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.

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.

Noted.

None.

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 X below.

None.

None.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 10^th September 2018.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 10 September 2018 be approved.

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and erection of 3-9 storey buildings providing residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and retail use (Use Classes A1-A4) plus associated site access, car and cycle parking, landscaping works and ancillary development.

The Committee considered an application for: Demolition of the existing building and erection of 3-9 storey buildings providing residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and retail use (Use Classes A1-A4) plus associated site access, car and cycle parking, landscaping works and ancillary development.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Officers and the Applicant responded to questions from the Committee:

-           It was not unusual for developments close to good public transport links to have majority one or two bed dwellings.  However, since the application had been lodged, it had been amended to increase the two bed dwellings and decrease the one beds.

-           It was proposed that the retail units would be split and marketed as smaller units to address the changing demands for retail space.

-           The three bed houses had private amenity space, with an internal courtyard on the first floor.  These courtyards contained rooflights to provide daylight to the kitchen / living spaces below.  This was an increasingly common solution to dense housing areas.  These houses would also be exempt from paying service charges as they did not share the communal facilities of the flats.

-           There were only two rooms in the whole development which would not achieve BRE standards for daylight levels.

-           A review mechanism had been built in to ensure that any extra profit made would be split between the Council and the developer.

-           It was unfair to describe the communal courtyard area as a canyon.  The area received lots of daylight and sunlight, which had been tested to BRE standards.  The minimum space required for child play space was 260sqm, and the space provided by the courtyard was 480sqm. 

-           There had been no objections raised in relation to air pollution.

-           The density was higher than the London Plan guidelines, however the Committee needed to be mindful that the development was in a metropolitan area within walking distance of two tube stations and buses. 

-           The second Quality Review Panel meeting were supportive of the proposals and were broadly happy with the high road frontage.  The flats from the podium upwards were set back from the high road, which ensured that the building was not in one block.

-           There was one flat which did not meet the minimum requirements for sunlight, however it still received more than the recommended daylight levels. 

-           BRE standards recommend that amenity space received 2 hours of sunlight in 50% of the area on Spring Equinox – the plans showed that the communal amenity space would receive considerably more than the minimum recommendation.

Councillor Rice moved that the application be rejected on the grounds that it failed to provide significant affordable housing.  Councillor Bevan seconded the motion, but added that it should also be refused on the grounds that the application failed to address the concerns raised by the Quality Review Panel.

The Chair moved that the application be refused, and following a vote with seven in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

Proposal: Hybrid Application with matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access within the site reserved for residential-led mixed use redevelopment to comprise the demolition of existing buildings/structures and associated site clearance and erection of new buildings/structures and basement to provide residential units, employment (B1 Use), retail (A1 Use), leisure (A3 and D2 Uses) and community (D1 Use) uses, with associated access, parking (including basement parking) and servicing space, infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development. Change of use of No. 52 White Hart Lane (Station Master's House) from C3 use to A3 use.

The Committee considered an application for: Hybrid Application with matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access within the site reserved for residential-led mixed use redevelopment to comprise the demolition of existing buildings/structures and associated site clearance and erection of new buildings/structures and basement to provide residential units, employment (B1 Use), retail (A1 Use), leisure (A3 and D2 Uses) and community (D1 Use) uses, with associated access, parking (including basement parking) and servicing space, infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development. Change of use of No. 52 White Hart Lane (Station Master's House) from C3 use to A3 use.

The Chair asked members if there were any late declarations of interest to make.  Councillor Bevan confirmed that he had responded to the consultation and raised concerns, however he stated that he would consider the application with an open mind.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report and set out the background to the non-determination appeal. 

A representative of the Peacock Industrial Estate addressed the Committee.  Regeneration was welcomed in the area, but not at the expense of the existing tenants of the industrial estate.  He requested that the applicants provide a boundary wall so that the area was protected, and that compulsory purchase orders would not be made.

Richard Serra, Head of Planning for Tottenham Hotspur agreed to consider the request for a boundary wall, and informed the Committee that Compulsory Purchase Orders were not for consideration by the Committee.

Officers and the Applicants responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The Applicant explained that they had attempted to engage with the Planning Service, but had not been successful in identifying the missing planning obligations.

-           Officers did not feel it was the case that the Applicant did not want to deliver, but rather that they had a different view on what was deliverable.

-           The Committee were advised that regarding employment re-provision, that they should only consider land which was on the Applicant’s site, and not adjoining properties.

Councillor Williams moved that the Committee accept the recommendations set out by officers in the report.

Following a vote, with ten for, zero against, and one abstention, it was

RESOLVED

i)          That should the development proposed in the subject of the report have been determined by the Planning Sub Committee, the Committee would have resolved to REFUSE hybrid planning permission for the following reasons:

1)        In the absence of a full viability appraisal, the ability of the development to deliver the maximum reasonable amount and type of affordable housing, and to meet the requirements of Policy NT5, is unable to be determined.  The proposal therefore fails to provide its contribution to the estate renewal required in NT5 and fails to meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents. The development proposal is contrary to the revised NPPF, London Plan Policies 3.9, 3.11 and 3.12, Draft London Plan Policies H5 and H6, Policy SP2, Policies DM 11 and DM 13, and Policies AAP3 and NT5.

2)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

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.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 27 August – 21 September 2018.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

12^th November 2018

12 November 2018