Agenda and minutes

Councillor Aksanoglu, Chair, welcomed all attendees.

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

NOTED there were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 19 March 2019.

AGREED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 19 March 2019 were agreed as a correct record.

NOTED

1.    Councillor Bond referred to minute No.975 – 18/02170/FUL – Russett House School, 11 Autumn Close, EN1 4JA – stating that there was mention of an opening on the north side of the A10 as an exit from the school.

2.    Andy Higham (Head of Development Management) clarified that he had contacted Keith Rowley (Director of School Expansions & Asset Management support) about this but had not received a response yet. He will be following this up and would then e-mail the Committee).

To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.

RECEIVED the report of the Head of Planning.

AGREED to vary the order of the agenda. The minutes follow the order of the meeting.

To receive the report of the Executive Director Place, providing an update on the monitoring of Section 106 Agreements (S106) and progress on Section 106 matters.

(Report No.224)

(Annexes -To FOLLOW)

NOTED

1.    After a short debate, this item was unanimously deferred to a future separate planning committee meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: That subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in Section 7.54 of this report, the Head of Development Management /the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions.

WARD: Highlands

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The deputation of Stephen Woods, neighbouring resident.

3.    The response of Alfie Yeatman, Agent.

4.    There was a clarification of the mix of units, these were 5 x 2 bedroom units and 4 x 3 bedroom units.

5.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

6.    There was a general discussion regarding the various merits of the proposed scheme s. This prompted a request to defer determination of the planning application pending a Member site visit was not accepted.

, the committee voted 5 votes for, 6 votes against and 1 abstention.

7.    The support of the majority of the Committee to defer the application: 11 votes for and 1 vote against.

AGREED that the application be deferred.

Reason: To secure improvement in affordable housing.

RECOMMENDATION: Granted subject to conditions

WARD: Southgate

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Kevin Tohill, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    No additional items were reported, but there was a request for the Head of Development Management to have delegated authority to agree the conditions.

3.    The deputation of Brian Kavanagh (agent), in response to the objection made by Emma Stannard (neighbouring resident).

4.    The statement of Councillor Stephanos Ioannou, Southgate Ward Councillor.

5.    The statement of Chris Horner (Conservation Advisory Group).

6.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

7.    The unanimous support of the of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and that the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to agree the conditions and grant conditional planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to the receipt of satisfactory ecological survey results, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and add any additional planning conditions necessary to secure appropriate mitigation as well as make any minor amendments to the wording of the conditions drafted in Part 1 of this report.

WARD: Edmonton Green

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The following updates to the report as reported:

·         Traffic, Transport and Access

Trip Generation

The committee report states that the mode share projections used to inform the TA are based on ticket sales and customer survey results.

To clarify, there has been no customer survey carried out yet to inform the projections for this event. The projections are based on ticket sales and information gained from previous years events in other locations. A customer survey of this event is expected to be carried out by the applicant to inform mode share data for any future events at the site.

Pedestrian Access

Para 9.35 – The committee report states that pedestrian points of access to the site will be provided along the southern boundary with Tottenham Marshes. To clarify, all access into and out of the site for festival goers will be over the bridge over Pymmes Brook. Whilst a pedestrian route will be provided through Tottenham Marshes as shown in Figure 1, pedestrians will be routed towards the main entrance to the festival across the bridge. The access points from the site onto the marsh are emergency routes only.

To clarify, the final ingress/egress plan will be submitted to and agreed with the LPA prior to the event. However, the main ingress to the site will be through a stewarded route through the marshes and over the bridge or along Watermead Way/Meridian Way and Leeside Road.  Entry to the event through the marshes will only be permitted up until 8pm after which time access will not be permitted given this route will be unlit. Egress from the event will be along Leeside Road and Meridian Way and not permitted through Tottenham marshes.

·         Consultation Update

Transport for London

TfL have confirmed that the proposal as it stands is acceptable subject to conditions requiring the provision of cycle parking (the applicant intends to provide a 30m x 30m facility with capacity for you to 1000 bikes which TfL deem sufficient for this event) and a requirement that a transport survey is undertaken during the festival to ascertain whether the predictions made in the transport management plan regarding mode share are accurate. An additional condition to cover this is recommended.

Objections have been received from Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club and  Stonebridge Lock Coalition since the report was published. (The Spurs letter was circulated in full for Members). In summary, the objections raised are:

                THFC

THFC have stated that whilst there are no major events  (over 10,000 spectators) planned to take place at the stadium at the same time as the festival, that in the absence of key timetabling information to confirm that sufficient public transport capacity exists they object to the application especially in the absence of express support from TfL, British Tansport Police and the Metropolitan Police.

Officer Response:

Full consideration of the impact on the transport network is provided in section 9 of the committee report and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1102.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.

WARD: Town

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Kevin Tohill, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Receipt of Revised Plans reconfiguring the design of the proposed rear extension but maintaining a height of 2 metres on the boundary with the neighbouring properties.

3.    Explanation of the relationship to these neighbouring properties in light of adopted policy.

4.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers’.

5.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

NOTED

1.    Proposal by Vincent Lacovara (Head of Planning) to arrange site visits to other London Borough’s, to seek out Committee Members’ views on the benefits of site visits to developments elsewhere in London.

2.    These would include:

·         High density residential schemes

·         Tower developments

·         High affordable housing

·         Infill and small sites

3.    Members to e-mail officers regarding:

·         How many visits

·         Time of visits i.e. morning, afternoon or Saturdays

·         Member availability