Agenda and draft 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.

There were no apologies for absenceApologies for absence have been received from Councillor Bartlett, Collett and Amin.

.

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.

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 9^th October as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 9^th October were signed and confirmed 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: Redevelopment of existing car wash site to provide 16 new council homes comprising a 4-storey building fronting Archway Road and two 2-storey houses fronting Bakers Lane, with associated refuse/recycling stores, cycle stores, service space, amenity space and landscaping.

Matthew Gunning, Area Team Manager, introduced the item.

Proposal: Redevelopment of existing car wash site to provide 16 new council homes comprising a 4-storey building fronting Archway Road and two 2-storey houses fronting Bakers Lane, with associated refuse/recycling stores, cycle stores, service space, amenity space and landscaping.

The scheme had been assessed as sustainable development on previously developed land. It had been designed to deliver sixteen affordable homes in a part of the borough where larger development sites are limited. The housing mix included eight two?bed flats, four one?bed flats, two wheelchair?accessible one?bed homes on the ground floor, and two semi?detached three?bed houses along Bakers Lane. These homes were intended to provide a high?quality residential environment for future occupiers.

The design featured a four?storey block along Archway Road, stepping down to three storeys with a recessed top floor, and two semi?detached houses along Bakers Lane. It had been considered to respond well to the surrounding urban grain and heritage context. The proposal had not been regarded as harmful to the character or appearance of the Highgate Conservation Area or nearby heritage assets. Instead, it had been expected to raise the architectural and townscape quality.

Neighbouring amenity had been protected through satisfactory siting, massing, and separation distances. Although some daylight and sunlight impacts had been identified for properties closest to the site, these had been judged acceptable within a dense urban context. The development would be car?free, with only one accessible parking space provided, and pedestrian improvements such as a new zebra crossing had been secured.

The scheme had incorporated renewable technologies, including EAHPs and PV panels, achieving a 77% reduction in carbon emissions and exceeding London Plan targets. A carbon offset contribution had also been secured. Biodiversity and urban greening requirements had been met through planting, green roofs, and landscaping. The development had been considered Air Quality Neutral, with no significant impact expected.

-          Members had questioned how the drainage would be managed. Officers advised that the submitted details for sustainable urban drainage were comprehensive and appropriate.

-           Concerns had been raised about the zebra crossings, which were described as potentially difficult to use and not pedestrian?friendly. They asked whether further evaluation would take place. At the start, the applicant and officers had recognised that if a development were to be built here, accessibility would need to improve. The proposal was to install a three?way zebra crossing system; however an alternative could be to install a single zebra crossing.   Discussions with TFL were expected to continue to reach the best resolution.

-          Members enquired as to whether a four storey development could be justified. Officers advised that there is a variety of building typologies and heights in the area, and that the proposed massing and design is considered to respond sensitively to the area.

-          Consultation with the local community was raised, particularly as objections to the scheme centred on where the application had been published in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

HGY/2022/4319

Full planning application for the demolition of existing laundry building and 1970s infill building; alterations and extensions to 44 existing almshouses to create 8 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed homes; alterations to existing Gatehouse to provide 1 x 2 bed homes; construction of 1 x new build 3 bed home to replace 1970s infill building; construction of a new apartment building comprising 7 x studio homes and 9 x 1 bed homes; construction of 4 x new build 2 bed homes within two new pavilions (2 homes  in each pavilion, 4 homes in total); with landscaping; improvements to access; car parking; and ancillary development thereto.

HGY/2022/4320

Listed building consent for the demolition of existing laundry building and 1970s infill building; alterations and extensions to 44 existing almshouses to create 8 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed homes; alterations to existing Gatehouse to provide 1 x 2 bed home; construction of 1 x new build 3 bed home to replace 1970s infill building; construction of a new apartment building comprising 7 x studio homes and 9 x 1 bed homes; construction of 4 x new build 2 bed homes within two new pavilions (2 homes in each pavilion, 4 homes in total); with landscaping; improvements to access; car parking; and ancillary development thereto.

Gareth Prosser, Deputy Team Manager, introduced the item.

Proposal: Full planning application and listed building consent application seeking consent for the demolition of existing laundry building and 1970s infill building; alterations and extensions to 44 existing almshouses to create 8 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed homes; alterations to existing Gatehouse to provide 1 x 2 bed homes; construction of 1 x new build 3 bed home to replace 1970s infill building; construction of a new apartment building comprising 7 x studio homes and 9 x 1 bed homes; construction of 4 x new build 2 bed homes within two new pavilions (2 homes in each pavilion, 4 homes in total); with landscaping; improvements to access; provision of five Blue Badge car parking spaces; and ancillary development thereto.

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee:

-          Questions were raised about where future tenants would come from and whether the Council might seek to house residents on waiting lists within this development.  One suggestion had been that, if affordable housing became possible, it should be provided as a financial contribution elsewhere in the borough to avoid overdevelopment of the site. Officers were congratulated for removing the 1970s block, which was seen as setting a high standard. The applicant was responsible for tenant allocation, while officers explained that early and late?stage reviews would assess economic conditions to determine whether any affordable housing could be achieved in the future.  Affordable housing could be delivered on site within the development permitted if it were to become financially viable in the future, though financial contributions remained an alternative option. Officers would seek to secure the best position available if the circumstance were to arise. The applicants are a charity and would use the property for housing, in connection with their charitable purposes.

-          Members questioned what would happen to the green space in front of the homes and the plans for the chapel were. The chapel would be used for community use and the green space would be retained, though a some of it would be used a play area for children.

-           

Carol Hebbs attended the committee to speak in objection of the application:

-          The speaker, Chair of the Friends of Bruce Castle and member of the Heritage Quarter Committee, opposed changing the Draper’s almshouses from retirement housing to family use. They stressed the buildings’ historic value, their Grade II listing, and their original purpose for elderly residents. They highlighted Haringey’s growing older population, the need for suitable housing, and the benefits of retaining the almshouses for over?55s, which would ease pressure on social services while preserving heritage and community.

Councillor Ali attended the committee to speak in objection of the application:

-          He acknowledged that the applicant had presented a much-improved scheme compared to three years earlier and recognised the need for refurbishment of the site. However, he raised several concerns. He criticised the absence of affordable housing, noting this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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.

A   pre-application presentation was made to the Planning Sub Committee.

The Chair stated that meeting shall continue after 10:00 PM, except that discussion of the specific item or case in hand at 10:00 PM May continue thereafter at the discretion of the chair of the meeting. Consideration of any business remaining would be deferred to the next ordinary meeting, except where the matters fall to be dealt with under the urgency provisions. Which was agreed by the committee to continue the item at hand.

Proposal: Preapplication proposal for redevelopment of the site by the erection of a 22 storey building with 8 storey wing, and a 14 storey building with 6 storey wing, to provide 150 social rent dwellings along with double height affordable workspace (539 sqm). The proposal also includes landscaped public realm.

Valerie Okeiyi, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the item.

The pre?application site is located at Mallard Place on Coburg Road, and is known as ‘Chocolate Factory Phase Two’. The proposal seeks to redevelop the site with a 22?storey building and eight?storey wing, alongside a 14?storey building with a six?storey wing, providing 150 social rent dwellings. It also includes double?height affordable workspace, landscaped public realm, and associated facilities.

The site is bounded by Raphael House to the west, Kingfisher Place to the east, and the Chocolate Factory Phase One development to the north, which had already received planning permission for mixed use. At the time, the site was partially occupied by Area 51 Education, a specialist college.

The scheme forms part of site allocation SA19 within the Wood Green Cultural Quarter, which aims to deliver employment?led mixed?use development and high?quality urban realm. The proposal includes a housing mix of one? to four?bed units, affordable workspace, refuse and cycle storage, podium courtyards with play space, green roofs, landscaping, and 12 blue badge parking bays.

The Applicant stated:

-          The site lies between the Clarendon Gas Works and the Chocolate Factory developments, with part already holding planning permission. Its design was shaped by nearby transport links and safeguarding lines, requiring taller, slimmer towers. The layout included bike storage, a podium garden, commercial units, and workspace along Coburg Road, with flats arranged efficiently across the towers. Visuals showed the scheme’s scale in relation to surrounding developments. The presentation concluded by noting that the project would deliver 150 new council homes at council rent, with an application expected before year’s end.

The following was noted in response to questions to the applicant:

-          Concerns were raised about whether the 12 accessible parking bays in adjacent areas might cause parking problems for local residents and lead to objections.

-          Members welcomed the principle of providing social rent homes in this location

-          Members noted that, apart from one home, all dwellings would be dual aspect, which is rare among developments, and welcome.

-          Members sought confirmation on building materials, observing that the images suggested render rather than brick, which they considered might be unsuitable. It was clarified that the block would use patterned brickwork with varied balcony materials.

-          Questions were raised about which buildings would be demolished and whether the Prime Depot would be relocated. It was confirmed that the church and Prime Depot units would be retained, while the Area 51 Education Centre would be demolished. The Council was still discussing a relocation strategy for existing uses, but no final decision had yet been made.

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 from 01.09.2025 to 30.09.2025.

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.

There were no new items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as 8^th December.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was xxx.