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.

RESOLVED

·         That the Chair’s announcement regarding the filming of the meeting for live or subsequent broadcast be noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Ryan and for lateness from Cllr Doron.

Listed building consent for proposed anti-suicide measures by installation of fencing to bridge parapet

RECOMMENDATION: grant Listed Building consent subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant Listed Building consent for proposed anti-suicide measures by installation of fencing to the bridge parapet. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant Listed Building consent subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. In reflection of the joint ownership of the bridge, it was advised that LB Islington had granted Listed Building consent for the scheme on 8 October. The Committee were provided with copies of two emails, one from an objector and the other from a supporter of the application who were unable to attend the meeting to make representations.

[7.30 - Cllr Doron entered the meeting but did not take any part in determination of the application at hand].

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         In response to a question on the history of the scheme, clarification was provided that the application had been submitted at the end of last year but that negotiations on the final design with partner agencies had been fairly protracted resulting in a delay to the application coming before Committee. 

·         Concerns were raised over the potential for the unsightly accumulation of litter behind the new fencing and permitting access for litter picking. Officers advised that the potential for litter accumulation would be minimised due to the attachment of the fencing to the main structure. The fencing panels would also be removable to allow maintenance. In light of continued Member concern, it was additionally proposed to amend condition 3 to require submission and approval by the Council of details of the proposed treatment at the base of the structure in order to reduce the likelihood of litter being trapped within the structure.

·         Further information was sought on the provision of additional support measures to deter suicide attempts such as information plaques, phones connected to the Samaritans etc. Officers advised that although it was recognised that a physical solution to frustrate access would not constitute a sole remedy, other measures were outside of the remit of the application as well as the borough boundary. Wider discussions were ongoing between the BEH Mental Health Trust and other agencies around additional support arrangements for the bridge. Condition 4 required a review of the anti-suicide signage to the bridge within three months of works commencing.

·         In response to points raised, confirmation was provided that removal of the current mesh and spikes would be undertaken as part of the works; the removable strapped mesh panels would allow for the maintenance of the bridge light columns; partner agencies including Heritage England and the Council’s conservation officer, had deemed that bridge repair and redecoration was not required as part of the construction works;  

·         Concern was raised that there could be a period of time during construction works when no anti-suicide measures were in place.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The following part of the meeting is 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 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 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.

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

Notwithstanding that this was a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decisions were 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 Committee raised concerns over the following aspects of the draft scheme:

·         That the limited number of images contained within the report restricted their ability to comment more fully on the proposed design.

·         Proposals for a flat roof construction which would be out of keeping with the surrounding area as well as more problematic in terms of maintenance. The applicant advised that in order to comply with London Plan targets on carbon reduction, the installation of PV panels would likely be required, necessitating a flat roof design.

·         The impact of noise from the railway to the rear. The applicant advised that an acoustic survey had identified that standard double glazing would be acceptable to rear facing habitable rooms.

Clarification was provided by the applicant in response to questions that the amenity space would consist of private balconies only; it was intended that Homes for Haringey would manage the properties and that a landscape architect would work on plans to address the issue of the narrow pavement to Hermitage Road.

Members commented that there were inconsistencies in whether pre-application briefings went before Development Management Forum prior to pre-app consideration at Committee and asked where feasible that this occurred.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee raised concerns over the following aspects of the draft scheme:

·         The colour of brick proposed for the scheme. Although the applicant advised this had been selected to pick up similar contemporary buildings in the vicinity including the Police Station, the Committee suggested that the Quality Review Panel’s view be sought on this aspect.

·         The impact of the scheme on parking in the area. Officers advised that a full transport statement had yet to be undertaken but that existing parking issues were recognised in the area especially around extending the CPZ. 

·         The loss of employment floorspace. The applicant advised that the current MOT centre employed a small number of workers and that the replacement flexible use space would likely support a greater number of employees. A commitment could not be made however that the commercial space would be designated affordable.

·         Lack of provision of an onsite affordable housing contribution. The applicant confirmed that RSLs approached with regard to potential management of onsite affordable units had not expressed interest in taking on such a small number of units. The Committee asked officers to double check if Homes for Haringey had been approached in this regard.

9 November.

9 November.