Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Fiona Rae, Principal Committee Co-ordinator  3541, Email: fiona.rae@haringey.gov.uk

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 also 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 11 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:

In relation to item 9, HGY/2021/1771 - The Goods Yard and The Depot, 36 & 44-52 White Hart Lane (and land to the rear) and 867-879 High Road (and land to the rear), Cllr Ibrahim noted that she was an Arsenal supporter and a member of AISA (Arsenal Independent Supporters’ Association). She stated that she would take part in the discussion and voting and would be considering the item with an open mind.

6.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Minutes:

The Chair proposed that the Committee considered item 10, PPA/2021/0026 Florentia Clothing Village Storage Park, Vale Road, N4 1TD, immediately after item 8, HGY/2021/1604 - 10 Fordington Road, N6 4TJ, before returning to the published agenda order; this was agreed by the Committee. The Chair also stated that she had agreed a request for objectors to provide additional documentation to accompany their verbal presentations at the meeting. The Chair explained that this related to HGY/2021/1604, 10 Fordington Road, and N6 4TJ and HGY/2021/1771 - The Goods Yard and the Depot, 36 & 44-52 White Hart Lane (and land to the rear), and 867-879 High Road (and land to the rear). There were no objections.

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.

 

Cllr Rice stated that the documentation provided for this meeting was considerable; it was asked whether the information provided could be more concise. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability responded that officers tried to keep reports succinct but that the Committee report needed to have all of the relevant information; it was added that training on planning issues was also provided to assist members. Cllr Rice suggested that the information provided could be the same length but could be provided in sections over time.

8.

HGY/2021/1604 - 10 FORDINGTON ROAD, N6 4TJ pdf icon PDF 513 KB

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and shed and erection of dwelling house over three storeys (plus excavation to form a basement level); Erection of rear garden outbuilding; Associated cycle and bin storage; Associated hard and soft landscaping.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing garages and shed and erection of dwelling house over three storeys (plus excavation to form a basement level); Erection of rear garden outbuilding; Associated cycle and bin storage; Associated hard and soft landscaping.

 

Matthew Gunning, Planning Manager, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was confirmed that the proposed building would be built up to the boundary with 12 Fordington Road. Some members of the Committee enquired whether this was acceptable. The Planning Manager acknowledged that this side of the road had some degree of consistency but noted that the area had a varied context. It was stated that the design solution was considered to achieve an acceptable relationship with neighbouring properties and the garage and roof pitching would provide some visual separation with a view of trees and greenery in the background.

·         In relation to queries about flood risk, the Planning Manager noted that a Basement Impact Assessment had been submitted with the application; this considered flood risk, different types of flooding, and historic watercourses in the area. It was considered that no more investigative works were currently required. It was added that the information submitted provided safeguards but that additional detail would have to be provided as a matter of course as the project advanced.

·         In response to a query about basement development, the Planning Manager explained that the normal concern in this instance was the issues potentially caused for adjoining gardens. It was noted that there would be measures to prevent issues and that there was a high degree of permeable surfacing around the site so there would be no adverse effect on the groundwater conditions.

·         It was confirmed that the conditions proposed to remove permitted development rights; it was accepted that the proposal would result in a sizeable house and this was proposed to safeguard amenity for residents.

 

Alex Whittaker spoke in objection to the application. He noted that he did not object to development of the site in principle but that the proposal was not in accordance with council plans and policies. He stated that the run of semi-detached buildings currently had a distinctive and unified character with spacing between properties. It was considered that the proposal would break the character of the road. Alex Whittaker commented that the application would lead to a building that was out of scale and would introduce an unprecedented shared boundary on the street. He added that there would also be windows on the shared boundary and a staircase window which would also be unprecedented. He stated that two storey side extensions were normally set back and were not permitted to have direct boundary windows. It was explained that the neighbouring property would now become a mid-terrace house and it was considered that the design would result in an unfinished appearance on the street, particularly as the other half would never be built. Alex Whittaker stated that this proposal would set a precedent for oversized  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

HGY/2021/1771 - THE GOODS YARD AND THE DEPOT, 36 & 44-52 WHITE HART LANE (AND LAND TO THE REAR), AND 867-879 HIGH ROAD (AND LAND TO THE REAR) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Proposal:Full planning application for (i) the demolition of existing buildings and structures, site clearance and the redevelopment of the site for a residential-led, mixed-use development comprising residential units (C3); flexible commercial, business, community, retail and service uses (Class E); hard and soft landscaping; associated parking; and associated works. (ii) Change of use of No. 52 White Hart Lane from residential (C3) to a flexible retail (Class E) (iii) Change of use of No. 867-869 High Road to residential (C3) use.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for full planning application for (i) the demolition of existing buildings and structures, site clearance and the redevelopment of the site for a residential-led, mixed-use development comprising residential units (C3); flexible commercial, business, community, retail and service uses (Class E); hard and soft landscaping; associated parking; and associated works. (ii) Change of use of No. 52 White Hart Lane from residential (C3) to a flexible retail (Class E) (iii) Change of use of No. 867-869 High Road to residential (C3) use.

 

At 8.30pm, the Committee had a brief adjournment to rectify some technical issues for those joining and watching the meeting remotely. The meeting resumed at 8.35pm.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted that one late comment had been received from the London Borough of Waltham Forest which was supportive of the current layout but asked that a construction logistics plan be reserved by condition.

 

Graham Harrington, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

 

Questions relating to the masterplan, design heritage and tall buildings, housing, and social and public realm infrastructure.

 

·         In response to a question about how the proposal fit within the masterplan, the Head of Development Management noted that the principle of this piecemeal approach, where parts of the masterplan were built out, had been established in the extant consents. It was stated that this application sought to continue this and to evolve the masterplan. It was commented that an application for the entire site allocation had been recently submitted but it was highlighted that this was not the issue before the Committee at present.

·         Some members of the Committee noted that the masterplan said that indicative heights should be 10-18 storeys. The Head of Development Management explained that, as established by previous planning permissions, heights had increased. It was noted that there had been natural progression over time and that, due to the housing numbers, density had increased. The Planning Officer noted that the report acknowledged this and tried to assess the application against the masterplan, planning permission that had been granted, and the tall buildings policy.

·         It was clarified that there had been another application from Lendlease for the same area and the Planning Officer explained that it was not uncommon to have multiple applications on land. It was noted that the applicant for this application owned the land and was seeking permission for an enhanced scheme with additional homes; it was commented that this could be complex but that this was permitted under the planning system.

·         In relation to the extant planning permissions for the site, it was noted that there was existing planning permission for two other schemes which could be implemented. The Planning Officer explained that there could be benefits and disadvantages to a new scheme and this was summarised in the report.

·         It was noted that the Deputy Mayor of London had stated that the application did not fully comply with the London Plan. The Planning Officer explained that all Stage 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

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.

11.

PPA/2021/0026 - FLORENTIA CLOTHING VILLAGE STORAGE PARK, VALE ROAD, N4 1TD pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Proposal: Provision for five new blocks of light industrial floor space (GEA equates to circa 9,880sqm).

Minutes:

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the provision for five new blocks of light industrial floor space (GEA equates to circa 9,880sqm).

 

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

·         The Committee commented that the site was commonly referred to as a village, rather than a campus, and was a tribute to the wife of a local Greek Cypriot resident. Tom Horne, DP9 (Planning Agent), acknowledged the concept of the site as a village. He explained that there was a contractual commitment to retain the name and that it was aimed to invest and expand in the ethos and spirit of the existing site.

·         Some members of the Committee expressed disappointment in the designs which resembled warehouses converted into workshops with corrugated roofs. They had no objection to the surface treatment and spaces but stated that the shape looked like a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) depot. It was acknowledged that design was subjective but it was suggested that the site provided an opportunity to create something interesting and modern.

·         The applicant team set out the process for the proposed design. It was explained that, following discussions with existing occupiers and consideration of the existing buildings, the application aimed to build on the current offer and respond to what was needed locally. It was noted that there would be green and pedestrian spaces as well as working spaces. It was stated that the buildings on the site did not have an overall design but had emerged over a number of years; the proposals would try to pull the buildings together, alongside additional planting and colour. It was added that the buildings would be modernised and this would include better insulation. It was commented that the design of the proposal would aim to reflect the wider, Haringey warehouse district. It was also noted that there was a need for this type of space in the area.

·         In relation to scale and massing, it was noted that the existing village was between two and four storeys and that the proposals were largely 3 storeys. It was acknowledged that the majority of the images provided focused on the new buildings and it might be useful to provide more detail about the views and connections between the existing and new buildings.

·         Some members of the Committee asked the applicant team to ensure that the proposals recognised and honoured the historic connection of the site with the Cypriot community and the rag trade. The applicant team noted that they agreed with this and added that sites of this nature worked best when the occupiers supported the site and encouraged others to work there as well.

 

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.

 

At 8.25pm, the Committee agreed a brief adjournment. The meeting recommenced at item 6, Planning Applications, at 8.30pm.

12.

NEW ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business.

13.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

To note the date of the next meeting as 6 December 2021.

Minutes:

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 6 December 2021.