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 welcomed all present to the meeting and drew their attention to item 1 of the agenda.

The Chair also reminded Members of the need to be present for the whole duration of an application.  If Members were not present for the whole duration, they would be unable to take part in any discussion or decision of the application.

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.

Noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cawley-Harrison, Mitchell and Tabois.

Councillor Connor was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Cawley-Harrison.

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.

None.

Councillor Bevan declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 9 – HGY/2018/2351 Hale Wharf – as he had volunteered for the Stonebridge Lock Coalition several times, and a representative of that group was speaking in objection to the application.  He was also a member of the Planning Committee where the original application had been refused.  Councillor Bevan stated that he considered himself to be open minded, and would take part in the meeting.

Councillor Rice declared that he would be leaving the meeting for the consideration of agenda item 9 – HGY/2018/2351 Hale Wharf – as he was a member of the delegation which had addressed the Planning Committee in objection to the application, where the original application was refused.

Councillor Carroll declared that he too was a member of the Planning Committee where the original application was refused, however he considered himself to be open minded, and would remain in the meeting as Chair.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 8 October 2018.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 9 July 2018, as amended following the discussion at the meeting on 10 September 2018.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 July and 8 October 2018 be approved.

Clerks note – the Chair varied the order of the agenda to consider agenda item 9 before agenda item 8.  The minutes follow the order of the agenda.

Proposal: Reserved Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access and discharge of Condition 1 of outline planning application HGY/2016/4165 for the Demolition of the existing buildings at Cannon Factory and Ashley House and erection of three buildings to provide 3,171 sqm of commercial floorspace (GEA) (Class A1/A3/B1/D1), and 256 residential units (Class C3), new public realm, landscaped amenity space, car and cycle parking and all associated works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the approval of reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access and discharge of Condition 1 of outline planning application HGY/2016/4165 for the Demolition of the existing buildings at Cannon Factory and Ashley House and erection of three buildings to provide 3,171 sqm of commercial floorspace (GEA) (Class A1/A3/B1/D1), and 256 residential units (Class C3), new public realm, landscaped amenity space, car and cycle parking and all associated works.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Officers and the Applicant responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Lower level balconies would have perforated screening to allow for privacy, and higher level balconies would have lighter screening.

-           The commercial spaces had scope for 450sqm A1 use, with no provision for betting shops.

-           Notting Hill Genesis was a registered housing provider, and would ensure that tenancies were robust, with requirements for clutter-free balconies included on the lease.  There would be rigorous requirements in the s106 agreement in relation to design contractors. 

-           There was a dedicated play space around the site and at podium level, and a £900k contribution had been secured for Down Lane Park.

-           The daylight and sunlight conditions had been updated in accordance with reserved matters and the development would achieve targets for average daylight factors.  All amenity areas were compliant with guidance.

-           The response from the London Fire Brigade was in relation to an earlier point in the consultation process.  Further information had been submitted, and the LFB had no objections. 

-           The development was largely car free, and the s106 terms outline that all marketing information was to state that the development was car free.  The area has a high level of public transport available.

-           The outline plan secured 50% affordable housing, although Notting Hill Genesis was working with the Council’s regeneration team to bring forward grant funding to support 100% affordable housing across all three buildings.  The tenure mix was likely to be intermediate rent and shared ownership, and comprise of mainly 1 and 2 bed properties.

The Chair moved that the application be granted, and following a vote with nine in favour, and no abstentions or refusals it was

RESOLVED

i.          That the Committee GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as set out below.

Conditions

1.    Compliance: Development in accordance with approved drawings and documents (LBH Development Management).

The approved plans comprise drawing numbers and documents:

Building 2

Building 2 Ground and First Floor ACF-BPTW-01-ZZ-DR-A-1044 C02

Building 2 - Second and Third Floor DR ACF-BPTW-01-ZZ-DR-A-1045 C02

Building 2 - Roof Plan ACF-BPTW-01-04-DR-A-1046 C02

Building 2 - Elevations ACF-BPTW-01-ZZ-DR-A-2026 C02

Building 2 West/East section ACF-BPTW-01-ZZ-DR-A-3006 C01

Building 2A - Ground Floor ACF-BPTW-02-GF-DR-A-1047 C03

Building 2A - Floor 01, 02, 03, 04 ACF-BPTW-02-ZZ-DR-A-1048 C02

Building 2A - Fifth Floor ACF-BPTW-02-05-DR-A-1052 C02 Building 2A –

Sixth Floor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 249.

Proposal: Application for the approval of reserved matters for Buildings C, D, E, F, H, I and J of Hale Wharf to provide 245 homes, non-residential uses, public realm, private amenity space, play space, car parking and associated works pursuant to Conditions B4, B6, B7 and B15 of planning permission HGY/2016/1719, concerning appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access (Haringey Planning Reference HGY/2018/2351)

Recommendation: GRANT

Clerks note – Councillor Rice left the Council Chamber for the consideration of the item.  Councillor Hinchcliffe arrived at 19.10hrs and as consideration of the item had already begun, he was unable to take part in any discussion or decision.

The Committee considered an application for the approval of reserved matters for Buildings C, D, E, F, H, I and J of Hale Wharf to provide 245 homes, non-residential uses, public realm, private amenity space, play space, car parking and associated works pursuant to Conditions B4, B6, B7 and B15 of planning permission HGY/2016/1719, concerning appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access (Haringey Planning Reference HGY/2018/2351).

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Frances Dismore, Chair of the Stonebridge Lock Coalition (SLC) addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  She outlined the work carried out by the SLC, and explained that there were many opportunities for the applicant to provide natural habitats for animals.  The river and channels at that part were in need of clearing, and there was no indication of the floating reed rafts on any of the plans provided.

The Applicants responded, and explained that they had carried out numerous ecological studies, and were not aware of some of the information raised and would have to review it at a later date.  In regard to issues with drainage and contamination of the site, significant investment had been made to decontaminate the site and establish a drainage network to ensure that all water running in to the canal was clean.  The Applicant agreed to engage further with the SLC in relation to the issues with the floating reed beds.

In response to questions from the Committee, Ms Dismore explained that her concerns were for the net biodiversity, which needed improvement.

Officers and the Applicant responded to questions from the Committee:

-           It had been established at the outline permission stage that the blocks at the back of the development would be the affordable blocks. 

-           Bats were an important consideration and would form part of the biodiversity plan. 

-           Councillors were reminded that decisions taken at the original planning consent could not be reconsidered, and that a decision could only be made on reserved matters.

-           Ceiling heights and acoustics between flats would be designed to the latest building regulations and standards.

-           The s106 agreement required that an estate management plan be submitted and approved by the Council.

-           Comprehensive sunlight and daylight assessments had been undertaken, with positive results complying with current guidelines.  All affordable blocks would be dual aspect.

-           Play spaces would be provided in two locations, and the paddock could also be used by children.  Adjustments had been made in relation to delineating play spaces, so that the areas were clearly defined.  There was a condition attached to the hybrid consent which required the applicant to submit further details on landscaping.

The Committee raised concerns around the play space areas and the lack of distinction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 250.

Proposal: Detailed planning application for up to 97 residential units, new public realm, associated amenity space, cycle and disabled car parking.

The Planning Officer and representatives for the applicant gave a short presentation on early plans for the scheme. 

Officers and the Applicant responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Following the Quality Review Panel, the eleven units on the ground floor were all duplex units with their own front doors, and would be available for London affordable rent. 

-           The application would be presented again to the QRP, and submitted to the Council at the beginning of December.

-           The width between buildings was about 20m.

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.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 24 September – 31 October 2018.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

10 December 2018

10 December 2018