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 Yvonne Say.

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

Councillor Nicola Bartlett declared an interest in relation to Item 8, HGY/2022/0823 and HGY/2022/2816 - Broadwater Farm Estate, N17, and Tangmere, Willan Road, N17 6NA, as she supported the scheme as a ward councillor. It was clarified that she would leave the room for the duration of the item and would not take part in the discussion or voting on the item.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 5 September 2022 as a correct record. (To follow)

It was noted that the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 5 September 2022 would be considered at the next meeting.

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 – Planning Permission (HGY/2022/0823): Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and erection of new mixed-use buildings including residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Class E) and local community and learning (Class F) floorspace; energy centre (sui generis); together with landscaped public realm and amenity spaces; public realm and highways works; car-parking; cycle parking; refuse and recycling facilities; and other associated works. Site comprising: Tangmere and Northolt Blocks (including Stapleford North Wing): Energy Centre; Medical Centre: Enterprise Centre: and former Moselle school site, at Broadwater Farm Estate.

Recommendation: GRANT

Proposal – Listed Building Consent (HGY/2022/2816): Listed building consent for the removal of Grade II listed mosaic mural to facilitate its re-erection in a new location.

Recommendation: GRANT

Cllr Bartlett left the room at 7.05pm.

The Committee considered an application for Planning Permission (HGY/2022/0823): Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and erection of new mixed-use buildings including residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Class E) and local community and learning (Class F) floorspace; energy centre (sui generis); together with landscaped public realm and amenity spaces; public realm and highways works; car-parking; cycle parking; refuse and recycling facilities; and other associated works. Site comprising: Tangmere and Northolt Blocks (including Stapleford North Wing): Energy Centre; Medical Centre: Enterprise Centre: and former Moselle school site, at Broadwater Farm Estate.

The Committee also considered an application for Listed Building Consent (HGY/2022/2816):Listed building consent for the removal of Grade II listed mosaic mural to facilitate its re-erection in a new location.

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

·         In relation to a query about ensuring that there were no mould and damp issues, the Planning Officer noted that the units would have dual or triple aspect, which would maximise natural ventilation, and would be built to a high standard. The Climate Change Manager added that there would be mechanical ventilation and that there was external amenity space which residents could use to dry clothes.

·         It was enquired why it was necessary to move the mural. The Planning Officer explained that the building with the mural needed to be demolished because of its structural condition. It was noted that the mural would be stored whilst a restoration plan was developed and there were conditions relating to this that had been recommended by the Conservation Officer and Historic England. The Head of Development Management added that there was a heritage benefit in moving and displaying the mural in a more appropriate location.

·         It was noted that there would be a £30,000 contribution towards reinstating a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The Planning Officer believed that there was an existing CPZ in the area but that it had lapsed. It was stated that there was an ambition to reinstate the CPZ and the payment would include a consultation process.

·         In relation to parking, it was commented that the area had poor connectivity to public transport. The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that a parking survey had been conducted and had determined that 93% of the units across the wider estate, including the new units, would have access to a car parking space; it was considered that there was sufficient parking.

·         The Planning Officer clarified that a scoping request had been undertaken to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. There had been consultation with various environmental bodies and it was considered that the area was quite a dense, urban environment; as such, the development was not inconsistent with the area and an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.

·         In relation to the housing mix of the scheme, some members noted that a large number of 1-bed units was proposed; it was acknowledged that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Redevelopment of the derelict undercroft car park behind Woodridings Court and provision of 33 new Council rent in four and five storey buildings. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and and wheelchair parking spaces, and enhancement of existing amenity space at the front of Woodridings Court, including new landscaping, refuse/recycling stores and play space.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for redevelopment of the derelict undercroft car park behind Woodridings Court and provision of 33 new Council rent in four and five storey buildings. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and and wheelchair parking spaces, and enhancement of existing amenity space at the front of Woodridings Court, including new landscaping, refuse/recycling stores and play space.

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

·         The Head of Development Management confirmed that the proposal was for council rent units, also known as formula rent; it was noted that any changes would require a variation. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability noted that council rent and London Affordable Rent (LAR) were both considered to be low cost rent for planning purposes. In this case, reference to council rent was included in the description for the development and, if a different approach was proposed, a future application would likely be required.

·         It was noted that the development would be car free and some members expressed concerns that there might be additional stress on the area that was not covered by a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the site was on the edge of a CPZ but was within the CPZ area and, therefore, there was a policy requirement that the scheme was car free. It was commented that an extension of the CPZ area could be sought. It was added that residents within the development would be restricted from applying for permits in existing of future CPZs.

·         In relation to the zinc and concrete cladding proposed, the Principal Urban Design Officer noted that some comparable buildings were visible in the Design and Access Statement. It was explained that the zinc cladding was not a widely used material but was intended to look like a contemporary building and the red colour aimed to echo and respond to some of the surrounding brick houses, such as those on Dagmar Road.

·         In relation to play space, the Planning Officer confirmed that this area would be for existing and future residents; this would be gated and would be more secure than the current arrangements.

·         The Planning Officer commented that the buildings would be designed to Passivhaus energy efficient standards which would include thicker insulation for external walls, airtightness, and acoustic reduction which would act as a noise barrier. Members raised concerns that the development would be next to a busy train track, including large trains and overnight journeys, and it was enquired whether this had been taken into account as part of the noise report. The Head of Development Management noted that there was a distinction between constant and intermittent noise and it was stated that the conditions had been assessed appropriately. In response to a query about vibrations, it was commented that design elements such as the building façade and insulated windows were intended to mitigate the impact.

·         In response to a question about sunlight, the  ...  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:Construction of two linked buildings - one of 10 storeys on land adjacent to 341 Seven Sisters Rd and one of 4 storeys to the front of Cara House (Eade Road) both containing ground floor café / workspace uses and Warehouse Living accommodation with associated waste storage and cycle parking; and ten stacked shipping containers to a height of 2 storeys containing workspace / artist uses to the rear of 341 & 343 Seven Sisters Rd with associated toilet facilities, waste storage and cycle parking.

The proposals include landscaping works including the widening and remodelling of the public footpath alongside 341 Seven Sisters Rd and works to Tewksbury Road. And the creation of rain gardens, greening, seating, signage, and artworks and other associated infrastructure works, including the removal of an existing, and the construction of a new, substation.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the construction of two linked buildings - one of 10 storeys on land adjacent to 341 Seven Sisters Rd and one of 4 storeys to the front of Cara House (Eade Road) both containing ground floor café / workspace uses and Warehouse Living accommodation with associated waste storage and cycle parking; and ten stacked shipping containers to a height of 2 storeys containing workspace / artist uses to the rear of 341 & 343 Seven Sisters Rd with associated toilet facilities, waste storage and cycle parking.

The proposals include landscaping works including the widening and remodelling of the public footpath alongside 341 Seven Sisters Rd and works to Tewksbury Road. And the creation of rain gardens, greening, seating, signage, and artworks and other associated infrastructure works, including the removal of an existing, and the construction of a new, substation.

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

·         In relation to the local employment offer, some members enquired whether there would be any priority for local residents and business. The applicant team stated that the scheme would aim to attract people to the area and from the area. It was noted that there was a lot of diversity in the area, including international students and residents, and the applicant team was open to discussion targeted assistance if there was a particular definition or group in mind.

·         In response to queries about the levels of air quality and noise, the applicant team noted that they had undertaken air quality and noise assessments which had found the scheme to be compliant. It was stated that the proposals had been designed around Passivhaus energy efficiency principles and would include mechanical ventilation; there would also be an option for residents to open windows but this would not be essential. It was added that the scheme would also provide a buffer for Cara House which did not have the same level of double glazing or ventilation.

·         Members enquired about waste removal and the applicant team noted that the commercial units at ground floor level would have their own bin stores which would be subject to a trade waste contract. In relation to household waste, it was acknowledged that this had been an issue in the area and so improved waste removal had been designed into the proposals.

·         In response to a question about cycling improvements, the applicant team acknowledged that some residents required vehicles for work and travel but they stated that they did not wish to provide car parks in the area. They added that they would be happy to contribute to cycling infrastructure.

·         Regarding affordability, it was commented that the accommodation was not classified as affordable housing but would be affordable and accessible for young people and would include generous workspaces. The applicant team noted that many warehouse buildings had different landlords which led to varied conditions and investment levels. In this scheme, it was aimed to have more central control and a regulated  ...  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.

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 9 January 2023.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 16 January 2023, rather than 9 January 2023.