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.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2016. 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 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.

RESOLVED

·         That the details of the process to be followed for the meeting be noted.  

Apologies were received from Cllrs Mallett and Mitchell.

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 17 below.

None.

None formally declared.

The Chair outlined that inline with advice provided by legal services that Members and officers would be asked, in the interests of openness and transparency, to declare any personal interests in relation to agenda item 9, land to the rear 790-796 High Road N17, where the applicant was Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. This corresponded with the approach taken for the determination of the main application for the Spurs stadium scheme at Committee on 16 December 2015. Item 9, similarly to the stadium application, related to the primary activity of the applicant as a football club and as such the same process relating to the making of declarations of interest was recommended to be followed. In light of this advice, the following declarations were made:

Cllr Doron (Chair): Spurs supporter but affirmed that the interests of the people of Haringey came first in determining the application.

Cllr Patterson: no interest to declare

Cllr Basu: no interest to declare

Cllr Beacham: no interest to declare

Cllr Carter: no interest to declare

Cllr J Mann: Arsenal supporter but affirmed that the interests of the people of Haringey came first in determining the application.

Cllr Waters: no interest to declare

Cllr Bevan: identified that he attended regular community engagement meetings with Spurs related to the progress of the stadium construction works.

Cllr Carroll: Everton FC supporter

Stuart Minty, Head Development Management: Portsmouth FC supporter

Emma Williamson, Ass Director Planning: no interest to declare

Ben Burgerman, legal advisor -  Spurs supporter

Maria Fletcher, clerk - no interest to declare

Tay Makoon, Member Liaison - no interest to declare

John McRory, Major Applications Team Leader – Sheffield Wednesday FC supporter.

James Hughes, Planning Officer - no interest to declare

Richard Truscott, Urban Design Officer – Rochdale AFC and Manchester United supporter

NairitaChakraborty, Conservation Officer - no interest to declare

Maurice Richards, Transport Planner – no interest to declare.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 10 October and 1 November.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committees held on 10 October and 1 November be approved.

Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a 7 storey building fronting Lawrence Road and a part 5, 3 and 2 storey building which forms an intermediate block and mews to the rear comprising 47 residential units (use class C3) and 176sqm of commercial floor space (use class B1) on ground floor, including 8 car parking spaces and associated landscaping and cycle parking

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to sec. 106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a 7 storey building fronting Lawrence Road and a part 5, 3 and 2 storey building forming an intermediate block and mews to the rear comprising 47 residential units (use class C3) and 176sqm of commercial floor space (use class B1) on ground floor, including 8 car parking spaces and associated landscaping and cycle parking. 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 permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

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

·         Concerns were raised that a number of the units were below London Plan space standards. In response, it was advised that the three units in question to the top floor of the scheme were considered acceptable as they exceeded studio unit space standards and also benefitted from large balconies and south facing orientation.

·         Assurances were sought over the determination made that the scheme would not be required to provide child play space onsite, in particular the projections that the scheme would house only 8 children. The applicant advised that a GLA toolkit had been used to forecast future child occupancy and that the figure generated was below the threshold requiring the onsite provision of play space. In addition, all units would have private amenity space plus the larger family size units would benefit from generous outdoor space. The site was also located in close proximity to local green spaces including Elizabeth Place Park.

·         Clarification was sought on vehicular access to the site. The applicant advised that the main access was off Lawrence Road, plus a secondary route via the adjacent Bellway scheme.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the viability assessment for the scheme and the low level of affordable housing proposed of 5 shared ownership units plus only a 10% contribution by the applicant as financial compensation for the loss of employment floorspace onsite. Officers advised that the viability assessment had been independently assessed by the Council and which had assessed viability at zero affordable housing units in consideration of issues such as the constraints of the site, high build costs and the existing use value of the land. The applicant was however proposing 19% affordable housing based on habitable rooms and as such the levels were comparable with other schemes in the area. The Committee were reminded that the Council’s 40% affordable housing target was on a borough and not individual scheme basis and to date was on track to be achieved. Cllr Bevan proposed deferring determination of the application to permit reassessment of the viability assessment. The Ass Director Planning reiterated that the applicant’s viability assessment had been independently assessed using a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Proposal (HGY/2016/3310): Erection of a four storey building (Sui Generis Use) to comprise new ticket sales offices, retail, administrative offices and other ancillary uses; demolition of rear extensions of the listed buildings Nos. 792 and 794 High Road; demolition of boundary wall to the rear of 792-796 High Road; associated hard and soft landscaping; and other ancillary works.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions

Proposal (HGY/2016/3540): Listed building consent for demolition of rear extensions of the listed buildings Nos. 792 and 794 High Road; demolition of boundary wall to the rear of 792-796 High Road.

RECOMMENDATION: grant listed building consent subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a four storey building (Sui Generis Use) to comprise new ticket sales offices, retail, administrative offices and other ancillary uses; demolition of rear extensions of the listed buildings Nos. 792 and 794 High Road; demolition of boundary wall to the rear of 792-796 High Road; associated hard and soft landscaping; and other ancillary works and Listed Building consent for the demolition of rear extensions of the listed buildings Nos. 792 and 794 High Road; demolition of boundary wall to the rear of 792-796 High Road. 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 planning permission subject to conditions and grant Listed Building consent subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out a number of amendments to the proposed conditions.

A representative for the Tottenham Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC) addressed the Committee in objection to the impact of the scheme on the adjacent statutorily listed Georgian terrace, an important asset for Tottenham and the local community. Concerns were raised that the proposed four storey scheme would tower over the terrace, diminish the setting of the historic buildings and would not serve to enhance the Conservation Area. The football club was a large land owner in the borough and as such had the option to site the ticket sales office in an alternative location where the protection of historic buildings was not a risk.

The Committee raised concern over the lack of perspective pictures within the officer report illustrating the relationship between the proposed scheme and the Georgian terrace including the visual impact from the west side of Tottenham High Road. Officers provided assurance that no changes were proposed to the frontage of the listed terrace facing onto the High Road and Conservation Area. Works planned to the terrace were confined to the demolition of two modern extensions to the rear in order to reinstate the gardens as part of high quality public realm improvements. The Conservation Officer added that the images contained within the agenda pack had been generated using high tech software and as such were accurate. Following her detailed assessment of the application, she was confident that the new building would not tower over the listed terrace and that proposed works to the rear of the terrace would enhance the setting and the wider Conservation Area and allow integration with the stadium scheme. The top floor to the new ticket office would also be recessed to reduce the visual impact from the High Road.

Cllr Bevan expressed his thanks for the representation from the Tottenham CAAC and praised the valuable work they undertook in the area. 

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Erection of four storey residential building comprising of 11 units (8x2 bed and 3x1bed) with ancillary car parking.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a Shadow sec. 106 Legal Agreement

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a four storey residential building comprising 11 units (8x2 bed and 3x1bed) with ancillary car parking. 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 permission subject to conditions and subject to a shadow s106 Legal Agreement

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

The Committee raised concerns over the potential for proposed trees to the front elevation to block light to habitable rooms and also plans for the replacement of mature trees removed onsite. In response, it was advised that trees to the front elevation would be set away from the building by a patio area and that the arboricultural officer was satisfied that these trees would be a positive addition. The landscaping plan for the scheme had yet to be finalised but 17 mature trees would be secured under condition. A preference for poplar trees noted.

Clarification was sought on the proposed external finish to the building and whether this would be render. The applicant advised that the finish would be brickwork, with materials to be secured under condition. In light of the concerns raised, officers proposed to revise the wording to condition 3 to require additional Council approval to the colour of brick used. 

In response to a question regarding the pitch of the roof, it was confirmed that the drainage officer had raised no issues.

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2016/2621 be approved and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning be authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions (including an amendment proposed to the wording of condition 3, materials submitted for approval, to make reference to brick colour) and informatives planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions and a shadow s106 Legal Agreement.

·         That the shadow section 106 legal agreement referred to above be finalised with confirmation letter from landowning department no later than 31 January 2017 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

·         That, following completion of the agreement above within the time period provided for above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of all conditions imposed: and

·         That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice-Chairman) of the Sub-Committee.

·         That authority be granted to enter into a section 106 agreement with any third party at the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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 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 these items, and any subsequent applications would be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

The Chair identified that he knew the applicant as the owner of a restaurant within his ward but did not need to recuse himself as the application was only at pre-application stage.

Representatives for the applicant and the planning officer gave a short presentation on early plans for the scheme.

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant advised that the shipping containers used would be new and adapted to provide large expanses of glazing. In terms of utilities, the containers would be serviced from the current site.

Concerns were raised over the potential for the units to be converted to licensed premises should they not be easily let. The applicant outlined their vision for the scheme for provision of a creative mix of ventures onsite and identified they would be willing to accept a condition to this effect.

Concerns were expressed over the impact of the scheme on existing parking pressures in the area, including from the loss of the car park and additional demand generated. Officers advised that a full parking survey would be required for the full planning application, discussions on which had already started with the applicant. The current car park was underutilised and the new scheme was not anticipated to generate a large number of deliveries as there would be minimal storage onsite. Customers would be encouraged to walk to the venue, which would have a benefit of increasing footfall on West Green Road. 

Representatives for the applicant and the planning officer gave a short presentation on early plans for the scheme.

Concerns were raised over the early comments of the Quality Review Panel (QRP), which did not appear to be supportive of the scheme. Officers advised that the panel had identified a number of points for the applicant to reconsider in developing the full application and as such their comments were not final.

The Committee commented that the maps within the briefing were unhelpful in identifying the location of the site and that the corner design was unsightly.

Clarification was sought on the reason for residential accommodation being provided at podium level. The applicant advised that this was due to the site being located in a floodzone.

Representatives for the applicant and the planning officer gave a short presentation on early plans for the scheme.

Clarification was sought on vehicular access arrangements to the site. The applicant advised that this would be via Plevna Crescent, with 20 spaces to be provided at basement level.

Concerns were raised over the scale of the development within the context of surrounding small terraced housing. Confirmation was provided that the QRP had not raised any concerns over this issue, although separation distances with neighbouring properties would be relevant.  

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.

The Committee considered an update on major planning proposals in the pipeline.

The Committee raised the following points:

Hale Village, Ferry Lane

In response to questions, confirmation was provided that submission of a reserved matters application was to keep the granted permission alive.

The s73 application to remove the hotel from the tower was likely to result in a new application for a residential scheme with some commercial space. This was currently at pre-application stage.

Edmanson Close

Officers advised of no progress update since the last meeting.

867-879 High Road

Clarification was sought on whether this site was proposed for a supermarket. Officers advised of their view, which had been conveyed to the applicant, that development proposals were premature as the site constituted a small parcel of land which would form part of a developing masterplan. As such, the application was not expected to come forward.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications

taken under delegated powers for the period 24 October to 25 November.

The Committee considered a report setting out decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 24 October and 25 November 2016.

Cllr Carter sought further information from officers on the decisions made for 373 Archway Road, 9 Gaskell Road N6, Furnival House 50 Cholmeley Park N6 in terms of whether concerns regarding privacy related to the CCTV cameras had been resolved. He also sought further details on a number of applications on Milton Avenue related to the acceptability of the use of uPVC windows in a Conservation Area. Officers agreed to provide feedback to Cllr Carter outside of the meeting.  

Clarification was sought in relation to 10 Rokesley Avenue regarding the definition of an outbuilding. Officers advised that this would constitute a structure used in connection with the existing building such as a shed or garden room.

RESOLVED

·         That the report be noted. 

To consider any items admitted at item 2 above.

None.

16 January 2017.

16 January 2017.

The Chair reminded Committee members of a Member learning and development training session on 15 December at 6pm on Conservation Areas and their attendance was encouraged.