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 Cllr Worrell, Cllr Bartlett and Cllr Rice.

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

·         Cllr Bevan declared an interest as the proposed scheme for item 9 was within his ward. He had also made observational comments on this item but did not believe that these would impact the decision made. He would view the item with an open mind.

·         Councillor O’Donovan declared an interest for item 8 as he was ward councillor for Tottenham hale. He would approach the item with an open mind.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 1^st August and 9^th September as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To approve the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on the 1^st August and 9^th September as a correct record.

Cllr Bevan noted that the index linked sum of £4000 was not mentioned in the minutes, planning officers explained that they would use this point to negotiate the Section 106 with Spurs.

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: Section 73 application to vary Conditions 1 and 11 of the approved development (application ref. HGY/2018/1897 which amended the original permission HGY/2013/2610 for changes to the works to extend the operational railway station at Tottenham Hale). The variations are to replace the requirement of providing a new station entrance and footbridge from Hale Village to Tottenham Hale Station, to instead requiring pedestrian and cycle network improvements on Ferry Lane and accessory works.

Planning Officer, Robbie McNaugher introduced the item for section 73 application to vary Conditions 1 and 11 of the approved development (application ref. HGY/2018/1897 which amended the original permission HGY/2013/2610 for changes to the works to extend the operational railway station at Tottenham Hale). The variations are to replace the requirement of providing a new station entrance and footbridge from Hale Village to Tottenham Hale Station, to instead requiring pedestrian and cycle network improvements on Ferry Lane and accessory works.

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

• There would be a lip and a difference in materials, this would delineate the cycle way from the foot way. This met design standards and would be subject to a stage one, stage two and stage 3 road safety order.
• TFL have done extensive modelling and looked at the impacts on increased capacity. For example, on match days passenger levels had been looked at closely.
• In terms of costs there has not been a budget to secure the link bridge. This was incredibly expensive compared to what officers initially expected. The option to have a paid link was looked at, but this would have to be manned. Officers had taken into consideration the slight increase to the overall footway width. The current cycle lanes were not in line with standards. This scheme had been optimised and was the best officers could do.
• The floating bus stop was a reasonable distance from the bridge itself, the bus stop was an island within a cycle lane and a road. There were new standards published by TFL regarding a bus stop bypass. Officers would take consideration into the design to slow cyclists down before the bypass. This design would go through the network management team at TFL and safety auditors.
• Lighting would be part of the safety design, officers would give more attention to the detailed design of this.

Quentin Given represented the Ferry Lane action group. He attended the committee and spoke in objection of this proposal; a summary of his speech is below:

Quentin welcomed the proposal for a new crossing and widening of footway, he also welcomed the agreement by highways of reducing the speed limit to 20mph. His specific concern was about the conflict on the southside of the road between pedestrians and cyclists. He was disappointed that the suggestion of changing the staggered crossing had been rejected.

Andrew Johnson, the Director of Engine Room Community Centre attended the committee and spoke in objection of this proposal, a summary of his speech is below:

The proposal for a link bridge was heavily supported by residents. This area had an overcrowded, dangerous footpath with an influx of pedestrians and cyclists. He requested that the team share plans for the bridge as per the original planning permission and find funding required to provide a fully accessible eastern entrance to Tottenham Hale station. He also raised concerns around theft in the area.

Cllr Peacock, Ward Councillor for South Tottenham attended the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Redevelopment of existing car parking area to both Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court to provide 30 residential units over 4 blocks of three-storeys with associated amenity space, refuse/recycling and cycle stores. Reconfiguration of parking area accessed off Lansdowne Road, provision of additional communal amenity space, new cycle facilities and replacement refuse/recycling facilities. Enhanced landscaping across Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court

Planning Officer, Kwaku-Bossman Gyamera introduced the item for redevelopment of existing car parking area to both Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court to provide 30 residential units over 4 blocks of three storeys with associated amenity space, refuse/recycling and cycle stores. Reconfiguration of parking area accessed off Lansdowne Road, provision of additional communal amenity space, new cycle facilities and replacement refuse/recycling facilities. Enhanced landscaping across Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court.

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

• Both schemes provided dual aspect and triple aspect units. There were kitchen-diners within the scheme. Bulk storage would be provided on both schemes, this was separate to resident waste disposal.
• There had been a parking survey carried out, and there was off-street parking available. 10 out of 32 spaces were not used in Arundel and 10 out of 31 in Baldwyn were not used. There was scope for further spaces and sufficient capacity within the local area. Residents could apply for permits however new residents could not apply as this development would be a car free development.

Rorie Ash, Resident of Baldwyn Court attended the committee to speak in objection to this proposal. The following was noted from his speech:

Rorie explained he had submitted an objection letter in June and in his view his concerns had not been taken into account. He believed the layouts of the existing flats were not considered properly. His kitchen was an independent room and held a view of 40m down Lansdowne road, this development would obstruct this view. The new blocks would require steel gates, he was concerned about the noise implications from these. The new bin stores would be accessed through the alleyway, bin stores should be external.

The following responses was noted in response to questions to the applicant:

• Officers did not consider the kitchen windows particularly beneficial to the existing dwellings because they were quite small high-level windows.
• New steel gates and new steel fences would be installed, officers were confident they would be rarely used, and the Council could make sure that they were fitted with rubber pads to prevent them from making too much noise.
• BVRE guide does not expect the applicant to know the internal layout of neighbouring buildings. The standards were based on neighbouring windows, the existing neighbouring windows achieved excellent daylight and sunlight levels.
• With the Neighbourhood Move scheme, existing residents within the given area would have a degree of priority.
• Noise baffling on high quality materials was provided and materials would be subject to planning conditions.
• During the evolution of this scheme, the view was taken that if there were internal bins stores, these would take up less space. It was simply about trying to maximise the amount of public realm and landscaping which was available to the existing residents in the future.
• Officers could look to consult with residents in the existing blocks to identify whether there were circumstances in which the location of the bin stores could be the subject of a  ...  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.

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 for the period 26.08.24 – 27.09.24.

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 7^th November.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 7^th November.