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 2025.  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.

Cllr Bartlett, Cllr Ibrahim and Cllr Collett were absent.

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 5^th February as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 5^th February as a correct record.

It was requested, that for future committee reports on housing schemes, the number of homes with kitchen-diners and the number with separate kitchens be set out.

Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment to provide 17 council homes arranged across two 4-storey blocks; together with associated communal amenity space, private outdoor space, landscaping, cycle parking, and refuse storage

Sarah Madondo, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report for demolition and redevelopment to provide 17 council homes arranged across two 4-storey blocks; together with associated communal amenity space, private outdoor space, landscaping, cycle parking, and refuse storage 

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

• Members were informed that there had been several notable successes arising from the apprenticeship opportunities created through the Council’s Housing development programme. Officers reported that some apprentices had achieved wider recognition, including one who had recently accompanied his employer to the House of Commons to receive a commendation from the Member of Parliament for Tottenham. 

• Members were advised that officers had held discussions with the applicant following the Committee’s site visit the previous week and that the concerns raised by Members around neglected open space were  shared by officers. As a result of those discussions, it was proposed that, as part of the significant  contribution the scheme was expected to make towards wider public realm improvements in the area, a specific sum— to be confirmed through the Director’s Letter— be allocated to the enhancement of the open space., a 

• Officers noted that Members had frequently sought assurances regarding the condition of the estate once construction activity had concluded. It was therefore proposed that the contractor appointed to deliver the new homes would be made responsible for the maintenance, upgrading and general upkeep of the remaining areas for a minimum period of two years following completion of the block. This represented the maximum period available under the council’s contractual powers as developer. It was acknowledged that the council could choose to extend this period, and officers expressed the intention to explore this further through the Director’s Letter to ensure that the upkeep and maintenance of the area met the concerns regularly raised by Members. 

• It was noted that the Strategic Asset Management Team were undertaking a review of all council owned holdings. Housing Officers reported that they were working closely with that team to identify opportunities to improve or repurpose assets. Where appropriate, such assets could either support the ongoing housing programme or be adapted to contribute more effectively to the wider public realm in areas where new developments were being completed. Members were advised that this was an ongoing programme of work, with the Property and Asset Management Team continuing to collaborate closely with Housing officers to progress these opportunities. 

• It was reported that solar panels were proposed for installation on both roofs. They would occupy a total area of 92 square metres and were estimated to generate approximately 8,000 kilowatt hours per year. The energy produced was intended primarily to serve the landlord supply. Members were advised that the roof layout remained indicative at this stage and would be subject to further detailed design work.. The system was expected to provide a total peak output of 19 kilowatts. 

• The Courtyard would be open during the day, with the gate locked via an automated system at night.  

• The ‘Neighbourhood Moves Scheme’ would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Proposal: Alterations and 7-storey extension (facing Lawence Road) to existing building to provide new self-storage facility (Use Class B8), new flexible workspace / incubator units and other works ancillary to the development.

Gareth Prosser, Deputy Team Leader, introduced the report for alterations and a 7-storey extension (facing Lawrence Road) to existing building to provide new self-storage facility (Use Class B8), new flexible workspace / incubator units and other works ancillary to the development.  

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

• The ‘shed’ was to be retained because it was reusable, and therefore there was no need to demolish it. Incorporating the existing building rather than demolishing and rebuilding was considered more sustainable and practical. It served its purpose effectively and was incorporated into the development. As there was no change to this structure, there was no additional amenity impact on the properties to the rear, which was regarded as a significant benefit. The existing situation for residents within the conservation area therefore would not materially change. 

• There was expected to be a modest uplift in biodiversity net gain. The site is of poor ecological quality, being largely covered in concrete. Any additional landscaping would therefore have a meaningful positive impact. The existing trees on site would be retained, and new landscaping was proposed at the front of the development. The building was set slightly back from the building line of number 28, allowing for flower beds, planting, and wildflowers at the frontage. A biodiverse green roof was proposed on top of the main building, adding significantly to the overall greenery. A small, landscaped space was also proposed at the rear, which had been conditioned to ensure clarity on its final design. 

• The proposed building comprised two main elements: the retained industrial warehouse to the rear and a new-build element to the front, designed in a contemporary Art Deco warehouse style. The principal accommodation would consist of self-storage units, each forming an individual secure space allocated to a specific customer. The front-facing element would comprise light industrial units suitable for small scale industrial uses compatible with nearby residential and commercial occupiers. These units, like the self storage spaces, would be let by the developer. 

• The developer would be  owner-occupier and would construct, operate, and maintain the building. They intend to manage the letting of both the self-storage units and the small business incubator units directly. 

• The peak trip generation was forecasted at five vehicles in/out at any one time. Lawrence Road is lightly trafficked and predominantly residential, especially compared with its previous industrial use. We have no concerns from a transport or highways perspective regarding trip generation or parking demand. 

• Fab Labs (Fabrication Laboratories) were designed to be flexible, small, and cost effective. The applicant advised that they operates six similar stores in comparable  residential areas. Typical occupants lived within a 20–30 minute walking distance, often even closer. 

• The working day for the development was 09:00 to 18:00. Extended hours were available to customers from 06:00 to 23:00; however, only around 15% of existing customers across the applicant’s other stores opted for these extended hours. 

• Given the nature and scale of the building, the GLA policy has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal:

1. Pre-application proposals for Phase 5 - Reserved Matters seeking approval of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access in relation to Buildings F01, G01, G02, J01 and J02.

2. Use of Sustainabrick building façade facing material on Phases 4 and 5.

Valerie Okeiyi, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report for pre-application proposals for Phase 5 - Reserved Matters seeking approval of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access in relation to Buildings F01, G01, G02, J01 and J02. Use of Sustainabrick building façade facing material on Phases 4 and 5. 

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

• The Sustainabrick system had a design life of 60 years, equivalent to that of a conventional wall. It met all relevant building regulations. The foundations did not need to be as large or as deep, resulting in reduced concrete use and improved sustainability. It was also more cost effective. 

• Regarding affordable housing provision, this had been established within the wider masterplan several years earlier. The pre-applicant advised that they had delivered the level of affordable housing they were obligated to provide, and in some cases  more than required. Recent economic challenges had not adversely affected the scheme; the developers had continued to progress the project and had found ways to withstand current market pressures while still delivering the affordable housing commitments made years ago. This was considered a positive outcome. 

• In terms of height, the pre-applicant team stated  that at their Kidbrooke development they were delivering a 22?storey building.The tallest building in Phase Five would not use Sustainabrick but instead an aluminium system developed, following  review by QRP. They were also exploring the delivery of 26?storey high buildings in Greenwich. 

• On the issue of adhesion, it was acknowledged by the pre-applicant that there had been failures in the past. The team had reviewed various slip systems, including mechanically fixed systems and adhesive?based systems, the latter of which had historically experienced issues. They had spent three and a half years undertaking research and development with Monolith, the manufacturer. The proposed system addressed potential failure by embedding the slips in a mesh, which would then be adhered to a waterproof Sto render. Behind this would sit approximately 20mm of additional waterproof render, followed by a further waterproof sheet, insulation of varying thicknesses, and finally the SFS (structural façade system). 

• From a sustainability perspective Officers advised that brick production methods significantly influenced embodied carbon. Alternative drying methods could reduce this impact, and using only part of a conventional brick also lowered embodied carbon. Reducing façade weight further decreased the embodied carbon required for the superstructure. These principles were supported in general. 

• However, questions remained regarding the sourcing of raw materials, including transport distances, which formed part of the broader sustainability assessment. Mortar use was also raised as an issue: traditional lime mortars allowed bricks to be dismantled and reused, whereas conventional cement mortars did not. It was noted that the proposed system did not appear to allow for deconstruction in this way. 

• The pre-applicant reported having four projects across their portfolio at various stages of Gateway 2 approval. The scheme closest to receiving consent, which also proposed this product, was at Royal Arsenal Riverside. The regulator’s concerns had not related specifically  ...  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 02.01.2026 – 30.01.2026

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 is to be confirmed.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was to be confirmed.