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.

There were no apologies for absence. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Cathy Brennan.

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 November 2022 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 7 November 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 the car park adjacent to Wat Tyler House to provide 15 new Council rent homes in a part 4, 5 and 7 storey building. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores, a wheelchair parking space on Boyton Road and enhancement of existing communal areas and play space to the rear on the Campsbourne Estate.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered the application for the redevelopment of the car park adjacent to Wat Tyler House to provide 15 new Council rent homes in a part 4, 5 and 7 storey building. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores, a wheelchair parking space on Boyton Road and enhancement of existing communal areas and play space to the rear on the Campsbourne Estate.

James Mead, Planning Officer, introduced the report. In response to the points raised by councillors, the following responses were provided:

·         The Planning Officer stated that the car club and Travel Plan would be secured through the planning obligations.

·         In response to a question about transportation, the Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) assumed that services were only relevant within 640 metres, even though many people would travel further to access bus and rail services. It was noted that officers were working with Transport for London (TfL) to increase the PTAL of the site but that this was very challenging without substantial funding. It was explained that there were plans to increase connectivity as part of the proposal, including improvements for cycling and walking.

·         In relation to a question about kitchen provision, it was clarified that the proposal included a combination of units with separate kitchens or with larger kitchen and dining or living areas.

·         It was noted that the water use reduction target would be enforced and monitored through Building Regulations.

·         In response to a query about the impact of satellite dishes, the Head of Development Management noted that the standard condition relating to satellite dishes should be included to ensure that they did not have an unacceptable impact.

·         It was noted that the proposal was a smaller development which was not required to meet the target to provide 10% of dwellings for wheelchair users. The applicant team clarified that, overall, the Council’s Housing Delivery Programme would provide more than 10% of dwellings for wheelchair users.

·         Some members enquired how the proposal would provide dual aspect without overshadowing neighbouring properties. The Principal Urban Design Officer explained that the design involved three cubes which were slightly offset and aligned with neighbouring buildings; this was able to provide dual or triple aspect without overshadowing neighbouring properties.

·         In response to a query about parking, the Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the site would not be car free but that council tenants would now have on street, rather than off street, parking. It was commented that extensive parking surveys had demonstrated that there was capacity for on street parking. 

·         It was noted that the report commented on bay windows on the northern elevation of Tennyson House and found that, as these did not appear to be primary openings, the proposal would have no material impact on living conditions. The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that the uses of these rooms were not known but that, as the windows were less than two metres from the corner of building, it was very likely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Demolition of existing building; redevelopment to provide business (Class E(g)(iii)) use at the ground, first and second floors, residential (Class C3) use on the upper floors, within a building of six storeys plus basement, provision of 7 car parking spaces and refuse storage.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered the application for the demolition of existing building; redevelopment to provide business (Class E(g)(iii)) use at the ground, first and second floors, residential (Class C3) use on the upper floors, within a building of six storeys plus basement, provision of 7 car parking spaces and refuse storage.

At 8pm, Cllr Brennan arrived but, as the item had already begun, she joined the public gallery and did not participate in the discussion or voting for this item.

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

·         The Planning Officer confirmed that, as set out in the addendum, the majority of the units were dual aspect and the units that were single aspect were either east or west facing. It was noted that no single aspect units were north facing.

·         It was noted that Council Policy DM13 stated that sites with the capacity to deliver more than 10 dwellings would need to provide affordable housing and some members suggested that the site could have this capacity. The Head of Development Management noted that the site did appear to have capacity but highlighted that the site allocation and employment policies were also considerations. It was noted that the scheme would re-provide the existing employment space and that, on balance, officers considered that the proposal was acceptable. It was noted that, if a tenth unit was provided, it was unlikely that it would be viable to provide affordable housing on the site and it was likely that there would be a payment in lieu to provide affordable housing elsewhere.

·         The Chair noted that large commercial units and workspaces were needed in the borough. It was stated that additional residential provision would reduce the amount of commercial space and that it was necessary to consider the balance of these two uses. The Planning Officer commented that the existing tenants of the site intended to occupy the new development.

·         Some members noted that there was a section 106 obligation which would secure affordable housing if the employment space was converted to residential. Concerns were expressed that this only applied to the commercial space and did not cover a situation where any residential units were divided and the overall provision exceeded 10 dwellings. The Head of Development Management agreed that this wording resulted in unintended ambiguity and that the obligation should arise where there were more than 10 dwellings; it was suggested that this wording be clarified for the avoidance of doubt.

·         Some members expressed concerns about the quality of the application in terms of the presence of single aspect units, the fact that density had not been maximised, the low light levels in the commercial space, and the lack of play space or green space. The Principal Urban Design Officer explained that the scheme was not large enough to meet the threshold that required play space but would still provide private, external amenity space for residents and was located near to parks. It was noted that it  ...  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.

Cllr Brennan joined the Committee at 9.15pm.

The Chair referred to the note on pre-application briefings and this information was noted.

Proposal: Refurbishment of existing Civic Centre and redevelopment of the existing rear car park for the erection of a three storey building (plus roof enclosure); 2 x two storey links; creation of central courtyard; and associated landscaping.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the refurbishment of existing Civic Centre and redevelopment of the existing rear car park for the erection of a three storey building (plus roof enclosure); 2 x two storey links; creation of central courtyard; and associated landscaping.

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

·         It was commented that accessibility and transparency were central to the original design of the building and members welcomed the fact that the proposals would maintain these features.

·         It was enquired whether the building would be open to passers-by. The applicant team noted that areas of external landscaping and the reception area would be publicly accessible; there would also be an area that could be hired and used for events. Some members noted the importance of ensuring that some areas of the building were secure but felt that the Civic Centre should be more inclusive and should have more opportunities for the public to engage. The applicant team noted that the reception and some outdoor areas would be open to the public and could have flexible uses.

·         Some members believed that the car park would be reasonably prominent and it was enquired whether this could be moved from the front of the building to somewhere less visible. The applicant team noted that the plan may be misleading as it was intended to have a pedestrianised area at the front of the building. It was explained that cars would access the area from Trinity Road and it was highlighted that disabled parking was required to be located within a maximum distance from the main entrance. It was stated that the area outside the main entrance would be pedestrianised and would be significantly upgraded.

·         In response to a query, the applicant team confirmed that the net internal area of the building was 6,000 sqm and the external area was 11,000 sqm.

·         Some members noted that, in the past, the west side of the building had experienced overheating issues during the afternoon and evening. The applicant team explained that the glazing would be significantly upgraded and that the building would have mechanical ventilation. 

·         In response to a query, the applicant team confirmed that there were a number of memorial elements across the site, including some planting; members urged the applicant to retain or relocate these elements. It was noted that there would be engagement with the member forum and it was suggested that the reception area would be a suitable opportunity to capture some memorial elements.

·         In relation to parking, it was explained that there would be eight parking spaces: three of these were disabled parking spaces and the other five would be enlarged spaces for flexible uses. It was acknowledged that some staff required vehicle access for their roles; the services with fleet vehicles would not be based at the Civic Centre and it was noted that the essential car permit policy was due to be reviewed for other staff. Some members noted that parking was  ...  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.

In relation to a query about the progress of Hornsey Police Station (HGY/2022/2116), the Head of Development Management noted that some transport issues were being resolved and that the viability report was being assessed; all relevant matters were being considered before the recommendation was finalised.

It was noted that the Omega Works application was currently classified as invalid. It was explained that this meant that there were insufficient plans; this had been communicated to the applicant and it was expected that the outstanding information would be submitted.  

Some concerns were expressed that Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court and Osbourne Grove had been in progress for a significant time period. In relation to Osbourne Grove, the Head of Development Management believed that some amendments were awaited and, once submitted, these would be reviewed. In relation to Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court, it was noted that the Housing Team was considering the detail of the proposals before progressing with further pre-application discussions and with the application.

In relation to the Lockkeeper’s Cottages (HGY/2020/0847), it was confirmed that planning permission had been granted and would be valid as long as development commenced within three years.

The Chair noted that any further 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 22 January 2023 – 17 February 2023.

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 new items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 24 April 2023.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 24 April 2023.