To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
Deputation
A deputation was received from Stephen Brice on behalf of the Pinkham Way Alliance regarding future plans for the site linked to agenda item 11, Local Plan Making – review of Haringey’s Local Plan.
Mr Brice outlined the Alliance’s continued support for the Council’s statement about future decisions on Pinkham Way and the sustained application of proper planning principles.
It was updated that a further ecological study had been undertaken covering invertebrates and which reaffirmed existing evidence of the site’s ecological importance in animal, bird and plant biodiversity.
The Alliance had drafted a 5 year management plan for the site to ensure the maintenance of its value, with a positive response from local people volunteering to play a role in implementation.
The long term benefits for future generations of retaining the site undeveloped were emphasised, or at the least, ensuring any disturbance from development was minimised or restricted to the least environmentally valuable areas of the site.
The Alliance reasserted their view that utilisation of the site as a waste centre would be contrary to both the borough’s planning policies and the London Plan and reiterated the importance of retaining a focus on proper planning principles in determining the future of the site.
Mr Brice raised concern over the frequency of occurrence of waste site fires across the UK and the subsequent risk this could pose to local residents and transport links should the site be approved for waste use.
Cllr Demirci responded to the deputation as the Cabinet Member for Planning and thanked Mr Brice for his deputation and for the continued work of the Alliance. He reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to an open and transparent process for determining the future of the site and continued dialogue with interested parties. Confirmation was provided on the application of proper planning principles in order to explore a range of options for the site. An evidenced approach had been used to determine the proposed allocation for the site under the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), with regard having been given to all relevant planning policy guidance, the ownership and current management of the site, its ecological designation and representations from relevant parties. The proposed allocation would be released for public consultation subject to Cabinet approval under agenda item 11.
Mr Brice responded on behalf of the Alliance in welcoming the continuation of a constructive relationship with the Council and the balance position regarding the site contained within the Site Allocations DPD.
Public Questions
A series of questions were received from Rachel Allison on behalf of the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum relating to agenda item 11, Local Plan Making, in particular the consultation undertaken with the public regarding sites to be included within the Site Allocations DPD. The responses provided by the Assistant Director Planning at the direction of the Cabinet Member were given as follows:
1. The reason behind the inclusion of the Highgate Magistrates Court site within the Site Allocations DPD when the Forum were requested to remove this from their Neighbourhood Plan
· The site had been included within the draft policy due to delays in progression of the planning application for the site. Planning permission had subsequently been granted at Planning Committee on 19 January 2015. In light of this, the inclusion of the site within the policy would be reviewed and would likely be omitted from the next version of the plan going forward from the public consultation stage. Apologies were conveyed to the Forum for failing to keep them updated on changes to the timetable for the determination of the application for the site.
2. The reason for the inclusion of the Tile Kiln Lane site following concerns that officers had not undertaken a site visit or consulted the Forum
· Confirmation was provided that a site visit had been undertaken but not a rigorous assessment of the important issues of water levels or the envelope of available land and as such, an amendment was proposed to the policy to omit this site and any related allocation. Officers acknowledged that although the site had been discussed with the Highgate Society, improvements were required going forward to the engagement process with the community and community groups.
3. Clarification was sought as to whether housing or employment was the priority for the Highgate Bowl application site in consideration that residential development was proposed in an area containing several existing small businesses.
· Confirmation was provided that a balanced, mixed use approach was sought for the site and that the results of the public consultation would inform where the land use emphasis fell. A specific development scheme was not in place for the site.
4. Assurances were sought that the Council would engage with the Highgate Forum in a constructive manner going forward, within the spirit of the Localism Act.
Whilst it was acknowledged there were opportunities to improve communication and coordination between the Council and the Forum, the Leader affirmed the Council’s commitment to constructive engagement. The Cabinet Member for Planning would take this point forward to look at where improvements could be made in working with community groups in a more collaborative way.