Agenda and minutes

Venue: George Meehan House, 294 High Road, N22 8JZ

Contact: Fiona Rae, Acting Committees Manager  3541, Email: fiona.rae@haringey.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

FILMING AT MEETINGS

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.

Minutes:

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

2.

PLANNING PROTOCOL

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.

Minutes:

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

3.

APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor George Dunstall.

4.

URGENT BUSINESS

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 13 below.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

 

Cllr Rice enquired why the Committee was not considering the minutes of the last meeting. The Chair noted that the minutes would be circulated when they were available.

5.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

6.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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.

Minutes:

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

7.

HGY/2022/0044 - 108 VALE ROAD, N4 1TD pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Proposal: Application for full planning permission for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide four buildings comprising flexible light industrial floorspace (Class E) and storage and distribution units (Class B8), together with car and cycle parking, plant and all highways, landscaping and other associated works.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for full planning permission for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide four buildings comprising flexible light industrial floorspace (Class E) and storage and distribution units (Class B8), together with car and cycle parking, plant and all highways, landscaping and other associated works.

 

James Mead, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was noted that the Urban Greening Factor (UGF) of the proposal would be 0.012 which was below the Mayor of London’s guidelines, and it was enquired what the applicant had done to increase greening. The Head of Development Management noted that there was a conflict of policies in this case. It was explained that the non-compliance was considered to be outweighed in terms of the benefit of scheme (green v employment space). It was added that the application would result in additional greening in the form of street trees but, as it would be offsite, this could not be included as part of the official UGF calculation.

·         It was clarified that there would be cladding which was considered to be appropriate for industrial use. The cladding would be robust, durable, and would be reflective of the industrial area. Some members of the Committee stated that all cladding should be shown to the Committee so that it could consider the proposed materials of developments. The Head of Development Management explained that the details of materials were generally not available when the Committee considered the application. It was noted that a tender process was often required before the materials were confirmed. It was suggested that additional detail could be provided on the appearance of proposals in the agenda papers. The Principal Urban Design Officer explained that there was a detailed condition on the materials for the proposal, that samples and details would require approval, and that the materials would be relatively non-flammable.

·         It was noted that the application proposed a car-capped development with the only provision on the site and occupiers will not be eligible for business permits, but this would not impact existing developments.

·         In relation to the sufficiency of parking, it was noted that the car parking would be booked in advance, managed, and conditioned as part of the application. The Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the applicant would need to provide a detailed Parking Management Plan. It was considered that the proposed parking provision was considered to be appropriate for the development. The applicant team added that most vehicle usage would be related to industrial use rather than for individual use or commuting.

·         The Committee asked about the impact of the proposals on the permeability of the site for walking and cycling and how this would integrate with other sites. The Transport Planning Team Manager stated that the proposal was an improvement on the previous development. The applicant team noted that the site plans for the area were evolving but that there were opportunities for north to south permeability. It was added that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

HGY/2022/0011 - 573-575 LORDSHIP LANE, N22 5LE pdf icon PDF 813 KB

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide 17 affordable residential units (Use Class C3) with landscaping and other associated works.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide 17 affordable residential units (Use Class C3) with landscaping and other associated works.

 

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

·         It was explained that, on Lordship Lane, the site would be screened by a tree and that the development would not be significantly visible throughout the year.

·         It was confirmed that there would be 10 homes provided at London Affordable Rent and seven homes provided at intermediate sale tenure. The Planning Officer explained that the Council would have a first option to purchase all units. It was noted that the amount potentially paid by the Council would be subject to negotiations.

·         It was noted that the development would require a carbon offset payment. The Conservation Officer noted that there were a number of ways that carbon offset payments were spent, including retrofitting fuel poverty homes and fabric efficiencies.

·         Some members of the Committee enquired whether a taller building had been considered in order to provide additional homes. The Principal Urban Design Officer stated that the proposed height was considered to be appropriate height. It was explained that the neighbouring buildings were two storeys to the south and three storeys to the east. It was acknowledged that the petrol station was five storeys but that this was considered appropriate due to the road frontage.

·         Some members of the Committee suggested that the proposed development had an oppressive design when viewed from the petrol station entrance. The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that the design faced away from the petrol station and allowed for the possibility of future redevelopment up to the site boundary. It was added that residents would not have to walk across the petrol station to access their homes.

·         It was noted that the proposed colour of the brickwork had been selected to match the existing brickwork on Lordship Lane and Noel Park Estate.

·         It was noted that there was a risk of some contamination issues on the site, and it was confirmed that the applicant would be using Haringey Council’s Building Control Team.

·         The applicant team clarified that it was aimed to connect the development to the District Energy Network (DEN) but that this would be subject to feasibility and viability considerations. For example, it was not yet confirmed whether there would be a DEN connection in the area. It was noted that air source heat pumps would provide heating to the properties but that the development would be designed to enable a connection to the DEN.

·         It was noted that the site was located near a petrol station. The Planning Officer confirmed that an air quality assessment had been submitted and it was considered that there was no negative impact for the development. It was added that, according to Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guidance, residential properties could be built no closer than 10 metres from a petrol pump;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

HGY/2022/0081 - 15-19 GARMAN ROAD, N17 0UR pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Proposal: Demolition of the existing industrial buildings and redevelopment to provide a new building for manufacturing, warehouse or distribution with ancillary offices on ground, first and second floor frontage together with 10 No. self-contained design studio offices on the third floor. (Full Planning Application).

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing industrial buildings and redevelopment to provide a new building for manufacturing, warehouse or distribution with ancillary offices on ground, first and second floor frontage together with 10 No. self-contained design studio offices on the third floor (Full Planning Application).

 

KwakuBossman-Gyamera, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was noted that Crossrail 2 was on alignment close to the site but that the site itself was not safeguarded for Crossrail 2 use. It was explained that there were some safeguarded sites further to the south which could only be granted temporary permissions in case they were required for Crossrail 2.

·         The applicant team noted that the applicant was aiming to use Haringey Council’s Building Control Team.

·         The Committee enquired whether there was an opportunity to require some local employment clauses. The Head of Development Management noted that the section 106 heads of terms should include the standard local employment clause and recommended that this was included in the recommendation; this was agreed by the Committee.

·         Some members of the Committee enquired about the measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The Head of Development Management explained that this would be addressed through a section 106 legal agreement. It was added that, if this were not agreed, planning permission could be refused on these grounds as set out in the recommendations (2.6).

·         The Committee noted that there was not much greenery or landscaping in the area and enquired whether this would be included in the section 278 agreement. The Transport Planning Team Manager stated that this could be included as sustainable drainage as part of the section 278 agreement; this was agreed by the Committee.

·         The applicant team noted that the date in the proposed recommendation (2.3) was incorrectly stated as 16 June 2022. The Head of Development Management stated that this date should be amended to 4 October 2022 and that, if required, this could be extended further.

 

The Head of Development Management confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission as set out in the report and the addendum and subject to the following amendments:

 

·         An additional section 106 head of term and amended and additional Conditions 16 and 22, as set out in the addendum.

·         The amendment of the proposed recommendation (2.3) so that the section 106 legal agreement was completed no later than 4 October 2022 (rather than 16 June 2022).

·         An additional head of term in the section 106 legal agreement to secure local employment during construction.

·         An amendment to head of term 1 in the section 106 legal agreement to include tree provision as part of the section 278 agreement.

 

Following a vote with 10 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 0 abstentions, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

UPDATE ON MAJOR PROPOSALS pdf icon PDF 179 KB

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

It was noted that Station Road was due to be considered by Cabinet on 5 July 2022 and it was enquired whether modular buildings were still considered to be practical. It was noted that the applicant was exploring some issues. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability explained that some modular units were considered to be good quality, particularly those built-in factories and monitored closely; it was added that there were also some differences in high rise and low-rise buildings.

 

In relation to the Sir Frederick Messer Estate application, some members noted that this was already a dense estate and that it would be important to refurbish existing blocks. The Head of Development Management noted that there was a significant quantity of open space, and that this application would be considered closely.

 

The Committee requested that full application details, including postcodes, were provided for each major proposal.

 

It was expected that Woodridings Court would be progressing shortly. It was noted that Lynton Road had been subject to more recent discussions but was not progressing quickly. It was also commented that Crouch Hill had been removed as it was not expected to come forward; however, it was confirmed that the application would now be coming forward and it was due to be added to the next majors list.

 

It was confirmed that the Lockkeeper’s Cottage application had been an ongoing issue for a significant time period but that it had been removed from the list as it had now been determined. It was noted that there had been some delays in the completion of the land transfer which had been beyond the Council’s control.

 

In relation to Ashley House, the Head of Development Management noted that some masterplanning work had been conducted and it was anticipated that the application would be moving forward shortly. It was noted that a significant challenge for the site was keeping the bus depot operational throughout the development.

 

RESOLVED

 

To note the report.

11.

APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS pdf icon PDF 114 KB

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 23 May 2022 to 17 June 2022.

Minutes:

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.

12.

NEW ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

13.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

To note the date of the next meeting as 11 July 2022.

Minutes:

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 11 July 2022.