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.  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.

RESOLVED

·         That the Chair’s announcement regarding the filming of the meeting for live or subsequent broadcast be noted

Cllr Mallett identified that she would stand down from the Committee for the pre-application briefing on the Keston Centre in order to make a representation as a ward councillor.

Outline Application with matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for mixed use redevelopment to comprise the demolition of existing buildings/ structures and associated site clearance and erection of new buildings / structures to provide residential units, employment uses (Use Class B1 and B8), retail uses (Use Class A1 and A3), community uses (Use Class D1) associated access, parking and servicing space, infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on an application to grant planning permission for an outline application with matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for mixed use redevelopment to comprise the demolition of existing buildings/ structures and associated site clearance and erection of new buildings / structures to provide residential units, employment uses (Use Class B1 and B8), retail uses (Use Class A1 and A3), community uses (Use Class D1) associated access, parking and servicing space, infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to a s106 Legal Agreement and subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an amendment to the s106 Agreement heads of terms, proposed conditions and to recommendation 2.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application and in response to questions of clarification subsequently asked by the Committee:

·         The application would set a dangerous precedent for future developments in north Haringey for both high density schemes in suburban locations and the loss of protected employment land. The likelihood of a domino affect was of concern where landowners would elect to run down Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) in order to justify conversion to more financially valuable and in demand residential land.

·         The area surrounding the site had been mis-characterised as an urban area but in reality was suburban in nature, with two storey housing predominating and as such was unsuitable for such a tall, overbearing scheme.

·         The site had poor transport links being served only by one overcrowded bus route, the W3 and not in close proximity to any stations.

·         The area already suffered from poor access to amenities and public services including oversubscribed schools and a lack of GP surgeries within walking distance.

·         Proposals for onsite parking provision were insufficient.

·         The scheme would have a significant visual impact in being double the height of neighbouring properties to the north of the site including Devonshire Hill Lane due to the sloping of the site. The applicant’s artistic representations of the scheme were misleading in not reflecting the absolute height of the building envelope being sought.

·         Siting the scheme in a suburban area was contrary to planning policy and the London Plan and as such should be refused on the grounds of illegality. Such a scheme would more appropriately be located in a town centre location or close to the new Spurs stadium as part of the regeneration approach.

·         The conversion of the designated industrial and employment land on site for residential development should not be permitted and the Council had given conflicting advice on the planning policy position for the site relating to retaining the land for employment use.

The Committee raised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings of between 4 and 14 storeys in height comprising 174 residential units (Use Class C3) and 294 sqm flexible B1 floorspace, including the provision of private and communal amenity areas, child play space, secure cycle parking, car parking, refuse and recycling storage areas and other associated development

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings of between 4 and 14 storeys in height comprising 174 residential units (Use Class C3) and 294 sqm flexible B1 floorspace, including the provision of private and communal amenity areas, child play space, secure cycle parking, car parking, refuse and recycling storage areas and other associated development. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to a s106 Legal Areement and subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out the proposed conversion of a number of conditions to informatives.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The scheme was welcomed in terms of the provision of new housing, in particular affordable units.

·         The primary objections were to the 14 storey height proposed which would be out of proportion and dominating in terms of size and scale over the predominantly 2 and 3 storey housing in the vicinity. The design ignored local character and would be a blot on the landscape.

·         Traffic levels would increase on Hampden Road as the main entranceway to the site. There were also safety issues as the junction was already challenging for HGV vehicles to negotiate due to the location of the mosque on the corner.

·         There was already considerable pressure in the area on public services such as school places and which would be exacerbated by the cumulative demand associated with scheme plus other development schemes recently approved in the immediate area.

·         It was questioned why a retrograde approach seemed to be taken towards the acceptability of high tower block developments and which prioritised the developer’s profits at the expense of local residents.

·         The level of local opposition to the scheme was considerable.  

·         There was no justification within Council policy for such a tall tower in the location as it was not one of the four sites identified as suitable for such buildings within the site allocations SPD. Additionally, the design was not of the exceptional design quality demanded for such tall buildings.

·         The proximity of Hornsey station and Haringey Heartlands should not be used as a justification for a building of 14 storeys. Tall buildings permitted in Heartlands would be up a maximum 10 storeys high.

·         The position taken that the scheme would enhance views to and from heritage assets such as Alexandra Palace was refuted. 

·         80% of the site was in the path of the Locally Significant View from the top of Cranley Gardens, a fact which had not been referenced by the applicant.

·         The scheme included no social housing provision and little public space.

·         The scheme would set a dangerous precedent for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To confirm the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a tree in the rear garden of No 11 Conway Road.

RECOMMENDATION: to approve the confirmation of the TPO

The Committee considered a report on an application to approve the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a tree in the rear garden of No 11 Conway Road. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to confirm the TPO.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The report also sought authorisation to delegate all powers regarding TPOs (and the ability to further sub-delegate these powers) going forward to the Director/Assistant Director Planning save for TPOs that had objections to them where authorisation was sought to delegate all powers relating to these (and the ability to further sub-delegate these powers) to the Director/Assistant Director Planning subject to agreement with the Chair or Vice-Chair.

The home owner of 11 Conway Road addressed the Committee to outline her objections to the TPO as follows:

·         She had no intention of felling the tree but wanted to retain responsibility for its maintenance, particularly as it was in close proximity to neighbouring properties and had suffered from storm damage in the past.

·         Confusion was expressed over why the TPO was necessary and how the site survey had been undertaken with no request received to inspect the tree from the garden of 11 Conway Road.

·         The visibility of the tree from the street was limited.

·         An insurance company had recommended the felling of the tree in the past as a preventative measure following the completion of a subsidence survey but the owner had decided not to proceeded with this action as she wanted to retain the tree as a wildlife habitat.

The Committee sought clarification from officers on where the future maintenance responsibilities for the tree would lie. In response, it was advised that this responsibility would remain with the owner but that any substantial works would require consent to be obtained from the Council due to the TPO status.

An explanation was sought as to why the TPO was considered necessary for this particular tree. Officers advised that a number of similar trees in the vicinity had been felled and so the Council’s arboriculturist had surveyed the area and was proposing a TPO as a safeguarding action to protect the tree in perpetuity from felling.

In response to concerns that the householder hadn’t been more involved in the decision to impose a TPO, officers advised that the correct process had been followed including allowing the owner to make representations, a right she had exercised. A survey was not required in to make a TPO although the arboriculturist had visited a neighbouring garden to assess the condition of the tree. 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         To approve the confirmation of the TPO and authorise the Assistant Director Planning to take all the necessary steps required in connection with the confirmation of the TPO (and to further sub-delegate this power).  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The following item is a 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 item and any subsequent

application 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 following item was a pre-application presentation to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals related thereto.

Notwithstanding that this was a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decision was taken on this item, and any subsequent application would be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

[Cllr Mallett stood down from the Committee for the duration of this item].

Representatives for the applicant and the planning officer gave a short presentation on early plans for the scheme. The applicant’s representative identified that the scheme would be 80% affordable housing, 100% sale, only to residents of the borough, with at least 20% discount to the open market. Buyers could only sell the flats onto other eligible buyers and the units would remain affordable in perpetuity.

Cllr Mallett addressed the Committee in her capacity as a local ward councillor and made the following comments:

·         Early discussions on proposals had been undertaken with local residents. Concerns had been raised over the proposed height and overbearing nature of the building, the potential of the nature of the park to be changed as a result and the adequacy of parking and affordable housing provision.

·         The pocket living concept in particular gave rise to concerns over the density of the development and a potential lack of amenity space for residents.

·         The proposed land swap was objected to for the impact on an award winning park which was already potentially under threat from Crossrail 2

The Committee raised the following issues:

·         Clarification was sought on controls to secure the retention in perpetuity of the affordable housing provision with successive sales. The applicant advised that this would be secured under the s106 Legal Agreement which would set out the method of sale for the duration of the lease including criteria for buyer eligibility.

·         Further details were sought of the proposed Metropolitan Open Land land swap. The applicant advised this would constitute exchanging a 15m2 strip of land for a 65m2 replacement area in order to allow access to the site to be widened to the correct standard.

·         In response to questions, it was confirmed that the accommodation would comply with London Plan minimum size standards.

·         The Committee requested that consultation continue with the nursery and Goan Community Centre in the development of the full application, particularly with regards to parking.

RESOLVED

·         That the briefing be noted.

10 October.

10 October.