Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Sub Committee
Monday, 8th February, 2021 7.00 pm

Venue: MS Teams

Contact: Felicity Foley, Committees Manager 

Note: To watch: click the link on the agenda front sheet or paste the following into your browser - 

No. Item



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.


The Chair advised that the meeting would be streamed live on the Council’s website.




Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hinchcliffe.  Councillor Morris was present as a substitute.



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 12 below.





A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:


(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.


A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.


Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct


Councillor Bevan advised that he was a member of the Homes for Haringey Board but that this would not prejudice his decision-making.


Councillor Mitchell advised that he would speak in objection in relation to application HGY/2020/3036 and would be leaving the meeting after making his objection and therefore would not take part in the discussion or decision of the application.


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 233 KB

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 11 January 2021.


RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 11 January 2021 be approved.


HGY/2020/2794 - Land to the North of Ermine Road N15 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Proposal: Temporary planning permission for a period of 7 years to provide 38 modular units for use as accommodation for people who have been street homeless, with associated cycle and refuse storage.


Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:


Clerks note:  The Chair advised that she had received a number of emails lobbying on this application, and she had taken the decision to hand over the Chair for this item to the Vice-Chair and not take part in the discussion or decision of the application


Councillor Gina Adamou in the Chair


The Committee considered an application for temporary planning permission for a period of 7 years to provide 38 modular units for use as accommodation for people who have been street homeless, with associated cycle and refuse storage.


Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       Paragraph 1.2 of the addendum clarified that the previous application had been deferred in response to concerns around the relationship of Block A with neighbouring properties and to explore whether Block A could be removed.

-       A management plan was required under the conditions and would need to set out the how many staff would be on site and how the site would be managed.

-       The addition of louvres to Block A would not have any effect on Secure By Design principles, and the applicant would be adjusting the position of CCTV cameras to take the additions into account.

-       Officers had met with the applicants following the meeting to discuss the concerns raised by the Committee and whilst the applicant had decided not to remove Block A, they have amended the scheme to improve the relationship between Block A and the neighbouring properties.  The Planning Service were not able to dictate amendments to applicants.


Laura Budka spoke in objection to the application.  Principles of designing out crime advised against covering any balconies, and this had been added to the scheme.  Block A still posed a problem with overlooking, and the additions to the scheme would create an echo in the corridors.  It was also recommended to have three thresholds before a residential area, and the scheme only had one gate, which was open 24 hours a day.  Unless there was a curfew for residents on the site, there would be movement through the scheme throughout the night.  The orange doors were not in keeping with the existing pattern of build on neighbouring properties.  There would be further parking issues than already experienced in the area.  Ms Budka considered that this scheme was a social experiment at the expense of local residents.


Councillor Barbara Blake spoke in objection to the application.  The new proposal did not address concerns raised by the Committee or local residents.  The site was unsuitable for modular housing and the amendments made since the previous application would not mitigate any of the issues raised.  Block A remaining in the design left a lack of open space in the site.  Cllr Blake referred to the scheme adopted by Cambridge Council, which was a smaller scheme away from the town centre, which had helped residents to flourish away from negative influences.  Cambridge Council had said that to achieve a successful outcome a supportive local network was crucial, which was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 501.


HGY/2020/3036 - REAR OF 132 STATION ROAD, N22 7SX pdf icon PDF 10 MB

Proposal: Construction of 6 dwellings set in landscaped area and creation of ‘community wildlife garden’ following the demolition of existing structures.


Recommendation: GRANT


Councillor Sarah Williams in the Chair


The Committee considered an application for the construction of 6 dwellings set in landscaped area and creation of ‘community wildlife garden’, following the demolition of existing structures.


Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       The garden extended to 122 Station Road and 11 Barratt Avenue.

-       The units were south-facing so were generally considered acceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight.

-       There was very little demolition proposed on site – one small building and other remnants of outbuildings.


Toby Castle spoke in objection to the application.  The site was bordered by Barratt Avenue and Park Avenue, part of the Wood Green Conservation Area.  The previous application in 2018 was refused, and this application was for double the amount of homes (six) and failed to address the objections and concerns outlined in the Planning Inspectors decision.  The development would alter the character of the site and would harm the quality and character of the Conservation Area.  Local residents would have overbearing visual intrusion from the properties.  The concerns raised by residents had been ignored.


Simon Fedida spoke in objection to the application.  Over 50 people had objected to the application.  The current application was larger than the last proposed application, and did not deal with the reasoning for the last refusal or appeal.  The Officer Report undervalued the site as part of a Conservation Area.  The green character of the area would be destroyed and the adverse impact outweighed the benefits of the development.


Councillor Peter Mitchell spoke in objection to the application.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework and the protection of Conservation Areas as a reason to refuse applications.  The previous application was dismissed on appeal on the grounds that the character and appearance of the area would be unacceptably harmed.  The design element of this application was overscaled, and there were serious issues with the living conditions.  The new London Plan referred to level access to private amenity space – this application had private amenity space at basement level, accessible by bedrooms.  All houses were single aspect with one window at ground floor level.  He urged the Committee to reject the application.


Clerks note: Cllr Mitchell left the meeting after his submission.


Mark Pender (Planning Consultant) addressed the Committee.  The new proposal for the site was covering an area twice the size of previous applications, which was a significant difference.  All of the houses were set into the ground to create an ‘upside down’ house, and green roofing would help the scheme blend into the area.  The scheme was led by the landscaping of the site.


The Applicant and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       The Applicant would be happy to include a condition to prevent the installation of satellite dishes.

-       A full daylight assessment according to BRE calculations had been carried out, with the design amended as a result.  All rooms now pass the daylight test.

-       The benefits of the scheme were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 502.



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.

Additional documents:


Clerks note: Cllr Mitchell returned to the meeting for the consideration of the rest of the items on the agenda.


Members noted the report and commented on the following:

-           Page 209 referred to ‘311 Roundway’ – the exact location was unless so would be useful to contain some extra information on where the development was located.

-           Further information was requested on Cranwood House.

-           Page 210, Partridge Way, referred to 17 units – clarification was sought as to whether this should be 27 units.


RESOLVED that the report be noted.



To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 28.12.20-22.01.21.


RESOLVED that the report be noted.



To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.






8 March 2021