Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 7 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

Councillor Gunes stated that she was a ward councillor for the ward in which the site was located and also that she lived very close to the application site, but did not have any pre-determined views regarding the application.

Councillor Mallett stated that she lived close to the application site, but did not have any pre-determined views regarding the application.

This meeting is scheduled to consider pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals.

Notwithstanding that this is a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decisions will be taken at this meeting 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 2014 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.

This meeting was scheduled to consider pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub-Committee and discuss proposals related thereto.

Notwithstanding that this was a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decisions were taken at the meeting, 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 Committee provided views on a proposed redevelopment, comprising the demolition of the existing former Council office and erection of new buildings up to 21 storeys in height, providing 152 residential units and 1,182sqm of retail floor space.

Neil McClellan, the Case Officer for the application and Majors Team Leader, stated that the pre-application briefing document which had been included in the agenda contained a number of errors and omissions, and consequently a corrected version of the briefing was appended to an addendum report that was tabled at the meeting.

Councillor Bevan expressed concern that an addendum report, and amended briefing document, had been circulated at the meeting because this did not give councillors sufficient time to consider the information provided therein.

It was anticipated that the design for the scheme would go before a Development Management Forum in the latter part of May 2015.

Members made the following comments on the scheme:

·         It was queried how much consultation had taken place and if more was planned.   The applicant said that there had been three focussed public consultations with interest groups, namely the Ward’s Corner Conservation Coalition, market traders and ward councillors, and a public consultation on two days.  Further consultations would take place later in the week with the market traders, and it was anticipated that in the last week of March that there would be another public consultation at the applicant’s studio in N17 where they would give their response to the comments which had been received from councillors at this meeting, from the previous public consultation and from the Design Review Panel.

·         There is currently a public lavatory building on the site - is there any intention to re-provide that facility in the new scheme?  The applicant said that they were waiting to see what the outcome of public consultation was, because feedback had been mixed as some people were not keen to have them.  It also depended largely on what commercial use went back into the proposed development at ground floor level.

·         Proposed Cycle Superhighway Route 1 currently passes next to the site at a point where the pavement is currently not as wide as would be desired; has this been taken into account during the design of the scheme?  The applicant advised that the proposed development would be pulled-back from the railing which ran along Tottenham High Road so that the width of the pavement would be approximately 15m wide and this would create sufficient space for the super-cycle highway to come past the site.

·         It was queried how much time was left before the planning permission which had been granted for the Ward’s Corner site lapsed.  The applicant stated that planning permission had been granted in 2012, at which time the section 106 Agreement was signed, and that it was valid for 5 years.

·         Concern that the proposed development should be carried out with regard to the adjacent lower-rise properties and consequently a 21 storey building would be very contentious for the site.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Planning Committee 16 March.

The Committee noted that its next meeting would be held on Monday 16 March 2015.