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 were received from Councillor Bartlett, Councillor O’Donovan would be her substitute. This was in accordance with Committee Standing Orders 53 to 56.

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 11 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 Bevan stated he had a non-personal and a non-prejudicial interest in item 10 as he was a trustee of Haringey Sixth Form College and attended regular community liaison meetings with Spurs. Councillor Ibrahim stated she had a non-prejudicial interest in items 10 and 11 as she held a membership with Arsenal Football Club. She was also a member of Arsenal Independent Supporters Association. They would both be viewing the items with an open mind.

The purpose of this report is to note the appointment of Councillor Collett as a member of the Planning Sub Committee and to also note that she has received the required training to allow her to participate in this Sub Committee.

This item was not considered as this was discussed prior in a Special Strategic Planning Committee.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 6^th November as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 6^th November 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.

Construction of a sustainable urban drainage and associated play features and biodiversity enhancements.

The Chair explained that she had asked officers for advice on the procedure for making a motion regarding deferral of an item. She explained that the Planning Protocol said that normally the Committee will hear representations on both / all sides before they decide to defer for any reasons. So the normal procedure would be followed and then any decisions can be made, including on any motions.

Planning Officer Sarah Madondo introduced the report. This report was for construction of a sustainable urban drainage and associated play features and biodiversity enhancements.

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

• It was clarified that this application had 29 objections.

Amit Kamal, Chair of the Residents Garden Association attended the committee and spoke in objection to the proposal, outlining the following:

-       The Friends of Chestnuts Park had diligently cared for this park on behalf of the community for the past two decades. The hard work had transformed this vital community asset in an area severely lacking in green space.

-       If this was a listed park and garden characterised by its openness. Removing one third of the playing field would fundamentally change its nature and reduce both heritage and amenity value.

-       Moving forward with the current proposal would contradict the principles of the Haringey deal, which promised to involve residents in key decisions and community infrastructure design.

-       The Friends of the park were passionately supportive of urban drainage and that's why they were clear that this scheme should be withdrawn so that a better solution that meets the objective for park users, as well as the wider area could be found

-       Over 1000 residents had signed a petition against this scheme in just three days.

Ceri Williams, local resident, attended the committee and spoke in objection to the proposal, outlining:

-       That the project should not be sought for decision in its current form. It was viewed to be in the wrong location and at the wrong timing.

-       This proposal would compromise the one wide space in the area.

-       Chestnuts Park was too small for this scheme; no other local authority had imposed such a risky project. 

Councillor Tammy Hymas attended the committee and spoke in objection to the proposal outlining:

-       That the park had been a solace to people in the area because of the work done by the friends of park. It was a concern that the project could be moving forward as most of the residents did not support this, which exemplified a failure of the process. There  was a strong opposition from people who had engaged in the project for a long time and had concluded that it was not right for the park. All residents wanted good flood mitigation; this had not been found. The failures of this scheme were not through a lack of engagement; the timing was wrong, and the scheme would not work in proportion. There was already huge pressure on green spaces in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposal: Minor Material Amendments to height, design, maximum floorspace and associated works to Plot 3 (Hotel / Residential development) of the hybrid planning permission HGY/2015/3000 (following previously approved amendments including HGY/2017/1183 to allow part residential (C3) use on Plot 3) for demolition and comprehensive redevelopment of the Northumberland Park Development Project through variation of Conditions A4 (Consented Drawings and Documents); A6 (Conformity with Environmental Statement) and Condition A7 (Maximum Quantity/Density) and D1 (Plot 3 specific drawings) under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act (EIA development)

Samuel Uff, Planning Officer introduced the report for Minor Material Amendments to height, design, maximum floorspace and associated works to Plot 3 (Hotel / Residential development) of the hybrid planning permission HGY/2015/3000 (following previously approved amendments including HGY/2017/1183 to allow part residential (C3) use on Plot 3) for demolition and comprehensive redevelopment of the Northumberland Park Development Project through variation of Conditions A4 (Consented Drawings and Documents); A6 (Conformity with Environmental Statement) and Condition A7 (Maximum Quantity/Density) and D1 (Plot 3 specific drawings) under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act (EIA development).

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

• Previously in the 2016 application approval, the approved height was 100 metres. Within this application this would increase by up to 27 metres, but that was contextual. This would not be the tallest building on the wider site. The design was thought to be a significant improvement from that of the previously approved design.
• Car parking was also something that was approved previously, and that car park had already been built. There would be a parking management plan as part of that. The difference between this development and the developments in Tottenham Hale was that when the stadium was being built, they did a lot of excavation. They went deep to build the foundations for the stadium and at the same time they future proofed this scheme by digging foundations for the hotel and the subsequent blocks, so there were likely two or three storeys deeper for car parking.
• Compared to the previous application, there had been enhancements and changes to the application conditions and design.
• In terms of the water assessment, there were two aspects of this. The water used within the hotel and the water used residentially. This would be reviewed as part of the energy and sustainability obligations. The idea would be to keep this as low as possible. There would also be SUDS as part of the wider drainage strategy. Thames Water have confirmed that this would be a sufficient capacity for the area.
• Light compensation would not be a material planning consideration, this would be a private matter. In terms of fire strategy and getting the two cores, that was one of the concerns of having the hotel and residential within the same building and having those independent cores. That was a big driver for the applicant in amending the design. The HSE considered that this would be within regulations and an improvement in what was previously submitted. In terms of section 106 contributions for Bruce Castle, there is a play space contribution. This had not been designated to a specific park in the locality yet. There would be a discussion internally as where best to have this. There were additional built-in elements of various amenities for residents.
• The carbon offset calculation was based on the GLA guidance of offsetting any carbon reductions that haven't been met on site by 30 years.
• Cycle parking would be in line  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Proposal:Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures to the rear of 819-829 High Road; the demolition of 829 High Road; and redevelopment for purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and supporting flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), hard and soft landscaping, parking, and associated works. To include the change of use of 819-827 High Road to student accommodation (Sui Generis) and commercial, business and service (Class E) uses. (HGY/2023/2306)

Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to 819/821 High Road (Grade II), including reinstatement of hipped roof, demolition works to the rear, façade and related external works, internal alterations, and associated works. (HGY/2023/2307)

Phillip Elliot, Planning Officer introduced the report for Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures to the rear of 819-829 High Road; the demolition of 829 High Road; and redevelopment for purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and supporting flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), hard and soft landscaping, parking, and associated works. To include the change of use of 819-827 High Road to student accommodation (Sui Generis) and commercial, business and service (Class E) uses. (HGY/2023/2306) Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to 819/821 High Road (Grade II), including reinstatement of hipped roof, demolition works to the rear, façade and related external works, internal alterations, and associated works. (HGY/2023/2307)

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

• Permission was granted a year ago to build aparments alongside a cinema. The operator that the applicant had on board for the cinema use had dropped out of the scheme. Therefore, that scheme could not be delivered, and it was no longer viable.
• In the London Plan it explained that these buildings and smaller self-contained single person units had potential to free up space. There would be a significant portion of the student accommodation which would be affordable as well.
• There was an evidence-based document called the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. This had been produced for the emerging new local plan and for the new housing strategy. That evidence-based document talked about student housing, student numbers were rising and it acknowledged that student bed spaces can be counted towards housing supply in terms of meeting Haringey’s housing target.
• There would be 250 long stay cycle parking spaces and 9 short stay cycle parking spaces.
• Single aspect units tended to be found in student accommodation due to the sizes of the rooms, the amenity spaces would be dual aspect.
• Student accommodation had different parking provisions to residential accommodation, which was 10% and therefore meant 1 disabled parking space would be available.
• This would be a project with sprinklers.
• The difficulty in providing other housing alongside student accommodation was due to the plan layout and the nature of having the High Road buildings and courtyards behind. Additionally, the operator focused on student accommodation. To have that mixed management in the scheme would prove difficult to have a PBSA operator.
• There would be 287 bed spaces, this would translate to 114 units towards Haringey housing targets. Housing need in the planning system is crystallized and defined by the Haringey housing target of 1592 homes per year. This proposal, in accordance with the London Plan policy, would contribute towards that figure.
• Over the summer when students wouldn’t be at the accommodation, there would be an opportunity for other people to come and use the space. Any temporary use should not disrupt the accommodation of the resident students during their academic year.
• The London Strategic Housing Market Assessment was the evidence base that sits behind the London plan. Student need was including students whose parents did not  ...  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.

This item was not discussed due to Committee Procedure rule 18 of no meeting continuing past 10pm.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 23/10/2023 – 24/11/2023.

This item was not discussed due to Committee Procedure rule 18 of no meeting continuing past 10pm.

There were no new items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 15^th January.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 15^th January.

The meeting ended at 10:15pm.