Agenda and minutes

Venue: Tottenham Green Leisure Centre, 1 Philip Lane, Tottenham N15 4JA

Contact: Fiona Rae, Principal Committee Co-ordinator 

Note: To watch this meeting, use the link on the agenda frontsheet 

Items
No. Item

1.

FILMING AT MEETINGS

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.

Minutes:

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

2.

PLANNING PROTOCOL

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2017.  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 public 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.

Minutes:

The Chair referred to the planning protocol and this information was noted.

3.

APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gina Adamou. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Emine Ibrahim.

4.

URGENT BUSINESS

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 14 below.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

5.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Minutes:

Councillor Yvonne Say noted that, as a Bounds Green ward councillor, she had attended site visits and officer briefings in relation to item 8, Land at the junction of Partridge Way and Trinity Road.

 

Councillor Liz Morris noted that, as a ward councillor, she had received a briefing from the owners of Highgate Care Ltd in relation to item 10, Mary Feilding Guild Care Home, 103-107 North Hill, N6.

6.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 235 KB

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 5 July 2021 as a correct record.

Minutes:

Councillor Viv Ross noted that he had received an email from a local resident questioning the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting on 5 July 2021. The Head of Development Management noted that he had not seen this email but that he believed the minutes to be an accurate record. The Chair stated that she considered that the minutes were an accurate record of the meeting on 5 July 2021.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 5 July 2021 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

7.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

In accordance with the Sub Committee’s protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations. Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, the applicant and supporters will be allowed to address the Committee. For items considered previously by the Committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations.

Minutes:

The Chair referred to the note on planning applications and this information was noted.

8.

HGY/2021/2075 - LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF PARTRIDGE WAY AND TRINITY ROAD, N22 pdf icon PDF 561 KB

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing garages and the erection of a nine-storey building to accommodate 23 residential units for council rent (Class C3). Associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage facilities, accessible car-parking spaces, and landscaping and public realm improvements including a children's play space. Relocation of existing refuse/recycling facility.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing garages and the erection of a nine-storey building to accommodate 23 residential units for council rent (Class C3); associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage facilities, accessible car parking spaces, and landscaping and public realm improvements including a children's play space; relocation of existing refuse/recycling facility.

 

Conor Guilfoyle, Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted that additional information relating to access, servicing, and waste; fire; Thames Water; and landscaping was set out in the addendum. The Planning Officer responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The Head of Development Management explained that the application had been publicised in a number of ways; a press notice, letters, and site notice, but that, due to an administrative error, there had been a delay in the press notice being published. It was noted that the consultation would run until 23 September 2021. It was explained that, if any material objections were raised during this time, they would have to be considered and that the decision would not proceed if there were any material impacts on the decision.

·         It was clarified that the sustainable transport initiatives referenced on page 8 of the agenda pack included measures such as the installation of bike stores and limits on parking.

·         It was commented that, on page 36 of the agenda pack, the Conservation Officer had noted that there was a significant impact on the conservation area. It was confirmed that this should state that they considered that there was not a significant impact.

·         It was confirmed that, on page 56 of the agenda pack, it should state that there would be 23 residential units, rather than eight.

·         It was confirmed that the proposed building would be nine storeys and that the two existing tower blocks were both 15 storeys. The Planning Officer explained that the design approach was set out in the report and that planning policies now asked certain sites to be developed at higher density to meet housing demand.

·         The Committee expressed some concerns that residents did not always use cycle stores due to security concerns. The Planning Officer commented that the proposal would have internal cycle storage that would be secure, weatherproof, and accessible only by residents. The Committee noted these points in relation to this application but requested that a report on cycle stores be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee.

·         In relation to play facilities, it was confirmed that there would be in excess of 10sqm of play space per child for residents of the new building. It was intended that this space would be used by children under 11 as there were other areas locally for older children; it was noted that the space on site would be available for existing residents as well as residents of the new building. It was added that the play space provided would exceed the level required by planning policy. It was also noted that there would also be biodiversity measures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

PRE-APPLICATION BRIEFINGS

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.

Minutes:

The Chair referred to the note on pre-application briefings and this information was noted.

10.

PRE/2020/0138 - MARY FEILDING GUILD CARE HOME, 103-107 NORTH HILL, N6 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Proposal: Demolition of all the existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide a new nursing and convalescence home of 70 beds with support facilities, a well-being and physiotherapy centre and associated works.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition of all the existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide a new nursing and convalescence home of 70 beds with support facilities, a wellbeing and physiotherapy centre and associated works.

 

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a question about the distance between buildings, the applicant team drew attention to the site location plan which showed the footprints of the existing and proposed buildings. It was explained that there had been an attempt to move the boundaries away from neighbouring properties and sensitive areas and some other areas where the footprint had been extended.

·         It was noted that the site previously accommodated a 42 bed residential care home and that the proposal would be a different business model for short term stays after hospital treatment. The Committee enquired how this would meet Policy DM15, which preserved specialist housing. The Head of Development Management noted that the previous and proposed uses concerned two different types of specialist housing and that this would need to be assessed and weighed to determine whether the proposal was acceptable.

·         Attention was drawn to the comments of the Quality Review Panel (QRP). It was noted that the site was located near a row of Georgian town houses and it was queried whether the current utilitarian design had the right architectural quality for the area. Further design work? The applicant team noted that they had rigorously assessed the site and its context in planning, architectural, and heritage terms over the last year. It was added that views had been collected from residents and local amenity groups and the applicant team considered that the current proposal had an appropriate design context for the area. It was also noted that officers and the QRP also considered the design to be appropriate but that the applicant would continue to engage on the progression of the design.

·         Some concerns were expressed that the North Hill frontage was not visually attractive or complementary to the Georgian terrace. It was also enquired how demolition was justified. The Head of Development Management explained that the applicant would need to show that they could meet the requirements for specialist housing and that the replacement building would be equal to or better than the existing building in terms of enhancing the conservation area. The applicant team added that they had considered retaining and repurposing the building but that it was not practical or financially viable.

·         It was noted that the QRP had criticised the location of the restaurant in the basement. The applicant team explained that the restaurant would now be located on the ground floor and would be overlooking the rear garden.

·         It was confirmed that 10 rooms would be north facing which constituted a small number of the total rooms.

·         The Committee noted that this application was quite different to a standard planning application and requested that the final report contained additional information about the specific  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

PRE/2021/0011 - ARUNDEL COURT AND BALDEWYNE COURT, LANSDOWNE ROAD,N17 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Proposal: Proposals seek to deliver 30 new homes in five buildings fronting Lansdowne Road at Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for proposals seek to deliver 30 new homes in five buildings fronting Lansdowne Road at Arundel Court and Baldewyne Court.

 

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was enquired whether the applicant team had considered building additional flats on top of the existing buildings to reduce the potential impact and retain the garages. The applicant team noted that this had been considered but that there were a number of issues, including cost implications, funding arrangements, and complications with the tenants and leaseholders in the existing buildings. It was explained that the project brief had been to build new homes on new council owned sites. It was noted that building on top of existing properties was not part of the current programme but that the council was considering this as a possible option in the longer term.

·         In relation to parking, the Planning Officer explained that a parking stress survey had been undertaken which indicated that there was sufficient capacity. It was noted that 18 of the 33 spaces at Arundel Court would be retained and 13 of the 30 spaces at Baldewyne Court would be retained; in total, there would be a loss of 32 spaces.

·         The Committee asked about the tenure mix of the proposals an noted that a number of people would not be eligible for council housing. It was enquired whether it was possible to bring forward a mixed tenure scheme. The applicant team explained that the funding from the Mayor of London was to deliver new council affordable rental property and that this was why sites had been identified to optimise the number and types of housing to respond to housing need. It was acknowledged that this application would only provide one or two bed units but it was highlighted that there were other schemes which would provide larger family units. It was explained that the site was a narrow strip of land and that, due to the space requirements for family units, it was better suited to one and two bed units.

·         It was also confirmed that the applicant was looking to enhance the external amenities, including new landscaping and play space, new planting, bike stores, and refuse and recycling stores. It was noted that the focus was on external areas as Homes for Haringey had scheduled internal upgrade works.

·         It was noted that the application proposed a number of small courtyards and there were concerns that these might be sources of anti-social behaviour. The applicant team explained that these areas would be better overlooked and landscaped to ensure that they were safe and were not a source of nuisance. It was noted that the applicant was liaising with Secured by Design and it was anticipated that the proposals would be gold rated.

·         Some members stated that the design of the proposal was unattractive, that local authority schemes should be exemplars, and that the design should be readdressed.

·         The Committee noted that the windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

UPDATE ON MAJOR PROPOSALS pdf icon PDF 179 KB

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:

Minutes:

The Chair noted that, due to time constraints, this would be considered at the next meeting if required. It was added that any queries could be addressed to the Head of Development Management.

13.

APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS pdf icon PDF 245 KB

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 13/06/2021 – 03/09/2021.

Minutes:

The Chair noted that, due to time constraints, this would be considered at the next meeting if required. It was added that any queries could be addressed to the Head of Development Management.

14.

NEW ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

15.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

To note the date of the next meeting as 4 October 2021.

Minutes:

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 4 October 2021.