Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Peter Fallart, who was substituted by Cllr Reece Fox.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relating to items on the agenda.

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

To receive and agree the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 11 February 2025.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 11 February 2025 were AGREED.

To receive and note the covering report of the Head of Planning and Building Control.

Received the report of the Head of Planning and Building Control, which was NOTED.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, 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 conditions and the S106 to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

3. That the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to include any additional planning conditions or Heads of Terms to the S106 agreement requested by the Greater London Authority and/or Government body following referral of the application.

WARD: Ponders End

Kathryn Williams, KEW Planning, introduced the report and highlighted the key aspects of the application. Members were updated that an addendum report had been circulated which provided an update on some of the floor space figures and the NHS health contribution etc.

In response to Members’ questions relating to fire safety, officers advised that the objection received from the LFB referred to an inability to access fire and safety access documents, but this was for Haringey, on the wrong council’s website, so appeared to be an administrative error. Regardless there were regulatory building control measures that the applicant would need to comply with. The applicant had submitted a detailed fire strategy which had been incorporated into the design proposals and considered acceptable by officers.

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding heritage, officers replied that the main impact would be to the conservation area and water meadows, with an increased urban effect on the views. However, given what was already there previously, the overall degree of harm would be towards the lower end of less than substantial and needed to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme. 

In response to Members’ queries relating to transport, officers responded that 10% or around 72 of the total number of spaces provided would accommodate EV charging and there was a planning condition requiring the applicant to submit details. A recent consultation for a CPZ in the area had received more positive feedback than others. A contribution may be sought from the development to expand the proposed CPZ zone, to mitigate the impact of more units and fewer spaces and there would be a condition for this to be in place before units were occupied. Should the CPZ be implemented, future occupants of the development would not be eligible to apply for a permit, which would be restricted through the Section 106 agreement. The scheme was policy compliant and spaces would be allocated through a parking management plan, which would distribute them to the units with a higher number of bedrooms.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of density, officers advised that tall building locations in the scheme didn’t accord with the emerging local plan, but due to the scale of development in the area, a taller threshold was proposed, which meant only two buildings in the application were being assessed/ considered as tall and this needed to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme. Consent for taller buildings had been given as part of the permitted outline permission and the scheme followed the spirit of the policy, in assisting with wayfinding, as the existing building next to the station would still be the tallest, with those proposed here being 2 and a half and 5 storeys lower. There had needed to be an uplift in density to ensure the viability of the scheme, which was currently in deficit, to deliver the remaining phases and affordable housing. There would be early, mid and late-stage reviews of the viability of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That subject to a Shadow S106 Agreement being agreed to secure matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice that delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the conditions and Shadow Section 106 Agreement to cover the matters in the report.

WARD: Upper Edmonton

Josleen Ray, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted the key aspects of the application.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of pedestrian access, officers replied that as well as the existing route along the North Circular, a new East-West pedestrian and cycle link would provide an improvement on the current maze bridges and walkways. Wayfinding for the North-South route was improved by the new energy centre, which signposted the public to the bridge. Officer groups looked at improving green spaces and connections in the wider area in the round.

In response to Members’ questions relating to wind mitigation measures, officers responded that there were conditions for a canopy across the entrance to Scott House, landscaping/ planting at 1.5 metres in height and for wind mitigation measures to be fully detailed and submitted to officers, to ensure they were delivered in accordance with the assessment.

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding street scene, officers advised that there were landscaping enhancements proposed along a stretch of the A406 which was TfL owned and currently subject to fly tipping. The wording of the landscaping condition could be looked at to include details as to how it would be managed, maintained and who would be responsible for this.

In response to Members’ queries relating to the carbon offset fund, officers replied that improved energy efficiency measures had meant the contribution required to offset the shortfall in achieving net zero was less.

The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted:

12 FOR

0 AGAINST

0 ABSTENTIONS

and so, it was AGREED:

1. That subject to a Shadow S106 Agreement being agreed to secure matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice that delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the conditions and Shadow Section 106 Agreement to cover the matters in the report.

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

Tuesday 1 April 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 22 April 2025

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. The provisional meeting on 1 April would not be used. Training for members on the new National Planning Policy Framework changeswould be arranged following annual council.

The Chair thanked Members and officers for their time and contributions, and the meeting ended at 21:24.