Agenda and minutes

Nominations were sought from the Committee for Chair for the duration of proceedings, in the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Sub Committee. Cllr Egan nominated Cllr Rice as Chair, and this was seconded by Cllr Basu. The Committee was asked to approve the appointment of Cllr Rice as Chair for proceedings and it was:

AGREED

That Cllr Rice take the Chair for the duration of proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Demirci, for whom Cllr Christophides was substituting, from Cllr Peacock, for whom Cllr Egan was substituting, from Cllr Schmitz, for whom Cllr Solomon was substituting, from Cllr Beacham, for whom Cllr Erskine was substituting and from Cllr Reece for whom Cllr Strang was substituting.

NOTED

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.

It being a special meeting of the Sub Committee, there were no new items of urgent business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member’s judgement of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Cllr Strang declared a personal interest as an employee of London Underground.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of mixed use development comprising Class 3 residential and Class A1/A2/A3/A4 with access, parking and associated landscaping and public realm improvements.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106/s178 Legal Agreement and direction of the GLA.

Please note, it being a special meeting of the Sub Committee, under the Council’s Constitution, Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17, no other business shall be considered at this meeting.

Members were advised at the start of the meeting that a Member information pack and hard copy of the officer presentation had been provided, and that Charles Solomon from the District Valuer Service and Nicola Hodges from URS Scott Wilson were present at the meeting to answer Members’ questions as necessary. Paul Smith gave a presentation on the application, setting out the site, relevant planning policies, the development agreement and brief, planning history, details of the proposal, access, housing and amenity space, conservation views, design panel, daylight and sunlight, key objections and responses, the independent Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA), viability appraisal, reports from the GLA and Transport for London and the officer recommendations as set out on page 46 of the agenda pack.

Mr Smith reported that 21 objections had been received since the report had been completed, and these were summarised along with the officer responses in the pack for Members. An additional 6 objections had been received on the day of the meeting, for which it had not been possible to provide a written response, however these broadly reflected objections which had already been lodged.

The Chair reminded all present that the meeting was being webcast for broadcast on the Council’s webcast.

The Committee asked questions of Mr Smith regarding his presentation. In response to a question regarding the proposed new rents for traders, were the development to go ahead, Mr Smith reported that these would be renegotiated on the basis of acceptable rent levels at that point in time. The Committee noted that regeneration was the main aim of the proposal and, given that an incomplete development would be the worst possible scenario, asked what safeguards were in place to protect against such an outcome. Mr Smith advised that, other than the issue of affordable housing, viability was a matter for the developer and was not a matter for the Committee to take into consideration. Allan Ledden, Legal Services, clarified in respect of the Conservation Area that it would be a condition that a contract be in place for the replacement of buildings in the Conservation Area before any demolition of such buildings took place.

The Committee asked about the amendment to the aspirations for the Seven Sisters Corridor under Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy, and who had instigated this, in response to which it was reported that this was instigated by a borough-wide residents’ association. The Committee asked how the development could be seen to be enhancing the Conservation Area, in line with the Development Brief, when demolition was proposed, and also how it could protect the diversity of the area when no affordable housing was proposed. The Committee further asked whether the Wards Store building, as a significant landmark building, could have been incorporated into the design. In response to the issue regarding affordable housing, it was reported that this had been carefully looked at and found not to be viable on account of the physical constraints of the site, but that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.