no social rented homes.
• The policy is to provide affordable housing on site in the first instance. The viability work had started off on that basis. The policy also says that where there were legitimate viability issues and circumstances that there could instead be a payment in lieu, and that was the case here. It had not been possible to secure a registered provider on site. The Council itself was not interested in purchasing the affordable homes for its own use.
• An existing kerb into the site would be removed and the footway reinstated, with single yellow lines to allow for temporary collection of rubbish.  The management company would bring bins to the kerb on the day of collection. The rubbish truck would stop for 5-10 minutes and load them in. This is a small redevelopment, which officers did not envisage would cause any traffic problems.
• The QRP agreed that this was an appropriate height and scale of development for this site. There would be an increase of height of one storey compared to the existing neighbour and the further retail parades along Bedford Rd.
• Regarding the affordable housing payment in lieu (PIL) to be secured in the section 106 legal agreement, this could be spent on affordable housing, including social rent.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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: Planning application for refurbishment, conversion, and extension of the existing building, along with the construction of two new single storey buildings to the rear. The scheme would retain commercial use on part of the ground floor and would provide 52 partially self-contained units, providing short term emergency accommodation.

Kwaku Bossman- Gyamera, principal planning officer, introduced a planning application which seeks consent for refurbishment, conversion, and extension of the existing building, along with the construction of two new single storey buildings to the rear. The scheme would retain commercial use on part of the ground floor and would provide 52 partially self-contained units, providing short term emergency accommodation.

The Chair read out the following, committee procedure rules, standing order 18, ‘no meeting shall continue after 10 p.m., except that discussion of the specific item or case in hand at 10 p.m. may continue thereafter at the discretion of the Chair of the meeting’. Consideration of any business remaining shall be deferred to the next ordinary meeting, except where the matter(s) falls to be dealt with under the urgency provisions.

The following comments were made by the applicant, in response to questions from the committee:

• The applicant has owned the property for many years and is a profit-making company with 30 years’ experience in this field; the Joy Foundation is a trading name.
• The company run a similar purpose built 35-unit facility on Prince Regent Lane, in LB Newham; which is also a controlled environment in terms of access to the premises.
• There was going to be a detailed management plan submitted with the application and that would detail how the facility would be run; the document would be secured under legal agreement.
• There would be a lot of surveillance to prevent anti-social behaviour. There would be 2 security staff on the premises 24/7. There could be up to 6-7 staff there during the day.
• There would be a legal agreement obligation which meant that the owner would have to offer the temporary accommodation to Haringey residents first.
• A landscape architect's input would be hugely beneficial at the design stage, particularly around the outdoor spaces.
• There would be quality brickwork and green roofs which would be fully accessible.
• There would be a mix of people in all sorts of circumstances. The proposal had been discussed with the Council’s Housing officers.
• The fees would be set by the Council, and likely be between £45 and £55 per night, the £55 would be the price for the accommodation for wheelchair users.
• This was a good location because there were street frontage and a secure gate. There would always be excellent staffing and two security staff present.
• The applicant was not seeking to retain the existing church, and community uses on the upper floor. They were proposing to bring back a retail use on the ground floor so that there would be some clear communication with the street and the retail frontage, this would be open to the public.

To advise of major proposals in the pipeline including those awaiting the issue of the decision notice following a committee resolution and subsequent signature of the section 106 agreement; applications submitted and awaiting determination; and proposals being discussed at the pre-application stage.

There were no queries on the report. The Chair noted that any queries could be directed to the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 01.05.2025 to 30.06.2025.

There were no queries on the report. The Chair noted that any queries could be directed to the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

There were no new items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 8^th September.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 8^th September