Agenda item

Proposed demolition of buildings and development of a foodstore (Use Class A1) together with educational uses (Class D1); stadium-related uses (Class D2); showroom/brand centre (sui generis); and associated facilities including car parking, the construction of new and altered vehicle and pedestrian accesses, private open spaces, landscaping and related works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement, plus Mayoral Direction and reference to Secretary of State.

Mr Dorfman gave a presentation on the application for planning permission for land off Northumberland Park, Tottenham, N17 and the application for outline planning permission for land off Park Lane, Tottenham, N17. The presentations included the location of the sites, details of the proposals, the existing consents in place, analysis of the applications against key planning issues and details of the consultation and responses received. The recommendation of both reports was that permission be granted, subject to conditions, a s106 legal agreement, the direction of the Mayor of London and the direction of the Secretary of State.

The Committee asked about the use of the podium space, who this would be available to and what it would be used for. Mr Dorfman advised that this large space would be managed by the club and open to the public throughout the year, with a number of managed events. A Local Area Management Plan would be required to be in place, which would include a mechanism to consult the local community on how the podium and key access routes would be managed. In response to a question regarding pedestrian access to the upper floors of the Northern development, it was confirmed that this would be via the podium. The Committee asked about the green wall; it was confirmed that this would be the subject of a condition, with the details to be agreed with the local authority as the technology available in this area continued to develop.

The Committee asked whether there was any risk of disturbance to the Moselle culvert, in response to which Mr Dorfman advised that it was not believed that any disturbance would be caused, however a condition was proposed to check this. The Committee asked if it would be possible to explore the opportunity to drain surface water into the Moselle in order to improve the water quality and to add this as an informative. Mr Dorfman agreed that this could be looked at.

The Committee noted that the design panel had made some comments in respect of the design elements of the Southern development, and asked whether design aspects of this application could be reserved matters, to be brought back to the Committee for consideration. Mr Dorfman advised that there had been some debate at the design panel regarding the merits of the finger design over the crescent, with a general preference for the crescent – officers differed from this view and felt that the finger design would offer a better living standard for people living in the development, provide greater light and views towards the stadium and the podium and would create a more varied frontage onto Park Lane. The design panel had agreed that the key to making the development successful would be the quality of materials used, and this was within reserved matters. Other than the outline of the number of units deliverable on the site, all other aspects of this application were reserved matters. It was clarified that this included the design and decorative details.

The Committee asked about the proposed biomass boilers for the Northern development. Mr Dorfman advised that the Council had sought to maximise the amount of renewable energy to support the scheme. The term biomass covered a range of renewable resources, generally from waste management processes. While the GLA welcomed the inclusion of renewable energy in the scheme, some concern had been expressed regarding the impact on air quality, and a condition had been recommended to address this issue.

The Committee asked about sustainable transport issues, and the incorporation of adequate cycle parking provision. Mr Dorfman advised that it was necessary to balance the wish to reduce car numbers and the provision of appropriate cycle parking spaces with design needs, and the location of parking spaces. It was not proposed that there be a change in the previously consented number of cycle or car parking spaces as it was felt that the development could not accommodate an increase.

At 9.55pm, the Committee agreed to suspend standing orders in order to complete the business already commenced.

The Committee noted that the s106 obligations in relation to the Northern application would still be payable were the stadium not delivered, and asked why this was not also the case for obligations associated with the Southern development. Mr Knibbs responded that the key objective of the scheme was the delivery of the stadium. Were the supermarket at the Northern site delivered at Phase 1 as planned, the associated highway works would still need to be completed and it was appropriate that the costs associated with this be repaid. At the Southern development, the stadium would need to have already been rebuilt in order to enable the construction of the housing units. The club had emphasised their commitment to the area but, were the stadium not to be delivered on the site, an entirely new scheme for the site would come forward. It was therefore felt that any further repayment obligations were unnecessary.

The Committee asked whether the biomass boilers would necessitate delivery of fuel by vehicles. Mr Dorfman advised that details were still to be determined, but it was possible that this would be the case in the short term, with medium to long term proposals for a piped network being considered.

Clarification was sought from the Committee as to the reasons why an obligation to require the repayment of the original education and affordable housing contributions in the event of the stadium not being delivered was not possible. Mr Dorfman advised that, were the proposed package approved, the club would be in a position to apply for other necessary funds in order to realise the delivery of this very complex scheme, and officers were happy to recommend the phased approach. It was not recommended that further conditions or obligations be imposed that would hinder this approach. Ms Garner addressed the issue of linking the obligation in respect of affordable housing to delivery of the stadium, and advised that it was likely that a new, large multi-use scheme would be put forward in the event that the stadium were not built and at that stage requirements could be put in place regarding affordable housing and education contributions. It was believed that the scheme proposed at this meeting was fundable, and the funding package was needed to ensure that the stadium could be delivered. It was not felt that increasing the level of affordable housing would be appropriate on this site.

Mr Clayden, Cllr Strickland, Cllr Bevan, supporters of the scheme and the applicants confirmed that they had no further points they wished to add to the comments they had raised earlier in the meeting.

The Committee considered the plans and model of the scheme.

In response to a final question from the Committee, Mr Dorfman advised that the room sizes proposed were in accordance with the existing GLA standards.