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 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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dhiren Basu. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Sheila Peacock.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee meetings held on 19 April 2021, 24 May 2021 and 8 June 2021.

In relation to the Planning Sub-Committee on 8 June 2021, Councillor Emine Ibrahim noted that she had also declared that she was a member of AISA (Arsenal Independent Supporters’ Association).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 19 April 2021 and 24 May 2021, be confirmed and signed as a correct record and that, subject to the amendment above, the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 8 June 2021 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The following items are pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals.

Notwithstanding that this is a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decision will be taken on the following items and any subsequent applications will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

The provisions of the Localism Act 2011 specifically provide that a Councillor should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicated what view they might take in relation to any particular matter.  Pre-application briefings provide the opportunity for Members to raise queries and identify any concerns about proposals.

The Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol 2016 continue to apply for pre-application meeting proposals even though Members will not be exercising the statutory function of determining an application.  Members should nevertheless ensure that they are not seen to pre-determine or close their mind to any such proposal otherwise they will be precluded from participating in determining the application or leave any decision in which they have subsequently participated open to challenge.

The Chair referred to the note on pre-application briefings and this information was noted.

Proposal:Development of the land to the rear of Reynardson Court, High Road to provide 18 residential homes fronting Rycroft Way, and associated landscaping (Reynardson Court will be refurbished).

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the development of the land to the rear of Reynardson Court, High Road, to provide 18 residential homes fronting Rycroft Way and associated landscaping (Reynardson Court to be refurbished).

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In terms of the mature trees and green space on the site, it was confirmed that Haringey had a policy to resist the loss of open space. It was highlighted that, in this case, the space was a non-designated open space so there would need to be an assessment of whether the proposal was offset by any benefits. It was added that there was a policy to protect spaces, including designated and non-designated spaces, and that the site allocation policy allowed for loss/ improvement of open space and trees.

·         It was stated that the building would be four storeys tall, one storey taller than the adjacent building, and lower than two trees on the frontage. The applicant team commented that the proposal was not considered to be excessively tall.

·         In terms of disabled access, it was clarified that a step free route would be maintained to the dwellings. The Committee suggested that disabled parking should be located near the associated dwellings. The applicant team noted that access was currently through the public realm but that this could be reviewed. It was added that the final details for the application were being finalised by the Transport Consultant.

·         The Committee commented that the building design shown in the Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) was fairly stark and it was queried whether the ‘green street’ had sufficient planting. These points were noted by the applicant team. It was explained that the results of the below ground survey had been received and that, following discussions with the Tree Officer, it would be possible to include trees within the plans. It was added that there would be additional trees on Rycroft Way. It was explained that the footway would be subject to ‘greening’ but that there was little capacity on site to set back without reducing the number of units. It was noted that the available space would not allow trees to grow to maturity and that the green space shown in the images was within the demise of the buildings and would be maintained by Homes for Haringey.

·         It was noted that the report suggested that the development would improve quality and safety and the Committee requested further detail. The applicant team explained that it was aimed to incorporate some security features within the landscaping and that Secured by Design had provided some input. It was also commented that previously raised scale and massing issues had been addressed in the current design and it was considered that this was a higher quality build.

·         It was confirmed that the design aimed to minimise overlooking and that there would be approximately 15-16 metres separation from the rear of Reynardson Court. It was added that the rooms facing Reynardson Court  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Redevelopment of the disused parking court/ amenity deck to the rear of an existing 4 storey block of Council flats to create 29 additional new homes.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the redevelopment of the disused parking court/ amenity deck to the rear of an existing 4 storey block of Council flats to create 29 additional new homes.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was enquired whether the proposal had sufficient three bed units and whether the balconies would be fully enclosed to protect from noise disturbance and to ensure appropriate temperature control. It was explained that, in balancing the units with the location, it was considered that the location may not be suitable for three bed units but that the mix of units could still be amended. In relation to the balconies, it was noted that these would be 6-7m² amenity spaces in the corners of the buildings. It was noted that these were not internalised and were winter gardens. It was explained that there were screens for acoustic privacy but it was accepted that, due to possible weather and noise, it may not be practical to use the balconies at all times.

·         In relation to parking, it was confirmed that no parking would be provided by the proposal. It was explained that there was an intention to have an active car club and that the applicant team was in contact with two car club providers.

·         It was clarified that the applicant proposed to remove the ramp on the site and that the road would connect to a new, wider lobby which would result in improved access within the building so that there would be a single entry point and so that all residents could access their apartments from the lift or the stairs.

·         The Committee expressed some concerns that the development would be car free but that the surrounding area did not have Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). The applicant team commented that the scheme was not able to provide parking; they asked whether the Council might be able to assist with this and suggested that it might be useful to consider this at the consultation stage.

·         It was noted that there were some concerns about having a single point of entry due to some previous anti-social behaviour issues and it was enquired which areas would be public and which would be residential. The applicant team explained that the spaces at the front and side of the building were intended to be private spaces for residents and would not be open to the public. It was added that the applicant team was looking forward to engaging with residents to determine how to make the spaces as practical as possible. It was also noted that the block had undergone decent homes improvements approximately five years’ ago but that some further, although less intrusive, improvement works were planned in 2022-23.

·         It was commented that the applicant was proposing to remove the concrete structure on the site to open up the building to additional natural light. It was noted that new glazing would be set slightly away to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposal:Demolition with façade retention and erection of buildings of 4 to 9 storeys with part basement to provide a mix of commercial spaces, warehouse living and C3 residential.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition with façade retention and erection of buildings of 4 to 9 storeys with part basement to provide a mix of commercial spaces, warehouse living and C3 residential.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was noted that the site was privately owned and that the proposals involved neighbouring land owners. It was explained that the site was within site allocation number 32 (Omega Works) of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) 2017 and it was expected that there would be an increase in mixed-use development, including warehouse accommodation, and improved accessibility. It was noted that the proposed site allocations spoke to each other and that the site to the north was part of a different site allocation.

·         It was noted that the proposals would provide 76 residential units and 67 bedspaces within two types of warehouse living, including single level and split level. It was explained that the warehouse living component would comprise eight units, with between two and 15 bedrooms per unit. It was added that the minimum bedroom area would be 12m², which was above London standards, and that the ratio of space per person 42-45m², which was above the standard for a studio unit. It was also noted that there would be communal cycle parking, storage, workspaces, laundry rooms, and bathrooms.

·         In relation to affordable housing, it was noted that the site allocation did not give a position on this concept and so this was open for consideration. It was noted that, based on the initial scoping, the scheme was just considered to be viable but that, if there was any value left in the scheme, some affordable housing might be provided. It was explained that warehouse living was smaller than conventional housing but did meet a housing need and so the proposal would require appropriate consideration.

·         It was commented that there was existing employment use on the site and that existing uses were an important consideration. It was noted that the site allocation discussed affordable workspaces and employment uses and it was important to factor this into the consideration of the scheme. It was explained that a robust viability assessment would be undertaken and that affordable housing would be provided if possible but it was highlighted that there was a requirement for affordable workspaces which would have to be factored into the viability.

·         Some concerns were noted about the height of the blocks at the rear of the Omega A proposals. It was clarified that a sunlight and daylight assessment would be undertaken under the next stage of the process and would involve a more detailed analysis. It was explained that this issue was being considered and that there would be a buffer zone between the site and the Crusader Estate. It was noted that there would be approximately 8 metres between the proposed buildings on the eastern side of the site and that there would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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 noted that, due to time constraints, this would be considered at the next meeting if required.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 23.5.21-11.6.21.

The Chair noted that, due to time constraints, this would be considered at the next meeting if required.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

There were no items of urgent business.

6 September 2021

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 6 September 2021.

Post-meeting note: the date of the next meeting was postponed until 14 September 2021.