Agenda item

Proposal: Installation of street furniture comprising pairs of 76mm dia steel tubes (poles) linked with 1.6mm clear nylon filament and similar street furniture to delineate a local Jewish Eruv.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the installation of street furniture comprising pairs of 76mm diameter steel tubes (poles) linked with 1.6mm clear nylon filament and similar street furniture to delineate a local Jewish Eruv.

Tania Skelli, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to a query about the benefit to the Jewish community, the Planning Officer clarified that the Eruv would allow people to carry items on the Sabbath, including wheelchairs, prams, and personal items; it was noted that this would not be possible without the Eruv.

·         Some members asked about the use of beads to ensure that the Eruv was visible to birds. The Planning Officer explained that, following comments from the Parks Officer, additional measures would be provided at location 22 in order to ensure the best solution for birds and bats. It was clarified that these measures were considered necessary in the nature reserve but that no other locations would have these measures.

Paul McDonald spoke in objection to the application. He stated that there were over 14 environmental conflicts relating to the proposal which had been submitted in writing. He felt that the proposal would result in the installation of a dangerous fishing line, would diminish local community gardens, and would increase the amount of street furniture. He stated that local people opposed the application as religious symbols should not be present in secular, public spaces; it was commented that the area was predominantly secular and that less than 2% of the local community was Jewish. It was added that the poles were considered to be obtrusive. Mr McDonald believed that the initial planning application was inaccurate in terms of scales and failed to consider issues such as environmental impact, particularly the effect of the proposal on birds. He stated that the planning process had been defective due to a perceived conflict of interest and the notification had been issued in August when many people were away and signs had been placed in unsafe locations on narrow roads. Mr McDonald said that there should be a compromise and existing furniture should be used to create the Eruv; he urged the Committee to preserve the local environment.

In response to the points raised in the objections, the following responses were provided:

·         In response to a query about the community gardens, Mr McDonald stated that there were two community gardens in the area near to the Crouch End rail bridge and that lots of people who walked to the station enjoyed the gardens and the accompanying biodiversity.

·         In response to a query about the poles for the Eruv, Mr McDonald stated that the poles would be 5.5 metres above ground but would be 6.5 metres in total. He commented that the requirement for the poles to have a 1 metre footing had a significant energy and carbon footprint and he believed that the Eruv could be achieved using a less invasive method. 

·         Some members commented that religious items, such as Christmas trees, were sometimes included in public spaces and asked why the Eruv was considered to be unacceptable. Mr McDonald stated that 70-80% of the community accepted Christmas trees but that the Eruv would cover a large area and would be obtrusive. He stated that some of the images provided by the applicant had obscured the proposals and it had not been clear what was requested. He added that the proposal would introduce some elements that were 2 metres higher than existing street furniture.

·         Some members asked for additional detail about the alleged conflict of interest. Mr McDonald believed that there was a conflict of interest on a religious basis. He stated that the planning consultation deadline was in August; the officer had not responded to email communications as they were away in August and they had included an incorrect email on their out of office message. It was noted that, after this issue was raised, the planning consultation period had been extended. Although not a pecuniary interest, Mr McDonald believed that there was a perceived conflict of interest. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability stated that he could receive evidence on any alleged conflicts of interests but highlighted that Planning Officers were professional officers and that applications were signed off by multiple officers. It was not considered that there was a conflict of interest in this case.

·         Some members asked whether there were any features on the poles which identified them as religious. Mr McDonald stated that local people knew what the poles were and that 42% of the community was not religious. He commented that the key objection to the application was environmental as the large poles would be located in the conservation area and would proliferate the quantity of street furniture. He did not believe that the poles were necessary as not all Eruvs used poles. He stated that the local community did not want religious symbols in the public domain, that the public domain should not be claimed as private domain, and that the local environment should be preserved.

·         In response to a further query, Mr McDonald stated that there were no markings or features that identified the poles as religious.

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. Daniel Rosenfelder, Agent, and Rabbi Nicky Liss, Highgate Synagogue, were in attendance on behalf of the applicant. Daniel Rosenfelder stated that the first Eruv had been installed in 2004 and there were now a number of Eruvs across London and other cities. It was noted that there were active Jewish communities in Highgate and Muswell Hill and this application would provide life changing benefits and link local areas. It was explained that the Eruv would be a notional boundary, such as poles, which would form a quasi-open gate and continuous boundary. It was highlighted that the poles would not have religious markings but would allow people to leave their houses on the Sabbath which was not possible without the Eruv. It was noted that there would be no traffic impact or effect on social cohesion. Mr Rosenfelder commented that the Eruv would be barely discernible on the streetscape and would not harm wildlife and it was noted that there would be special measures for wildlife at Parkland Walk. He stated that section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 required local authorities to support protected characteristics of minority groups and noted that Sabbath observance was a feature of traditional Judaism. He explained that the Eruv would link to key health facilities, including the Whittington Hospital and a number of care homes, which would have a positive impact on patients and would have the wider public benefit of allowing patient discharges on Saturdays. For the reasons stated and for those set out in the report, it was hoped that the Committee would support the application.    

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to a query about whether the Eruv could use existing walls and houses, the applicant team noted that some people had offered the use of their properties for Eruvs but it was explained that this was generally avoided as it required legal agreements for residences. Similarly, it was noted that street furniture could be used if there were no other options but that this could change and could invalidate the Eruv. It was added that all maintenance issues were undertaken by applicant and that this was simpler if the Eruv was a single unit.

·         It was confirmed that the maximum gap allowed within an Eruv was approximately 20 centimetres. It was noted that the poles were located adjacent to the footpath and in the public domain.

·         In relation to location 22 on Parkland Walk, it was enquired why there would be a small addition of fence in front of the pole and whether the pole could be installed in line with the existing wall. The applicant team explained that the pole would not be installed at the end of the wall as this was anticipated to be too close to the footing of the wall. It was added that the area between the end of the wall and the public footpath was a steep embankment. As such, it was proposed to locate the pole slightly further from the wall and with a section of picket fence which matched the fencing opposite location 22.

·         In response to a query about the materials for the filament, the applicant team noted that nylon fibre was proposed as it was less likely to break and need repair. It was stated that, based on previous experience, a 1.6 millimetre clear, nylon fibre was the least visibly intrusive connection between poles. It was commented that other materials could be used but were considered to be less reliable.

·         The applicant team confirmed that the Eruv would be inspected at least once per week in advance of the Sabbath. It was noted that a contractor would be available in case repairs were required and that the applicant would take full responsibility for maintenance and costs.

·         In relation to the installation and remedial work for the pavement, the applicant team stated that the appointment of a contractor was subject to legal agreement but it was noted that the contractor would need to be licensed.

·         It was enquired whether the heights of the filaments would be sufficient to allow all modes of transport to pass through safely. The applicant team explained that the filaments would be 5.5 metres and that this was 300 centimetres higher than the maximum recommended height for buses and vehicles. It was noted that, in some cases, the filaments would be at a height of 6 metres on Transport for London (TfL) roads where required. It was added that a filament height of 2.4 metres was generally used for footpaths and cycleways; this was considered sufficient and would be significantly higher than cycling height.

·         Some members asked about the impact of poles on the community gardens that were referenced in the objection. The applicant team stated that the poles would be located to the rear of the footpath on land that was owned by the Council. It was noted that a section 106 legal agreement allowed poles to be placed in the public domain. It was added that the poles would not impede or extend into gardens.

It was noted that the recommendation was to grant planning permission as set out in the report.

Following a vote with 10 votes in favour, 0 vote against, and 0 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and     impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

3.    That, following completion of the agreement referred to in (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (2) above, Planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

Conditions (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report)

1)    Development begun no later than three years from date of decision

2)    In accordance with approved plans

3)    Arboricultural Method Statement

4)    Location 22 filament with beads

5)    Bird & bat boxes

6)    Bat survey

7)    Pole colours

Informatives

1)    Co-operation

2)    Hours of construction

3)    Network Rail

Section 106 Heads of Terms

1)    To secure the necessary agreement with the LBH Highway’s for the carrying out of works on the public highway via a Section 50 and 105 of the New Road and Streetworks Act 1991 (Road safety audit included).

2)    A community engagement plan.

3)    To secure a management agreement that the structures will be regularly inspected and repaired.