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 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.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Worrell and Cllr Amin, Cllr Emery

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

Cllr Collett declared an interest in regard to item 10 as she was ward councillor for Woodside. Cllr O’Donovan declared an interest in regard to item 8 as ward councillor for Tottenham Hale.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 3^rd April as a correct record.

RESOLVED

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 3^rd April as a correct record.

In accordance with the Sub Committee’s protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations. Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, the applicant and supporters will be allowed to address the Committee. For items considered previously by the Committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations.

The Chair referred to the note on planning applications and this information was noted.

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary Conditions 1 and 11 of the approved development  ref: HGY/2013/2610  (previously amended via application ref. HGY/2018/1897 which amended condition 2 of the original permission HGY/2013/2610 with changes to the works to extend the operational railway station at Tottenham Hale). The variations are to replace the requirement of providing a new station access point and footbridge from Hale Village to Tottenham Hale Station, to instead requiring pedestrian and cycle network improvements on Ferry Lane and accessory works.

Gareth Prosser, Deputy Team Manager, introduced the report for the section 73 application to vary Conditions 1 and 11 of the approved development ref: HGY/2013/2610, renumbered under ref: HGY/2013/2610 (scheme previously amended via application ref. HGY/2018/1897 which amended condition 2 of the original permission HGY/2013/2610 with changes to the works to extend the operational railway station at Tottenham Hale). The variations sought consent to replace the requirement of providing a new station access point and footbridge from Hale Village to Tottenham Hale Station, to instead replacing that with pedestrian and cycle network improvements on Ferry Lane and ancillary works.

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

Officers recognised that the bridge was desirable in addition to the works at Ferry Lane but was not essential. Unfortunately, since the planning application in 2013 circumstances had changed. However, removing the bridge did not mean that a bridge could not come forward at a later date. Changes in circumstances meant that the original design for the bridge no longer worked. In terms of the principle of the bridge, there was a general commitment from TfL set out in paragraph 3.9 of the report saying should funding become available as is expected in the future, TfL remained committed to collaborate to deliver a link bridge. Page 1 Agenda Item 6

 On the bottom of page 25 onwards from the report, there was a summary of some of the consultation comments from the Ferry Lane Action Group, some of which welcomed the proposals, and some provided further comments and suggestions which were provided in detail in the report with the officer response.

 Officers had consulted 2,700 residents and received 46 objections and 5 letters of support; the number of objections had almost halved when compared to the previous application.

 The design of the bus stop bypass was in line with guidance, however, this scheme still needed to go through final detailed design and engagement with the Council. The design had been improved taking some of the recommendations that members had provided at the previous committee, officers had considered TfL best practice guidance. Haringey was also developing their own guidance relating to bus stop bypasses and shared bus stops, officers were liaising with disability groups within the borough. Condition one made clear that development must be carried out in accordance with the plans, but the detailed worked up plans would involve co-design with local stakeholders and local groups in the future.

 The risk of pedestrians being injured at bus stop bypasses was very low and TFL findings in 2024 provided recorded only five pedestrian casualties involving cyclists and one involving an E scooter rider on bus stop bypasses over a three-year period; presumably that was across the London area and putting that into context, there's 11,400 pedestrians injured in collisions with motor vehicles over the same time frame.



 Officers received comments from the Metropolitan Police which were generally supportive. They requested a condition and an informative which was included in the addendum.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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: Redevelopment of the site for 36 x residential units within 2 x part three, four and five storey blocks and part two, part three storey mews buildings in conjunction with refuse and cycle stores, parking and re-landscaping.

Samuel Uff introduced the report for redevelopment of the site for 36 x residential units within 2 x part three, four and five storey blocks and part two, part three storey mews buildings in conjunction with refuse and cycle stores, parking and relandscaping.

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

96% of the apartments would be dual or triple aspect with four of the homes being single aspect with an east aspect towards the High Road. All of the apartments would have their own private amenity in the form of balconies which would meet the London Plan standards.

Affordable housing was not anticipated to be provided as it stands, given the viability of the scheme; this should be fully interrogated

The design was a work in progress and the applicant would carry on improving this. The design would need to carefully respect the locally listed building at the former Fishmongers Arms to the south. The design officer thought it was a promising design with some elegant proportions to it. Including balconies had been challenging and officers had encouraged the applicants to move as many of the balconies as possible to the rear; but they also wanted to avoid them overlooking existing neighbours. It had a good internal courtyard but there was more work to be done sorting out exactly how those corner balconies would project.

 The space to the front of the site is highway land, there was an assumption by the applicant that the area was within their site ownership.

 If there were to be any loss of employment land, then there would be a financial contribution sought through the obligations SPG. Officers have had discussions internally with colleagues and the applicant to see what the best possible use would be.

 One of the matters that QRP had commented on was the internal arrangements of the flats.

 It would be a car free development and residents would be restricted from having car parking permits. The applicant would provide car parking spaces for residents with disabilities on the site, accessible from the shared access road.

 It would be helpful to see samples of the brick proposed.

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.

On Tottenham Hotspur’s developments, there had been extensive pre app discussion, and an application seeking consent for reserved matters for residential development was submitted this month. Officers were validating the application and would soon consult with the community.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 1.03.25 – 30.4.25 .

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 as 29^th July.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 29^th July.