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.

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.

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 29 November 2022 and 5 December 2022 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 29 November 2022 and 5 December 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: Installation of street furniture comprising pairs of 76mm dia steel tubes (poles) linked with 1.6mm clear nylon filament and similar street furniture to delineate a local Jewish Eruv.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the installation of street furniture comprising pairs of 76mm diameter steel tubes (poles) linked with 1.6mm clear nylon filament and similar street furniture to delineate a local Jewish Eruv.

Tania Skelli, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to a query about the benefit to the Jewish community, the Planning Officer clarified that the Eruv would allow people to carry items on the Sabbath, including wheelchairs, prams, and personal items; it was noted that this would not be possible without the Eruv.

·         Some members asked about the use of beads to ensure that the Eruv was visible to birds. The Planning Officer explained that, following comments from the Parks Officer, additional measures would be provided at location 22 in order to ensure the best solution for birds and bats. It was clarified that these measures were considered necessary in the nature reserve but that no other locations would have these measures.

Paul McDonald spoke in objection to the application. He stated that there were over 14 environmental conflicts relating to the proposal which had been submitted in writing. He felt that the proposal would result in the installation of a dangerous fishing line, would diminish local community gardens, and would increase the amount of street furniture. He stated that local people opposed the application as religious symbols should not be present in secular, public spaces; it was commented that the area was predominantly secular and that less than 2% of the local community was Jewish. It was added that the poles were considered to be obtrusive. Mr McDonald believed that the initial planning application was inaccurate in terms of scales and failed to consider issues such as environmental impact, particularly the effect of the proposal on birds. He stated that the planning process had been defective due to a perceived conflict of interest and the notification had been issued in August when many people were away and signs had been placed in unsafe locations on narrow roads. Mr McDonald said that there should be a compromise and existing furniture should be used to create the Eruv; he urged the Committee to preserve the local environment.

In response to the points raised in the objections, the following responses were provided:

·         In response to a query about the community gardens, Mr McDonald stated that there were two community gardens in the area near to the Crouch End rail bridge and that lots of people who walked to the station enjoyed the gardens and the accompanying biodiversity.

·         In response to a query about the poles for the Eruv, Mr McDonald stated that the poles would be 5.5 metres above ground but would be 6.5 metres in total. He commented that the requirement for the poles to have a 1 metre footing had a significant energy and carbon footprint and he believed that the Eruv could be achieved using a less invasive method. 

·         Some members commented that religious items, such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal:

HGY/2022/0708 – Application for variation/removal of condition 1 (in accordance with the plans), condition 4 (restriction of use class) and condition 6 (deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2020/0100.

HGY/2022/0709 – Application for variation/removal of condition 8 (deliveries in respect of units 3, 4 and 5a as well as units 1, 5b and 6) condition 22 (no loading/unloading outside units 3, 4 & 5a) and condition 23 (no loading/unloading of deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2014/0055.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for:

HGY/2022/0708 – Application for variation/removal of condition 1 (in accordance with the plans), condition 4 (restriction of use class) and condition 6 (deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2020/0100.

HGY/2022/0709 – Application for variation/removal of condition 8 (deliveries in respect of units 3, 4 and 5a as well as units 1, 5b and 6) condition 22 (no loading/unloading outside units 3, 4 & 5a) and condition 23 (no loading/unloading of deliveries) attached to planning permission reference HGY/2014/0055

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

·         It was asked how the noise assessment had been undertaken. The Noise and Nuisance Manager explained that a Noise Survey could be carried out using a model or measured data. The noise on site could be measured, uploaded into software, and then modified to consider the impact of things such as additional vehicular movements. It was highlighted that the Noise Survey included measurements on the site for specific time periods to more accurately determine the noise impact. In relation to the effect on residents, it was explained that the data could be modelled to determine the sound impact over different distances. The Head of Development Management stated that there would be higher noise levels but that these would not be significantly above background noise levels. The Noise and Nuisance Manager added that the additional measures were set out in the Noise Management Plan and noted that there would be additional controls between 11pm and 6am.

·         Some members asked whether unrestricted delivery hours were likely to result in higher noise levels and air pollution on the residential part of White Hart Lane, particularly in the early morning hours. It was noted that this was sometimes difficult to balance but that there could be a greater impact if delivery times were restricted. It was explained that providing the ability to deliver at any time could limit the impact on the road network and decrease congestion and air pollution.

·         It was enquired how issues of light pollution, particularly in the early morning hours, would be managed. The Planning Officer explained that the planning permission had a condition restricting external lighting and so the applicant would need to obtain permission from the Local Planning Authority for any additional lighting. The Head of Development Management noted that the site would be lit overnight for operational and security reasons and so vehicle lights were not expected to have a significant impact.

·         Some members enquired whether there could be an acoustic fence on the eastern side of the site. The Planning Officer noted that there would be an acoustic fence on the western side, adjacent to Unit 2. The Noise and Nuisance Manager explained that the noise assessment had modelled where the noise was most likely to be an issue and that this had been identified as the western site boundary. It was added that the eastern site would be significantly less impacted by noise due to the use of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposal: Redevelopment of site including demolition of existing buildings to provide a part 7, part 24 storey building of purpose-built student accommodation [PBSA] (Sui Generis); with part commercial uses [retail] (Use Class E(a)) at ground and first floor; and associated access, landscaping works, cycle parking, and wind mitigation measures. - RE-CONSULTATION on design updates to accommodate an additional stair and lift for evacuation in the event of a fire.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the Redevelopment of site including demolition of existing buildings to provide a part 7, part 24 storey building of purpose-built student accommodation [PBSA] (Sui Generis); with part commercial uses [retail] (Use Class E(a)) at ground and first floor; and associated access, landscaping works, cycle parking, and wind mitigation measures. - RE-CONSULTATION on design updates to accommodate an additional stair and lift for evacuation in the event of a fire.

Philip Elliott, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was highlighted that the addendum included updates on procedural matters, plan changes, additional consultee responses, and updates and corrections to the report.

·         The Planning Officer noted that the Committee had made a resolution to grant planning permission for a similar development on the site on 5 September 2022. It was explained that, after this resolution, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had updated their response from ‘some concerns’ to ‘significant concerns’ on 23 September 2022. The government had also launched a consultation in relation to Building Regulations in December 2022 which proposed a requirement for second staircases for buildings over 30 metres tall. It was noted that the Greater London Authority (GLA) now required all planning applications with buildings over 30 metres to be designed with two staircases before GLA Stage 2 referrals. It was highlighted that the applicant had amended the scheme to provide a second staircase and evacuation lift and this was now presented to the Committee for consideration.

·         The Planning Officer commented that Sage Housing had circulated an additional, late letter to members on 24 April 2023; this raised similar points to those noted previously and officers considered that the issues were addressed in the report. Except for the comments received from Sage Housing and the issues relating to means of escape, it was noted that there had been no other, material changes since the Committee’s resolution in September 2022.

·         Some members noted that concerns had been expressed previously about whether two loading bays would be sufficient to accommodate students moving in or out of the building at the same time; it was asked whether the arrangements were still considered to be adequate. The Planning Officer confirmed that this had been discussed at the meeting in September 2022 and that the Committee had agreed to include a condition requiring the applicant to provide details relating to how the moving arrangements would be managed. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability noted that the applicant had explained that these arrangements were common in student accommodation blocks and it was commented that the loading arrangements for this site were not unique in London or the country.

·         Some members noted that there were different classes of lifts, including passenger, evacuation, and firefighter lifts. It was understood that firefighter lifts were the best lifts for fire safety and it was enquired whether firefighter lifts could be installed throughout the building. The Planning Officer noted that the London Plan required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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 Lynton Road (Part Site Allocation SA49), it was noted that the other part of the site was undergoing consultation. In particular, it was noted that there was an application for nine residential units which would avoid the requirement for affordable housing that was relevant to proposals for 10 or more units, and it was asked how the different parts of the site allocation would be managed in a cohesive manner. The Head of Development Management explained that the policy for sites within site allocations was to encourage engagement with neighbouring landowner groups to ensure that the site allocation was delivered as a whole. It was noted that officers were liaising with the landowners and that conversations were ongoing to ensure that the sites were cohesive.

Some members commented that previous applications had included an agreement that affordable housing contributions would be required if 10 or more units were provided in future and suggested that this could be considered for Part Site Allocation SA49. It was enquired whether the proposed commercial space for one application would affect the other site within the site allocation. The Head of Development Management stated that the proposals from the two applicants had not been confirmed and so it was not possible to undertake an assessment at this stage. It was explained that there was an initial expectation that the existing commercial space would be re-provided; once the proposals were confirmed, calculations would be undertaken and the applications would be assessed against the site allocation. It was added that the applicants would need to work collaboratively.

In relation to the Lockkeeper’s Cottages (HGY/2020/0847), it was reported that there were some concerns about damp on the site. The Head of Development Management stated that this issue was not known to officers but could be investigated.

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 20 February 2023 – 7 April 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 11 May 2023.

11 May 2023