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.

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 Councillor George Dunstall and Councillor Alexandra Worrell.

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 14 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

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 7 March 2022 and 17 March 2022 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 7 March 2022 and 17 March 2022 be confirmed and signed 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 existing building and redevelopment of site to provide 41 new homes (Use Class C3) within 3 buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, with associated vehicular access from Woodside Avenue, wheelchair parking, landscaping, refuse/recycling and cycle storage facilities. New stepped access to Parkland Walk from Woodside Avenue.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and redevelopment of site to provide 41 new homes (Use Class C3) within 3 buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, with associated vehicular access from Woodside Avenue, wheelchair parking, landscaping, refuse/recycling and cycle storage facilities. New stepped access to Parkland Walk from Woodside Avenue.

Christopher Smith, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was confirmed that Passivhaus standards aimed to ensure energy efficiency in buildings.

David Staples spoke in objection to the application and noted that he was speaking on behalf of Woodside Square. He explained that, although there was support for the redevelopment of the site for mixed tenure housing, there were objections to the current and height and scale of the proposals. It was felt that the design would negatively contribute to the area and that the proposal to have a six storey building, where the majority of buildings in the area were three or four storeys, would fail to meet Council Policy DM1b which asked that developments related positively to the locality in terms of height, scale, and massing. David Staples stated that the design was not high quality and that it would include open corridors which was considered to be an outdated design concept with safety issues. It was felt that Building A would have a heavy mansard roof with excessive scale that would not replicate the small, articulated rooflines in the area. It was added that the proposal should be set back from the road, similar to other buildings in the area, to avoid an overpowering impact. David Staples stated that 93 of the 244 responses to the consultation objected to the proposal and that these comments had not been incorporated. It was requested that the development was sent back to the developer with a reduced brief so that the design could be addressed.

Mark Simons spoke in objection to the application and stated that a key issue with the application related to parking. It was noted that this was a car free development and that there should be basement parking, similar to Woodside Square, that there should be a central parking zone to prevent encroaching on surrounding roads, and that there should be an equal split of parking for local residents. It was added that the parking survey referenced in the report only related to evening parking but that there were issues during the day. It was felt that a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) should be agreed with local residents in this case as there was no on site parking. Mark Simons stated that there had been a number of objections to applications on this site and that the current application did not address the issues raised. It was stated that the application should not be granted for reasons of overdevelopment and parking. If the application was granted planning permission, the Committee was asked to include a Section 106 legal agreement.

Cllr Cathy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a new care home (Class C2 - Residential Institution), together with a well-being and physiotherapy centre. The proposed care home includes up to 70 bedrooms, with ancillary hydrotherapy pool, steam room, sauna, gym, treatment/medical rooms, hairdressing and beauty salon, restaurant, cafe, lounge, bar, well-being shop, general shop, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage, mechanical and electrical plant, landscaping and associated works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered a full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a new care home (Class C2 - Residential Institution), together with a well-being and physiotherapy centre. The proposed care home includes up to 70 bedrooms, with ancillary hydrotherapy pool, steam room, sauna, gym, treatment/medical rooms, hairdressing and beauty salon, restaurant, cafe, lounge, bar, well-being shop, general shop, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage, mechanical and electrical plant, landscaping and associated works.

Valerie Okeiyi, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The proposal provided traditional long term senior care and met the requirement of Council Policy DM15 to provide an adequate replacement for the existing care home – 70 bedrooms proposed with 43 bedrooms being replaced.

·         The wellbeing and physiotherapy centre - 39% of the 70 bedrooms proposed met the requirement of Council Policy DM15 meeting an established local need and providing a standard of housing and facilities suitable for the intended occupiers.

·         The proposal also met the requirements set out in the current Housing strategy as it would provide a more modern senior care home which was needs-based.

·         The proposed basement plan accommodates 17 car parking spaces, cycle storage.

·         The basement also accommodated the physiotherapy centre and other ancillary and servicing facilities.

·         Each bedroom had its own en-suite bathroom with views to the rear or front garden.

·         The resident facilities also had views onto the landscaped area.

·         The primary access to the care home would be from View Road.

·         The North Hill frontage would provide pedestrian access to the wellbeing and physiotherapy centre.

·         The entrance to the wellbeing and physiotherapy centre was from North Hill and the entrance for servicing was from View Road.

·         The first floor would be dedicated to older people’s care. The second floor would be dedicated to dementia care. Both floors would include dayspace. The third floor was dedicated to the wellbeing centre only and provided convalescent stay accommodation.

·         The quality and layout of the proposed accommodation was considered to be suitable for the intended occupiers in line with the requirements of Council Policy DM15.

·         The proposed tree plan included the planting of 8 new trees which would replace the 7 trees that are of low quality.

·         The set back distance plan highlighted the existing building outlined in red.

·         The site itself and many of its neighbours were densely landscaped with existing trees to be retained and additional trees which also helped to reduce loss of privacy and overlooking.

·         The proposal broadly followed the form and footprint of the existing building, with the proposed building line pulled away from boundaries to neighbouring gardens.

·         The proposal also meets BRE daylight and sunlight guidance.

·         The proposal was a high quality design of an appropriate scale to its context.

·         It respected the visual amenity of the streetscape and locality generally and was supported by Conservation Team.

·         It was confirmed that View Road would be the main access to the site for cars.

·         It was  ...  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: Hybrid planning application for the re-development of part of the St Ann's Hospital site to provide a new residential neighbourhood of circa 995 new homes including 60% affordable housing in buildings up to nine storeys in height, 2,400sqm of non-residential uses (including refurbishment of existing buildings), landscaping and public realm improvements, 160 parking spaces and cycle parking.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for hybrid planning application for the re-development of part of the St Ann's Hospital site to provide a new residential neighbourhood of circa 995 new homes including 60% affordable housing in buildings up to nine storeys in height, 2,400sqm of non-residential uses (including refurbishment of existing buildings), landscaping and public realm improvements, 160 parking spaces and cycle parking.

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

·         Some members enquired about the location and safety of the main vehicular entrance to the site and any mitigations. The applicant team stated that moving the entrance had been considered but would create issues with the nearby ambulance station or would result in an entrance closer to junctions or dense foliage in the conservation area. It was explained that safety audits had been undertaken and it was considered that the current proposal was the best available main access point to the site.

·         In relation to the location of taller blocks and concerns of residents in Warwick Gardens, the applicant team noted that the highest building in Phase 1a would be nine storeys and would be located approximately 90 metres from Warwick Gardens. It was added that the tallest building would be located close to open space and that its building footprint had been reduced to ensure the retention of an existing tree on site. In relation to alternative locations for the building, it was stated that the proposed location was the optimum location to minimise overshadowing.

·         The applicant team noted that they supported the maximisation of walking and cycling opportunities on the site. It was added that the inclusion of a south to west link was a key part of the proposal and would be a link from the main masterplan site to Warwick Gardens.

·         In terms of green spaces, the applicant team noted that the St Ann’s new neighbourhood site was located near Chestnuts Park but did not seek to compete with this space about would provide a different type of space with more greenery and more intricate spaces.

·         It was confirmed that the applicant would be retaining the wall on site but, based on feedback from consultation, would be creating a number of new openings for site access and visibility.

·         In relation to a query about the water tower, the applicant team confirmed that they had consulted extensively with the local community and a variety of uses had been considered. It was explained that this was still being determined but would not be a residential use. It was confirmed that the applicant would manage all maintenance standards on site, with the exception of any internal parts should the Council decide to take up its option to purchase.

·         It was confirmed that the owner of the building would be responsible for service charges.

·         In response to a query about the height and detailed design of the proposal, the applicant team believed that nine storeys would fit comfortably on the site. It was added that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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 21 February 2022 to 20 May 2022.

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 items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 14 June 2022.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 14 June 2022.