Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Peacock, for whom Cllr Egan was acting as substitute, from Cllr Schmitz, for whom Cllr Hare was acting as substitute and from Cllr Solomon for whom Cllr Scott was acting as substitute.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late reports in relation to the item shown on the agenda.

(Please note that under the Council’s Constitution – Part 4 Section B paragraph 17 – no other business shall be considered).

There were no 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 Mallett declared a personal interest as she lived within half a mile of the site and was a member of Clyde Road Residents Association.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use development comprising class C3 residential, class A1/A2/A3/A4 uses, with access, parking and associated landscaping and public realm improvements and associated Conservation area consent for demolition (HGY/2012/0921).

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission ref: HGY/2012/0915 subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement plus Mayoral Direction. Grant Conservation Area Consent ref: HGY/2012/0921 subject to conditions.

Paul Smith gave a presentation on key aspects of the report, which set out details and images of the proposal, details of the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, human rights and equalities considerations and recommended that the planning application be granted, subject to conditions, s106 legal agreement and the direction of the Mayor of London, and also that Conservation Area Consent be granted, subject to a condition.

Mr Smith advised the Committee of a number of representations received since the report had been written, including from SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the Wards Corner Community Coalition, the Joint Conservation Advisory Committee, Federation of Small Businesses, Councillor Diakides and Cllr Schmitz. In total, an additional 319 additional letters of objection had been received as of 3pm on 25 June. 2 additional letters of support had also been received, and a ‘Proud of Tottenham’ petition including at least 200 signatures had been submitted by Cllr Peacock. A letter of representation had been received from the GLA subsequent to the report being produced and requested an addition to the s106 agreement stating that the market currently on-site cannot be closed until a temporary location was found, with the GLA signatory to a schedule containing this clause. This addition to the s106 agreement was recommended by officers as part of the overall recommendations of the report.

Committee Members had been supplied with a document outlining changes to the officers’ report (appended to the minutes), made in line with legal advice. Mr Smith talked the Committee through the changes, and took questions from the Committee on the report and presentation.

The following points were raised in response to questions from Members to officers:

• With regard to the Council’s defence of the decision to refuse the previous application, Mr Smith and Mr  Ledden advised that, as officers had recommended approval of the previous scheme, external consultants had been engaged to support the reasons for refusal. The appeal against the decision to refuse and the Council’s defence of that decision was currently in progress.
• It was confirmed that there was public toilet provision in Apex House, and that public toilets were proposed in the internal market area of the scheme.
• In respect of the impact on light levels for residents on Suffield Road, it was confirmed that the current scheme did not differ from the previous scheme proposed.
• The number of disabled parking spaces proposed had been calculated in accordance with the UDP and London Plan.
• Allan Ledden, Legal Officer, advised the Committee of their duties under the Equality Act 2010, which were to, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not, and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. In order to ensure that such obligations were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.