Agenda and draft 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 Councillors Nicola Bartlett and 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 12 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 John Bevan declared an interest in relation to Item 9, HGY/2022/2293 – 45-47 Garman Road, N17 0UN, as he had submitted comments in relation to the application but it was noted that these were neither in support or objection. It was clarified that he would be considering the item with an open mind and would take part in the discussion and voting on the item.

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 5 September 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: Redevelopment of Brunel Walk to provide 45 new Council rent homes in four buildings ranging from 3 to 4-storeys high including 39 apartments and 6 maisonettes. Provision of associated amenity and play space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores and 4 wheelchair parking spaces. Reconfiguration and enhancement of existing parking areas and outdoor communal areas and play spaces on the Turner Avenue Estate.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of Brunel Walk to provide 45 new Council rent homes in four buildings ranging from 3 to 4-storeys high including 39 apartments and 6 maisonettes. Provision of associated amenity and play space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores and 4 wheelchair parking spaces. Reconfiguration and enhancement of existing parking areas and outdoor communal areas and play spaces on the Turner Avenue Estate.

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

·         In response to a query about the difference between Secured by Design accreditation and certification, the Head of Development Management explained that accreditation was undertaken at the start of the project and certification was provided following a site inspection.

·         The Planning Officer confirmed that the previous building on the site had accommodated 36 1-bed units and this had now been demolished. It was noted that the new scheme proposed 45 homes.

·         In relation to permeability, the Principal Urban Design Officer explained that the strategy for gates had been carefully considered. It was noted that the site currently had a high level of permeability which had led to some anti-social behaviour; there was local demand to tackle anti-social behaviour and to provide greater clarity on which areas were public, semi-private, and private. It was explained that each of the four blocks would have a dedicated front door accessible from the publicly accessible courtyard. The mews houses and their private, communal garden would be accessed through a key controlled gate. All residents would be given key access with the exact site access controls to be confirmed. It was added that there would also be Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) on the key controlled gates to improve access and mitigate anti-social behaviour.

·         In relation to overlooking, the Planning Officer explained that the proposed bay windows would be located on the rear elevation to mitigate overlooking. It was added that the recommended separation distance was 18 metres and noted that there would be a 20-27 metre separation distance in this case. The Principal Urban Design Officer commented that almost all gardens were overlooked by windows and that the main concern was window to window, rather than window to garden, overlooking. It was also explained that there were a number of measures to mitigate overlooking, including privacy screens, the angle of the proposed windows which would increase perpendicular distance, the use of boundary trees, and the setting back of the top floor by two metres to avoid direct overlooking.

At 7.42pm, the Committee agreed a brief adjournment to resolve a technical issue. The meeting resumed at 7.44pm.

Anna Wainwright spoke in objection to the application. She explained that she was representing residents on Seaford Road. She asked for clarification about whether the proposal was seeking approval for the nature and size of the development or for the development itself. The Head of Development Management explained that the Council’s development policy had identified that development was acceptable on the site and the current application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide a self-storage facility (Use Class B8) with associated car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and other associated works ancillary to the development.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a self-storage facility (Use Class B8) with associated car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and other associated works ancillary to the development.

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

·         In response to a query about the scale of the development, the Planning Officer noted that permission had been approved for two buildings to the south of site which were similar in scale, that there was a power station adjacent to the site, and that there was a significant development underway to the north of the site; it was considered that the proposed scheme would not detract from the area given the emerging context.

·         It was commented that there was an issue with Japanese Knotweed in the area and it was enquired whether this would be addressed in any conditions or informatives. The Planning Officer noted that a statement in relation to Japanese Knotweed had been submitted by the applicant and that the requirements would be included in an informative to make sure that they were communicated to the applicant.

·         It was enquired whether the s278 highway works agreement would include a requirement to improve the pavement in the area. The Head of Development Management acknowledged that it would be appropriate to clarify that works would include pavement improvements as this would be an acceptable mitigation in response to the development bringing additional footfall to the area. Some members noted that the s278 agreement and subsequent funding was not referenced in the conditions. The Head of Development Management explained that this had been discussed with the applicant but that there had not been sufficient time to include this information in the addendum; it was confirmed that officers would be seeking to include details as part of the s278 highway works agreement, as set out in Condition 24.

·         In relation to the proposed fencing, the Planning Officer explained that this would be largely landscaping rather than a physical fence. The Head of Development Management added that, under Condition 3, the details of the fencing would be subject to agreement with the Local Planning Authority.

·         It was confirmed that the materials of the building would also be controlled by condition to ensure high quality.

·         It was noted that the proposed use class was not subject to the Urban Greening Factor target of 0.3 but that the development would still be expected to set out the measures taken to achieve urban greening on-site. The Climate Change Manager explained that, although this was not a requirement, it was useful to set out the target in the conditions; this was set out in Condition 19.

·         In response to a question about whether the development should be larger in scale, the Planning Officer noted that there were some designated areas in the borough where tall buildings would be encouraged but highlighted that the site was not located in such an area. It was confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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.

In response to a query about the Drapers Almshouses on Edmonton Close, the Head of Development Management explained that there had been a long pre-application process but that there was now a live planning application; consultation had been undertaken in late 2022 and the application was being assessed.

There were no other 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 28 October 2022 – 31 December 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 6 February 2023.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 6 February 2023.