To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.
Minutes:
The Leader of the Council invited Mr Will Spokes to put forward his representations relating to Item 12, Haringey Local Plan.
Mr Spokes, was speaking on behalf of the Defend Crouch End group, and began by objecting to the inclusion of Site Allocation 51[site in between 72-96 Park Road and Lynton road in the Site Allocations development Plan] and asked for this site’s removal from the plan. He referred to the lack of proper information provided to local residents and business, earlier this year in the consultation period, about the inclusion of this site in the DPD. Mr Spokes set out the circumstances in which the local residents and businesses had become aware of its inclusion in the DPD which he felt did not reflect the principles of good communication and he questioned if this was indicative of the consultation, as a whole, on all the local planning documents.
Mr Spokes contested the proposed height of the development at this site which would have a detrimental impact on the existing neighbourhood, with an immediate changed physical environment for households living in close quarters to the site .He also highlighted the closure of the existing discreet and unique businesses, currently taking up the site, to make way for the housing which was not in keeping with the boroughs employment commitments. He felt that due consideration had not been given to the impact of having additional housing in the area. This was in terms of parking, environment and schools. There was an obvious bias to housing development but he questioned how any mixed use employment space could be continued at this site.
The Leader provided some assurance to the deputation explaining that the Local Plan, at this stage, set out in theory what uses can be made of the site. Any eventual changes to the site would be subject to planning permission where local concerns can also be put forward
In response to the Leader’s question on the local group’s level of opposition to housing on this site, the deputation advised that they had a pragmatic stance. However, any housing development would need to be completed in a manner which was sympathetic to the existing area and would need to keep the community and local stakeholders in the area satisfied.
The Cabinet Member for Planning further responded to the deputation by acknowledging the concerns received both in writing and in separate meetings with residents and businesses about this site.
In response to the concerns on height, and the loss of employment on the site, the Cabinet Member for Planning advised the deputation party that there was already an existing planning consent for the northern part of the site for a 5 storey building providing for 40 net residential units. Therefore the planning documents of the Council could not discount the existing planning permission, or the principles of development that it has established on this site. Given the significant need for housing and affordable employment space in the borough this site was considered to be one that is able (subject to careful design) to make a contribution towards the borough wide housing and employment need.
The Cabinet Member for Planning further provided assurance to the deputation party that while the allocation agrees the principal of development, that if and when a proposal for development is received it will be subject to policies governing parking, height of development, and impact on surrounding properties on Lynton Rd, Park Rd and the Grove.
The Cabinet Member for Planning welcomed the proposed replacement employment floor space in the new development and hoped that local residents would be reassured that the Local Plan will help to manage how this development at SA49 [Previously SA51] comes forward in the future, and ensure that it makes a positive, rather than negative contribution to the urban fabric of Crouch End.
The Cabinet Member for Planning re-iterated the pressure faced by local authorities to provide more housing and employment for residents but was happy to meet with the residents and businesses concerned about SA 51 as part of the Regulation 19 consultation process.
The Leader asked the Assistant Director for Planning to set out the next development phase of these local plans, following consideration at Cabinet and Full Council in November. The Assistant Director for Planning advised that in December there would follow a further consultation period and an examination in public in spring, testing the soundness of the planning documents. A representative of the Secretary of State will take this forward, inviting local stakeholders and groups to participate and share their views. The Crouch End community group can be provided with details about the examination exercises and how they can participate.
The Leader invited Jacob Secker to come forward and with the second deputation in relation to the Local Planning documents at agenda Item 12.
Mr Secker was speaking on behalf of a number of community groups and projects in and around the Broadwater Farm estate. Mr Secker began by objecting to the inclusion of Broadwater Farm estate along with the Northern housing areas off the estate such as Somerset Close, Moira Close and Lido square being included in the site allocations development plan [SA62]. He welcomed the removal of the Lordship recreation ground from the Plan and asked for same action to be applied to SA62.
The deputation party felt that there had been inadequate consultation with residents about the inclusion of the estate and surrounding northern housing area in the local plan as potential development areas. The deputation felt the Council had the underlying objective of demolishing the estate and rebuilding private accommodation in its place and Mr Secker referenced extracts of the September Cabinet report on the review of Housing Management [ the deputation had tabled a information pack for the Cabinet supporting their deputation] which he claimed supported this underlying Council objective. This September Cabinet report had also highlighted the Council’s consideration of a joint venture vehicle for housing regeneration in the borough which the deputation party felt would bring less equality and rights to Council tenants.
In response to the Leader’s question on the regeneration of the estate, the deputation asked the Cabinet to consider alternative solutions for modernising the estate such as, ensuring the decent homes standards were applied, and physical estate improvements made to buildings. These details were contained in page 8 of the information pack tabled.
The Leader of the Council responded to the deputation by emphasising that the Council had no plans to demolish the Broadwater Farm Estate and replace it with private accommodation. Lack of housing was a London wide issue with no easy solutions and would mean looking at innovative ways to bring in Housing to the borough.
The required physical improvements to the Broadwater Farm estate were undeniable. Also there were structural issues with the buildings meaning there were no easy solutions for upgrading the buildings. The Leader had visited Broadwater Farm and had also heard from residents who wanted better upgraded accommodation.
The Cabinet Member for Planning began responding to the deputation by acknowledging the considerable responses received on the issues of Lordship Recreation Ground and the Broadwater Farm area. The Lordship Recreation ground had been removed from the Plan following consultation. However, the housing estate consultation responses were more mixed with request for better housing .The Council had a responsibility for ensuring high quality homes across the borough – including on the Broadwater Farm estate. Therefore the plan proposed the Council work together with the local community groups, residents and stakeholders on new supplementary planning document to set out how to secure improvements to this housing estate to improve stock, design of the site, and routes through the area.
The Cabinet Member for Planning further clarified that there were no detailed plans for how this will be achieved, and certainly no agreed plan for demolitions. The Council would work with local residents and stakeholders in identifying options for improvements to the estate in the future.
The Cabinet member for Planning felt that there were differing views from residents about Broadwater Farm and advised that he had met with residents of Tangmere block and the Broadwater Farm residents Association who wanted better quality homes.