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.

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

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.

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

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sheila Peacock, Councillor Gina Adamou, and Councillor Emine Ibrahim. Councillor Barbara Blake was in attendance as substitute.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Viv Ross.

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 16 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 7 February 2022 as a correct record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Planning Sub-Committee held on 7 February 2022 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

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.

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

Proposal: Demolition of garages and removal of parking area and erection of 3no. x 2-storey houses fronting Barrington Road with front and rear gardens and associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Erection of 6 apartments in a 3-storey building fronting onto Park Road and associated external amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Landscaping improvements around Ramsey Court including new communal garden, planting, trees and boundary hedging, and provision of new refuse/recycling store and cycle storage facilities for existing residents. 2no. on-street wheelchair parking spaces and new street trees along Park Road.

Recommendation:  GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of garages and removal of parking area and erection of 3no. x 2-storey houses fronting Barrington Road with front and rear gardens and associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Erection of 6 apartments in a 3-storey building fronting onto Park Road and associated external amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Landscaping improvements around Ramsey Court including new communal garden, planting, trees and boundary hedging, and provision of new refuse/recycling store and cycle storage facilities for existing residents. 2no. on-street wheelchair parking spaces and new street trees along Park Road.

Conor Guilfoyle, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a question about Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), the Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the parking stress had been calculated within a radius of 200 metres. It was noted that the worst case scenario for parking stress was 101% but this assumed that all garages were used for parking and this was known not to be the case. It was stated that the realistic parking stress was estimated to be approximately 92%; although this was above the 85% threshold for parking difficulty, it was concluded that the parking stress survey was robust and it was supported from a transport planning perspective.

·         In relation to daylight impact, the Planning Officer noted that the BRE (Building Research Establishment) Guide was not an absolute indictor of acceptability. It was explained that it was intended to be used more flexibly and pragmatically in an urban context. It was added that daylight in certain rooms, such as living rooms, was considered to be more important than other rooms, such as bedrooms. On balance, it was considered that the proposal was compliant.

·         Some members commented that the site was classified as Flood Risk Zone 1 but that it had flooded twice last summer; it was asked what mitigations were in place. The Planning Officer explained that the flood rating was set by the Environment Agency but that the scheme included a mandatory sustainable drainage requirement.

·         It was acknowledged that Block B had a noise limit for air source heat pumps but it was queried whether Block A needed similar measures. The Planning Officer believed that there was also plant on the roof of Block A but it was explained that Block B was a lower building and there was a higher risk of noise traveling to residential units.

·         It was confirmed that there would be a net loss of open space. It was commented that Policy DM20 recognised the importance of the quality of space, rather than just the quantity, and that the scheme aimed to provide a higher quality of space.

·         Some members commented that some distances between buildings seemed tight and it was queried whether there was a requirement to have a 20 metre gap. The Planning Officer explained that the 20 metre guidance was typically for more suburban areas. It was acknowledged that this was not always possible on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 10 residential units (use class C3) comprising of 6  residential flats and 4 mews houses and 131m2 flexible commercial space (Class E (a) - retail, E (b)-café/restaurant E(g)-office) in ground/lower ground floor unit, basement car parking and other associated works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered a full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 10 residential units (use class C3) comprising of 6 residential flats and 4 mews houses and 131m2 flexible commercial space (Class E (a) - retail, E (b)-café/restaurant E(g)-office) in ground/lower ground floor unit, basement car parking and other associated works.

Valerie Okeiyi, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         Some members expressed concern about off-site provision for affordable housing and suggested that council housing should be supported in Fortis Green. The Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability explained that section 106 funding was spent across the borough and that the funding for off-site provision would be used towards affordable housing, including in the west of the borough.

·         The Planning Officer clarified that the current application had not been reviewed by the Quality Review Panel (QRP) because it was materially the same as the previous application. The Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning noted that the previous permission had been granted under largely similar planning policies and that this could be given a reasonable level of weight in decision making.

·         It was confirmed that the report used census data from 2011 as this was the last, full set of information available. It was added that the data from the 2021 census was not fully published.

·         In relation to a query about councillor comments, the Planning Officer noted that these had raised issues about underground parking, the height of the development, daylight, sunlight, privacy, and dust from construction.

·         It was noted that it was helpful to include councillor comments and viability reports alongside the reports for ease of reference. It was confirmed that these could be included in future agenda packs.

·         It was confirmed that waste would be collected from Fortis Green Road and that there was a management arrangement to bring bins within the recommended distance on collection day.

·         In relation to distance, it was confirmed that the mews houses had habitable rooms facing onto the courtyard and bedrooms on the other side. It was added that there were a number of windows that had obscured glazing or thoughtful design. The distance across the courtyard was 11.2 metres and 12.9 metres.

·         It was noted that the QRP had commented on the narrow entrances and it was enquired whether the width could be confirmed. It was commented that the passage was approximately 2 metres and that the plans were included in the report.

·         Some members noted that there were two Victorian or Edwardian cobble crossings and it was enquired whether these stones could be retained in the vehicle crossover. It was suggested that, if the application was granted, this could be included as an Informative in relation to Head of Term 3, Section 278 Highway Agreement.

Chris Halton spoke in objection to the application and explained that he had been a local resident for 17 years. He stated that he had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposal: Demolition of 11 dwellings and community building and replace with 18 new homes for council rent. Erect 6 no. two-storey family houses (three and four bedrooms) and 12 apartments (one and two bedrooms) in 2  three-storey blocks including 2 wheelchair user dwellings. The proposals includes 2. on-site wheelchair parking bays, amenity and play space, landscaping, cycle and refuse/recycling storage.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of 11 dwellings and community building and replace with 18 new homes for council rent. Erect 6 no. two-storey family houses (three and four bedrooms) and 12 apartments (one and two bedrooms) in 2 three-storey blocks including 2 wheelchair user dwellings. The proposals includes 2. on-site wheelchair parking bays, amenity and play space, landscaping, cycle and refuse/recycling storage.

Tania Skelli, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         Some members enquired why the proposals on Lomond Close were not more in keeping with the existing units which had distinctive slatted wood on the upper level. The Planning Officer explained that there was design variation on Lomond Close and that the new developments would be of a high quality design with durable materials. The Principal Urban Design Officer added that there were a wide variety of appearances in the area and that the proposal aimed to be simple, clean, and well-proportioned.

·         It was noted that that the two houses on Lomond Close had been listed as 3 bed and 4 bed properties but that they were both 4 bed properties. In relation to the differing heights of the existing and proposed houses, it was explained that the existing houses in Lomond Close had shallow, pitched roofs and that the proposed houses would have flat roofs with a 1.1 metre high parapet to allow solar panels to be located on the roof without affecting the skyline.

·         In relation to air source heat pumps, it was enquired whether internal units were proposed, as suggested in the report. The Head of Development Management and Enforcement noted that air source heat pumps would require an external source of air but that this would not necessarily lead to noise issues; it was added the applicant may be able to confirm the arrangements.

·         Some members expressed concern about the loss of the community hall. The Planning Officer noted that the council intended to make funding available for residents and local groups to use at West Green Methodist Church for up to five years. It was explained that this venue was 12 minutes’ walk from the previous hall and that it could be used up to four times per year in accordance with the tenants’ constitution. Some members considered that additional meetings should be available and that the offer should be in place for more than five years. It was accepted that the planning policy requirements were met but that it might be possible to support community groups through other council services.

·         In response to a question about the number of replacement trees in this proposal compared to a previous proposal at Ramsey Court (HGY/2021/3522), the Principal Tree and Nature Conservation Manager explained that the tree canopy in this location was less substantial. It was noted that the proposals included high quality landscaping, more appropriate trees, and improved location of trees.

·         It was noted that the affordable housing uplift proposed satisfied the council’s policies.

·         It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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

Proposal: Hybrid planning application for the re-development of part of the St Ann's Hospital site to provide a new residential neighbourhood of circa 995 new homes including 60% affordable housing in buildings up to nine storeys in height, 2,400sqm of non-residential uses (including refurbishment of existing buildings), landscaping and public realm improvements, 160 parking spaces and cycle parking.

As the meeting had continued past 10pm, the consideration of this item was deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings containing 28 one-bedroom modular homes, office, and the re-provision of existing café. Associated hard and soft landscaping works.

As the meeting had continued past 10pm, the consideration of this item was deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee.

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.

There were no queries on the report. The Chair noted that any queries could be directed to the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 23 January 2022 to 18 February 2022.

There were no queries on the report. The Chair noted that any queries could be directed to the Head of Development Management.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

As per item 4.

There were no items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 17 March 2022.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 17 March 2022.