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.  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’, 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 advised that the meeting was being streamed live on the Council’s website.

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.

Members and speakers were requested to note the information set out at item two on the agenda.

The Chair advised the Committee that Councillor Rice was in attendance as a substitute for the vacant Labour seat on the Committee.

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 14 below.

None.

Councillor Yvonne Say advised that she had seen the Partridge Way proposals in her capacity as Ward Councillor.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committees held on 8 June 2020 and 9 July 2020.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 June 2020 be approved.

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 July 2020 be approved, subject to the addition of a declaration of interest made by Councillor Viv Ross in that he was a member of the Canal and River Trust (in respect of item 8 - HGY/2020/0847 Lock Keepers Cottages, Ferry Lane, N17 9NE)

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of three buildings between two and three storeys in heights to provide 13 residential dwellings, private and communal amenity space and other associated development.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and erection of three buildings between two and three storeys in heights to provide 13 residential dwellings, private and communal amenity space and other associated development.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           There were no single aspect units.

-           Units 6, 7 & 12 were fully part N4 compliant, but all remaining units would be wheelchair adaptable.

-           The Local Plan set a preference for onsite affordable housing, but supported exceptions in some circumstances.  This site was exceptional in that the units were of high value with high service charges and there would not be a large amount of units available to any Housing Providers.  Therefore a contribution of £287k to provide offsite affordable housing was acceptable for this application.

David Richmond spoke in objection to the application.  He addressed the Committee as Chair of the Highgate Society planning and environment committee, a qualified architect, and on behalf of the Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC).  The CAAC was strongly opposed to the development as the density and character was considered to be completely at odds with the neighbouring area.  Mr Richmond referred to an appeal decision in 2006 to refuse an application for a 1^st floor extension to the nursing home, where two of the reasons for refusal were overlooking and the threat posed to mature trees.  This application has first floor windows and terraces looking directly down into windows and gardens of Courtyard House, and on the north elevation, directly into the private rear garden of Broadlands Lodge.  The plans showed a number of bricked up windows, and Mr Richmond questioned how long it would take for a non-material amendment application to be lodged to open these up, causing further overlooking of neighbouring properties.  Mr Richmond also raised concerns in regard to the basement, which would surely cause damage to the mature trees on site.  Mr Richmond also questioned the sustainability of the site and referred to the comments of the Carbon Management Team which noted that the scheme fell short of the net-zero target and asked how such a scheme could be put forward for approval.  Mr Richmond concluded by questioning the inclusion of chimneys, which seemed to have been added for no known purpose.

Stewart Goldberg spoke in objection to the application.  He also referred the Committee to previous applications at the site, one of which was refused at appeal stage.  The new scheme comprised of three blocks of flats, with one of Highgate’s largest basements.  The construction of the basement was sure to damage adjacent properties.  Mr Goldberg questioned why it was acceptable for there to be no fire brigade access to block three.  Mr Goldberg added that he felt that the proposed application was a fait accompli, and that residents’ concerns were being ignored.  There had been no attempt to reduce the scale of the application despite objection letters being submitted by local residents.  Mr Goldberg requested that the application be refused.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 440.

Proposal:Development of open land and garages for c45 residential units (houses and flats - all Council rent) and associated landscaping, public realm improvements, play space, cycling and refuse stores.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the development of open land and garages for c45 residential units (houses and flats - all Council rent) and associated landscaping, public realm improvements, play space, cycling and refuse stores.

The Committee commented on the proposal:

-        Site visits would be useful before pre-application presentations.

-        The following conditions should be included on the main application: feedback to be taken from residents after moving in and no satellite dishes to be permitted.

-        A car-free development could cause conflict with current residents.

-        There was no uniformity across the design of the development.

-        Green space was a necessity due to the proximity to Seven Sisters Road.

-        The road should either be a road or a pedestrianised street, not a shared street due to safety.  There seemed to be no reason for cars to drive around the suggested area, so it should be pedestrianised.

-        The townhouses looked like mini versions of the blocks, but this did not work and consideration should be given to changes in the design to allow them to stand out.

-        The ‘blended street’ could not be considered a play space and given the number of 3 and 4 bedroom units, play space was required onsite.

Proposal:Demolition of the existing garages and redevelopment of the site to provide a nine storey building comprising of 14 x 1 bedroom flats and 9 x 2 bedroom flats (all for Council rent), with amenity space, associated bin stores, cycle stores and disabled and visitor parking, and provision of play space and landscape improvements in the vicinity of the site.

Clerks note – the Chair suspended Standing Orders at 21.50 to allow the meeting to continue past 22.00 for the consideration of this item.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition of the existing garages and redevelopment of the site to provide a nine storey building comprising of 14 x 1 bedroom flats and 9 x 2 bedroom flats (all for Council rent), with amenity space, associated bin stores, cycle stores and disabled and visitor parking, and provision of play space and landscape improvements in the vicinity of the site.

The Committee commented on the proposal:

-           The block was too tall for the area, just because there were tall blocks next to the development did not mean that another one was acceptable.

-           The design was disappointing.

-           The courtyard would become an unusable space, or a dumping ground for the properties.

Officers commented that the courtyard would be well-lit and secured, and that the one bedroom units would appeal to downsizers wanting to give up bigger family units in exchange for a smaller high quality unit.

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.

The Chair requested that any questions on the report be sent directly to Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 29 June 2020 – 21 August 2020.

The Chair requested that any questions on the report be sent directly to Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

12 October 2020

12 October 2020