Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Peter Fallart and Eylem Yuruk, who were substituted by Cllrs Julian Sampson and Mohammad Islam respectively.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest received regarding any items on the agenda.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 18 July 2023.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 18 July 2023 were agreed.

To receive and note the covering report of the Head of Development Management.

Received the report of the Head of Development Management, which was NOTED.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

In light of the update information provided in this report:

1. That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 Agreement.

2. That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the s106 Agreement and the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of the original report dated 18 January 2022 and this report.

WARD: Upper Edmonton

Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

Members welcomed the changes the developer had made in light of a number of concerns expressed by the committee previously.

In response to Member’s queries regarding conditions, officers confirmed that there were conditions relating to the colour of the brick work and the wind effect of the tall building, amongst others outlined in the report. Officers agreed to add a condition looking at the potential for more disabled parking spaces to be provided as part of the development, if possible, for those in accessible dwellings.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the GLA comments, officers advised that with regards to tall buildings, Policy D9 sought a plan led approach to their location but could take other considerations into account and the GLA had looked at the location/context of the site and decided that on balance the benefits outweighed the harm. If the committee accepted the recommendation, the application would go back to the Mayor for a new Stage 2 referral.

In response to Member’s queries regarding construction time, officers advised that there was still process to follow before implementation of any planning permission (finalisation of legal agreement & Stage 2 referral), but its construction once commenced was probably upwards of 2 years.

In response to Member’s queries regarding parking, officers advised that there would be 4 disabled parking spaces provided on Clive Avenue, but that otherwise the application was located in a controlled parking zone. The provision met the relevant parking standards. It was subsequently clarified that while there is a condition requiring 10% M4(3) units to be provided in the development in accordance with policy, the parking standard requires 3% for disabled parking provision. It was therefore acknowledged that there would not be a 1 for 1 allocation for the M4(3) units. Officers highlighted for members the locations of the bin store and cycle parking.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the Snell and Joyce Estate, officers advised that at present the building would be 24 storeys at its highest, but that discussions were still ongoing, and the height was subject to change. These proposals would come to committee in due course for consideration. By way of further context, officers highlighted the application was for would be 18 storeys, and there were other tall buildings in the surrounding area including those in Haringey to the south.

In response to Member’s queries regarding community impact, officers advised that a key part of the proposal was the potential for the re-provision of a public house on the ground floor on the ground floor frontage, which would facilitate this but that it could not be committed as a public house as this would be commercial decision and there were other locations in the area which could provide this. The use of the community space would need to be discussed in the future.

In response to Member’s queries regarding viability, officers advised that the scheme is made on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1) That subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority (Stage 2) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2) That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD: Whitewebbs

Lap-Pan Chong, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

A deputation was received from Daniel Ishack, a local resident, who spoke against officers’ recommendation.

A deputation was received from Cllr Hannah Dyson, Whitewebbs Ward Councillor, who spoke against the officers’ recommendation.

The agent, Emma Hardy, spoke in response.

Officers responded to comments, and advised that the road safety and accessibility had been considered. The segregated pedestrian route, addition of give way signs, and lighting were tools being requested as a way of improving safety. It was estimated that during the AM peak, 40 vehicles would leave and 14 arrive, thus there would not be a large conflict of traffic, and the narrow nature of the road meant there should be a low vehicle speed, alleviating concerns regarding accidents. The trip rate was said to be calculated internally by officers using an industry standard database; this is separate to the applicant’s transport consultants, who conduct the same process, each of which produce a broadly similar estimate. It was advised that parking on the road did take place but that this was for short periods and would not have a huge impact on safety, and the removal of the existing aquarium site would increase general parking provision. The Council-led new southbound fixed bus stop would be relocated further away from the bend to make it safer. Parking provision would be accommodated onsite, thus there was unlikely to be an overspill.

Officers advised that with regards to the application being on the greenbelt, it was considered that very special circumstances did exist such that the application could be supported. The section 106 obligations meant the applicant was fully committed to mitigate the impact of the development through various contributions. An air quality assessment had been submitted and officers raised no objections to this, or the potential for noise issues. Officers had raised no objections to the character of the proposals, and the applicant was committed to conditions to mitigate its impact, including being only 2 storeys with a maximum ridge height at 8.5m, and having a 15m distancing landscape buffer to the north boundary. Further landscape and visual impact assessments had also been committed to by the applicant. The Applicant was also committed to attend Design Review Panels prior to submission of reserved matters applications.  

In response to Member’s queries regarding the housing mix, officers advised that a section 106 agreement would secure the affordable housing provision offered through the application. Officers reassured members that if the applicant sought to reduce the quantum of affordable housing offered through this application that given the significant weight in the planning balance, that such a request would lead to a new application being required, at which point different weight would be attributed to the consideration of the circumstances that cumulatively make the case for very special circumstance. It was confirmed that there would be 6 accessible units, but the mix of 2 and 3 beds of these had not yet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To note that the dates of future meetings are as follows:

Tuesday 19th September 2023

Tuesday 17th October 2023

Tuesday 7th November 2023 (provisional)

Tuesday 21st November 2023

Tuesday 19th December 2023

Tuesday 9th January 2024 (provisional)

Tuesday 23rd January 2024

Tuesday 13th February 2024 (provisional)

Tuesday 20th February 2024

Tuesday 5th March 2024 (provisional)

Tuesday 19th March 2024

Tuesday 23rd April 2024

These meetings will commence at 7:00pm and will be held in the Conference Room at the Civic Centre.

Members noted the dates of future meetings as set out in the agenda pack, and that the next meeting would take place on Tuesday 19 September 2023.

Members asked that the upcoming site visit regarding application reference 20/01982/FUL, be rearranged so that more Members could attend.

Members noted that it would be Andy Higham, Head of Development Management’s, last meeting. Members thanked him on behalf of the whole borough for all his help, his long, loyal, and successful service, and wished him all the best for his future.

The Chair thanked everyone for their time, and the meeting ended at 21:05.