Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Peacock for whom Cllr Mallett was substituting, from Cllr Rice for whom Cllr Egan was substituting and from Cllr Erskine for whom Cllr Solomon was substituting.

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 10 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Cllr Hare raised a concern that, while the local authority’s planning function was non-political, the application and the s106 changes had been presented by officers at a meeting to which Liberal Democrat Members, including those sitting on the Planning Sub Committee, had not been invited. This meant that Liberal Democrat Members had only a very short time to consider the paperwork for such a significant application; it was felt that this was not good practice and it was hoped that this did not set a precedent, as all Members should receive the necessary support from officers to enable them to carry out their duties.

Allan Ledden, Legal, advised that all Members must come to their determination with an open mind, and that where reports on this issue had been considered elsewhere, this was always on the understanding that discretion ultimately lay with the Planning Sub Committee. Officers confirmed that all Members had been briefed; Cllr Schmitz stated that for such a large report Members would have welcomed longer to consider the paperwork.

Cllr Demirci declared a personal interest as a supporter and former employee of the club (in the capacity of match day steward). His employment with the club had ended in April 2011 and he was not a season ticket holder. Cllr Demirci declared that he was able to come to this determination with an open mind.

To consider receiving deputations and/or petitions in accordance with Part Four, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

There were no deputations or petitions.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 9 January 2012.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Sub Committee held on 9 January 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair.

Marc Dorfman, Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy, introduced the way in which the applications would be presented. Resolutions for the three reports would be passed at the end of proceedings, after full discussion and deliberation of each item. An addendum sheet had been circulated, which outlined that a new appendix 1 to agenda item 6 had been tabled, and also set out a proposed additional condition to agenda item 8 in respect of the provision of details for disabled access and advised of a correction to agenda item 9, Table 1 Row 3, column 3 where the figure should read 733m² instead of 15,000m² as stated in the original report.

Mr Dorfman gave a brief presentation on the details of the site and its location, the existing consented scheme and of the proposed changes represented by the reports before the Committee at this meeting. An outline of the three reports was presented. Mr Dorfman emphasised that the planning authority was obligated to consider issues of viability; that an independent assessment had been undertaken on behalf of the Council in respect of viability of the scheme, and a range of proposals had been brought forward to address the overall viability and deliverability of the scheme. The officer recommendation for all three reports was to grant consent.

Terry Knibbs gave a presentation on the proposed revisions to the s106 agreement for the Northumberland Development Project, and advised that these revisions formed a key element of the viability of the scheme overall. It was the officer view that key impacts (identified as highway capacity and parking, improved access to stations, reducing the impact on buses and achieving a mode share target of 77% of journeys not being made by car, the impact of match day crowds and TV reception) would continue to be addressed; alternative funding arrangements would relieve some of the previous funding obligations, non-funding obligations remained in place and were in parts strengthened under the revised agreement.

It was proposed that the requirement for 50% affordable homes in the development be deleted. As a result of funding regime changes for affordable housing, the provision of affordable housing would have a negative impact on the viability of the scheme. The Council’s planning policy permitted flexibility in respect of affordable housing provision, subject to viability, and also encouraged developing a broad housing mix. It was noted that Northumberland Park currently had a high proportion of social housing, and that the creation of open market homes in the area would broaden the mix of housing locally.

In respect of school place funding, it was recommended that the requirement for this funding be deleted in the revised s106 agreement. On the basis that the homes to be provided under the new outline planning application would all be open market, and the likelihood that the majority of these would be 1 and 2 bedroom units, it was anticipated that the number of children occupying the development would be reduced. It was further reported that separate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Proposed demolition of buildings and development of a foodstore (Use Class A1) together with educational uses (Class D1); stadium-related uses (Class D2); showroom/brand centre (sui generis); and associated facilities including car parking, the construction of new and altered vehicle and pedestrian accesses, private open spaces, landscaping and related works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement, plus Mayoral Direction and reference to Secretary of State.

Mr Dorfman gave a presentation on the application for planning permission for land off Northumberland Park, Tottenham, N17 and the application for outline planning permission for land off Park Lane, Tottenham, N17. The presentations included the location of the sites, details of the proposals, the existing consents in place, analysis of the applications against key planning issues and details of the consultation and responses received. The recommendation of both reports was that permission be granted, subject to conditions, a s106 legal agreement, the direction of the Mayor of London and the direction of the Secretary of State.

The Committee asked about the use of the podium space, who this would be available to and what it would be used for. Mr Dorfman advised that this large space would be managed by the club and open to the public throughout the year, with a number of managed events. A Local Area Management Plan would be required to be in place, which would include a mechanism to consult the local community on how the podium and key access routes would be managed. In response to a question regarding pedestrian access to the upper floors of the Northern development, it was confirmed that this would be via the podium. The Committee asked about the green wall; it was confirmed that this would be the subject of a condition, with the details to be agreed with the local authority as the technology available in this area continued to develop.

The Committee asked whether there was any risk of disturbance to the Moselle culvert, in response to which Mr Dorfman advised that it was not believed that any disturbance would be caused, however a condition was proposed to check this. The Committee asked if it would be possible to explore the opportunity to drain surface water into the Moselle in order to improve the water quality and to add this as an informative. Mr Dorfman agreed that this could be looked at.

The Committee noted that the design panel had made some comments in respect of the design elements of the Southern development, and asked whether design aspects of this application could be reserved matters, to be brought back to the Committee for consideration. Mr Dorfman advised that there had been some debate at the design panel regarding the merits of the finger design over the crescent, with a general preference for the crescent – officers differed from this view and felt that the finger design would offer a better living standard for people living in the development, provide greater light and views towards the stadium and the podium and would create a more varied frontage onto Park Lane. The design panel had agreed that the key to making the development successful would be the quality of materials used, and this was within reserved matters. Other than the outline of the number of units deliverable on the site, all other aspects of this application were reserved matters. It was clarified that this included the design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Mr Dorfman summarised the issues covered earlier in the meeting:

• S106 – there had been several concerns regarding how to ensure delivery of the stadium, and whether there were the possibility of any claw-back, were the stadium not delivered. It was reported that a new obligation required enabling development to invest in the stadium. In respect of the loss of the education contribution, the revised proposal was felt to have less impact on local education services and it was also acceptable to amend requirements on the basis of viability. With regards to affordable housing, the Council was committed to creating a mixed tenure, and Northumberland Park currently had a very high level of social housing.
• Concerns raised by Northumberland Park school – the applicants had responded to the points raised and it was proposed that informatives be added in respect of the issues of the boundary wall, layout and shared use of the space adjoining Northumberland Park school, the co-planning with any other educational establishment on the site of arrangements for the management and control of pupils accessing, leaving and in the immediate vicinity of the educational establishments, that routes to and from any education provision be designed to minimise any adverse interaction between students and that the Highways Authority take pedestrian safety and routing management into account in their works.
• Use of space – there was a need to be increasingly flexible in order to make the project viable. D1/D2 uses were felt to be appropriate in a town centre location such as this.
• Concerns had been raised regarding obtaining best value, the concessions being sought and the issue of quid pro quo. The Committee was advised that issues relating to shares were not planning matters. There had been long and detailed negotiations leading up to the proposed revisions to the s106 agreement, and officers supported the current proposals as being compliant with Council policy.
• Issues had been raised regarding terrorism, and the applicant had provided reassurance on this; questions raised regarding the use of space, the area management plan and quality of the streetscape had been addressed.
• Design – the design panel had overall supported the scheme although had differing views regarding the relative merits of the crescent and finger designs. It had been agreed that the quality of the detailing and materials was of the utmost importance and that if these were of a high enough quality, the scheme would be successful.
• Green issues – the Committee had looked at elements of the design such as the green wall and biomass boilers.
• In conclusion, the recommendations remained unaltered apart from the addition of informatives relating to the representation by Northumberland Park School, and the issue of looking at directing surface water into the Moselle culvert.

The Committee asked about the reserved matters in respect of the Southern development application, and whether these would be brought back to the Committee due to their importance. Mr Dorfman advised that it would be most appropriate for these to be brought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Special Planning Sub Committee – Monday, 20^th February at 7pm.

Monday, 20 February 2012, 7pm.

The meeting closed at 22:30hrs.