Agenda and 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 Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Mann and from Cllr Bevan, who was attending the meeting to make representations on the application relating to Hale Wharf, and was therefore not participating as a Member of the Committee.

It being a special meeting of the Committee, under Part 4, Section B, paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

There were no items of urgent business.

Councillors Patterson, Waters, Beacham, Basu, Carter, Mitchell and Mallett advised that they had been approached by objectors to the application relating to Hale Wharf, but confirmed that they had not expressed an opinion on the application in response.

Outline planning permission (for the entire site) for a residential led mixed use development comprising the demolition of existing buildings and structures; the construction of buildings across the site to include residential (up to 505 units) and flexible retail or business uses (Use Classes A1-A5 or B1); pedestrian/cycle footbridges, modification works to the existing vehicular access and associated highway works; refurbishment of existing infrastructure (including provision of an on-site energy centre, if required), landscaping and public realm works; new servicing arrangements; car/cycle parking; and associated and facilitating works.

All matters are reserved for the pedestrian footbridges, Phases 2 and 3 Buildings and detailed permission is sought with no matters reserved for the Phase 1 Buildings. The detailed component of the application (Phase 1 buildings only) comprises the demolition of existing buildings; the construction of buildings ranging from 16 to 21 storeys to accommodate 249 residential units and 307m2 (GIA) of flexible retail or business uses (Use Classes A1-A5 or B1); modification works to the existing vehicular access and associated highway works; infrastructure (including provision of an on-site energy centre, if required), landscaping and public realm works; new servicing arrangements; car/cycle parking; and associated and facilitating works.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions, subject to a section 106 Agreement and subject to referral to the Mayor for London.

The Committee considered a report on the application for outline planning permission (for the entire site) for a residential led mixed use development at Hale Wharf, Ferry Lane N17, with all matters reserved in respect of the pedestrian footbridges and Phase 2 and 3 buildings, and detailed planning permission for the Phase 1 buildings, comprising the demolition of existing buildings, the construction of buildings ranging from 16 to 21 storeys to accommodate 249 residential units and 307m2 of flexible retail or business uses, modification works to the existing vehicular access and associated highway works, infrastructure, landscaping and public realm works, new servicing arrangements, car/cycle parking and associated and facilitating works. The report set out details of the proposed development and location, consultation responses, local representations and material planning considerations and recommended to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, section 106 agreement and subject to referral to the Mayor of London.

Planning officers gave introductory presentations setting out the key aspects of the application and the ambitions for this particular site within the wider regeneration context of the Tottenham Hale area.

Several objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points in respect of the application:

·         The site was located within the Lee Valley Regional Park, which had a unique remit. All new developments should respect the quality and amenity of this location. It was felt that the design of Block A did not respond to its setting, being unremarkable in design, excessively large and dominating.

·         The scale and massing of the proposals along Ferry Lane did not respond to its location as part of the regional park; it was felt that a sense of openness should be retained here and that more weight should have been given to the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority’s Landscape Sensitivity Study (2013).

·         The application represented overdevelopment; this was not the right location for this size of building.

·         Any application here should firstly take into consideration the location, environment, community and strategic importance of London’s waterways and it was felt that this was not the case with this application, which also did not take into account the long term future of the site.

·         It was not felt that the appearance of this development would enhance its setting; local waterways were classified as open spaces in the same way as parks, and it was not felt that such a development would be proposed for a parkland setting.

·         The need for more housing was recognised, but it was emphasised that this should not be at any price. The proposed Block A was felt to be too high and unattractive, and gave no consideration to the local community who would have to live alongside it.

·         The application did not comply with Haringey’s own policy on tall buildings. It was suggested that a maximum height of 11 storeys would be appropriate at the South of the site, with the height tapering down towards the green belt.

·         Concerns raised during the consultation period had not been taken into account, particularly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

3 November.

3 November 2016, 7pm

14 November 2016, 7pm

The meeting closed at 9.40pm.