Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting will be 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. 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, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

Clerks note: As the Vice-Chair was not present at the meeting, the Clerk asked for nominations for a Chair of the meeting.

Councillor Mitchell nominated Councillor Williams.  This was seconded by Councillor Bevan, and approved by the remainder of the Committee.

Councillor Williams in the Chair

Members noted that the meeting was being streamed live on the Council’s website.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adamou and Basu.

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 12 below.

There was no urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 8 June 2020.

To follow

Clerk’s note: the minutes of the last meeting were not available for approval.  

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide a single building of between 4 and 9 storeys in height, comprising 75 residential units (C3) and 953 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1-A5, B1 and B8), with associated cycle parking, plant, refuse and recycling provision, landscaping and all necessary ancillary and enabling works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a single building of between 4 and 9 storeys in height, comprising 75 residential units (C3) and 953 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1-A5, B1 and B8), with associated cycle parking, plant, refuse and recycling provision, landscaping and all necessary ancillary and enabling works.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The Council’s position was to keep all of the Council units together rather than separate them, as this made it easier to manage the properties.

-           Service charges were driven by how the management of the properties were arranged and would depend on which services were provided.

-           Access for services would be provided via Caxton Road.

-           There would be three blue badge spaces available, two of which would include electric charging points.

-           All properties would be accessed by both lifts and stairs.

Paul Burnham spoke in objection to the application.  He commented that it was unacceptable that the number of affordable rent properties had been reduced by four, and replaced by shared ownership properties.  He felt that none of the development complied with any planning policies, none of which gave any support to tenure segregation.  He added that it was important to maximise integration of housing tenures, and asked the Committee to reject the application.

Natasha Sivandan spoke in objection to the application.  She also referred to the number of shared ownership properties, and commented that this was not affordable for most in housing need.  Ms Sivandan made reference to her submission in the agenda pack, and her statement that there had been no Equalities Impact Assessment carried out.  Ms Sivandan considered that the development was in breach of the Equality Act 2010 as it did not meet local need, and was indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of race and / or religion in relation to family sized accommodation.  The provision of homes with wheelchair access in just block A was also considered to be indirectly discriminatory.  Ms Sivandan request the Committee reject the application as it did not meet local needs and was in breach of the Equality Act.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Individual planning applications were not subject to Equalities Impact Assessments (EQIAs).  All applications had to confirm to the Local Plan and Housing Policies which themselves had been subject to EQIAs.  There was caselaw (Harris v London Borough of Haringey 2010) relating to a development which required an EQIA, but this was due to the demolition of buildings belonging to a particular group.  This development was for a vacant site, so the caselaw was not relevant to this application.

-           In response to Mr Burnham’s submission, the number of affordable rent properties had increased since the agenda had been published and the development would now provide 15 Low Cost Rented homes (all London Affordable Rent) and 10 Intermediate homes.

Luke Cadman (Applicant) addressed the Committee.  This application was for the development of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 427.

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new building ranging in height from 3 to 6 storeys to accommodate 13 residential units (Use Class C3), employment floorspace (Use Class B1a) at upper ground and first floor level and retail / café floorspace (Use Class A1 / A3) at lower ground floor level, along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage and other associated works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new building ranging in height from 3 to 6 storeys to accommodate 13 residential units (Use Class C3), employment floorspace (Use Class B1a) at upper ground and first floor level and retail / café floorspace (Use Class A1 / A3) at lower ground floor level, along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage and other associated works.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           A development which was not viable for the provision of social housing did not mean that it was not viable to build at all.  When considering the viability of a development for social housing, there had to be regard to a minimum level of profit for the developer.

-           Page 6, paragraph of the 6.2 addendum report noted that bat surveys had recently completed and no bat activity had been found.  However, bat boxes and other measures would be incorporated into the development.

Laurie Elks spoke in objection to the application.  He felt that the River Lea area was becoming more and more enclosed by developments – Hale Village and Hale Wharf were high buildings next to this development.  The Area Action Plan set out that the Lockkeepers cottages should be developed as part of a comprehensive proposal – Mr Elks added that any development on the site should enhance the character of the area.  Mr Elks referred to the comments of the Parks Authority that the development was too much and requested that the Committee reject the application.

Councillor Gordon spoke in objection to the application.  She referred the Committee to the large number of local residents who had objected to the application.  There were too many high-rise towers in the area and local residents needed some open space.  Cllr Gordon referred to the sale of properties in Hale Wharf, which were advertised for sale in China and stated that these were built for investments and not for local residents.  She requested that further thought be given to the development to provide a better proposal.

Tom Cole, Planning Consultant, addressed the Committee.  The site was a mixed-use development, which was wholly in accordance with planning policy.  The development would create c.60 jobs, new offices for Lea Valley Estates, as well as providing employment, training and apprenticeships for Haringey residents.

Mr Cole and the applicant team responded along with officers to questions from the Committee:

-           Deliveries would be directed to the concierge at Hale Village, who would then deliver to the development.

-           Waste would be collected by Hale Village as part of the ongoing management of the development.

-           The development was six storeys in height and did not encroach on the park or the waterway.

-           The viability assessment set out that the development was unable to form any contribution to affordable housing either on or off site.

The Chair moved the vote to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 428.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a five-storey building (plus basement) comprising of a retail unit at ground and basement levels and nineteen residential units above; and associated landscaping and the provision of an outdoor children's play area.

Recommendation: GRANT

Clerk’s note: The Chair suspended Standing Orders at 21.45 to allow the Committee to continue past 22.00 for the consideration of HGY/2020/0158 300-306 West Green Road N15 3QR

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a five-storey building (plus basement) comprising of a retail unit at ground and basement levels and nineteen residential units above; and associated landscaping and the provision of an outdoor children's play area.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The development would generate some traffic, but there was already some existing commercial use in the area.  In assessing the increase, it was felt that that it was not substantial enough to warrant refusal of the application.

-           The balconies on the street frontage would have a single-glazed screen which could be closed off in winter.  The balconies would not be hugely visible from the street, so clutter would not be seen.

-           The shutters on the plans were not shown as external shutters, therefore shutter boxes would need to be added to the permission (and could be done by way of an informative).

Tom Kirk spoke in objection to the application.  He, along with other residents in Strawbridge Court felt that the application should be rejected.  Each property in Strawbridge Court would have windows which would face onto the new development.  All properties in Strawbridge Court bar one were single aspect, and the new development would cause residents to feel that they were living in a goldfish bowl.  The current retail units had not been used for 2.5 years, so the traffic assessment could not be based on the current retail use.

Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management, advised that there was 20.1 metres between the flank of the proposed building and Strawbridge Court.  A typical street width was 20 metres.

Chris Jones, Planning Consultant, addressed the Committee.  The application had been assessed by the Quality Review Panel and at pre-application stage.  The development would provide additional public realm and landscaping, as well as incorporating an increase in dwellings and a retail unit.  The daylight and sunlight assessment showed no negative impact on Strawbridge Court.

Councillor Tabois proposed that the application move to a vote and this was seconded by Councillor Bevan.

Councillor Cawley-Harrison moved to refuse on the grounds of design, density significantly being above the matrix, overlooking and privacy particularly in regard to the Strawbridge Court residents and the penthouse units, and the single aspect units from both buildings.  This was seconded by Councillor Hinchcliffe.

The Chair moved the vote to refuse the application and with five in favour, three against and one abstention, it was

RESOLVED that the application be refused on the grounds of design, density significantly being above the matrix, overlooking and privacy particularly in regard to the Strawbridge Court residents and the penthouse units, and the single aspect units from both buildings.

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.

This item was not considered due to the late time of the meeting.  Members were encouraged to email any questions directly to officers.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 24 May – 26 June 2020.

This item was not considered due to the late time of the meeting.  Members were encouraged to email any questions directly to officers.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

None.

8 September 2020

12 October 2020

9 November 2020

7 December 2020

11 January 2021

8 February 2021

8 March 2021

19 April 2021

8 September 2020