Agenda item

.WARD: Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    Introduction by John Hood, Assistant Principal Lawyer. There is a Part 1 discussion to take place on the new information provided. Subject to the way Members determine that, the meeting may move into Part 2, taking a vote to do that.

2.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals.

3.    At the 26 October 2021 Planning Committee, Members voted not to accept the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission. Having identified concerns raised on the impact of heritage assets, which outweighed the public benefits of the scheme and acceptability of the housing mix, together with the impact, in terms of design and the character of the area, Members were minded to refuse planning permission but defer a final decision pending the draft reasons for refusal based on those grounds – as detailed at paragraph 1.2 (page 164) of the report.

The part 2 element of the report sets out the draft reasons for refusal for consideration by members.

Since the original committee meeting, the applicant has provided additional information in the form of an improvement in the proposed mix of residential accommodation. The applicant has advised that they would increase the number of family units to 20% all at London affordable rent and the number of 3 bed plus units from 14 to 22. As a result of this change, this would reduce the total number of units from 113 to 110.

The recommendation asks Members, considering the additional information as set out in the report, to take a decision whether to defer the application to enable further assessment of updates and balanced as part of an amended report for a future planning committee. This will be considered as part 1 of the agenda. If Members accept this recommendation a report will be made to a Planning Committee in January 22 at which time Members can review the proposal and either approve or refuse the proposed development. If there is no agreement to the first recommendation, then Members are invited to consider the draft reasons for refusal and further agreement to move into Part 2.

4.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers

5.    Members’ comments and queries including the following:

·         Councillor Rye’s preference to move the item to Part 2 to discuss the reasons for refusal.

·         Councillor S. Erbil referred to the Borough’s housing crisis and preferred to consider the additional information and to bring the application back to a future Planning Committee.

·         Councillor Taylor was concerned that, in the introduction by Andy Higham, there was no reference to the heritage assets issue. He had requested that a heritage officer attended this meeting (no heritage officer was present). Councillor Taylor could not vote for any proposition without a discussion with a heritage officer.

·         Councillor Levy sought clarity regarding the status of this application and if the committee would be receiving a new application in January 22 or would it be the same one before them. Otherwise, the committee were being asked to overturn a decision already made. He needed to know what he would be deferring as option 1.

The Legal Representative advised that the view of the Council’s professional officers is that there had been no determination on this application.

The Director of Law & Governance further advised that on the 26 October 2021, the committee made a decision. We have to separate a committee decision from the issuing of a decision notice in planning terms because a decision notice requires reasons for refusal. On the 26 October 2021, the will of the committee was to refuse the application and the deferral was simply for the officers to draft the reasons for refusal which accorded with the debate in the committee. Officers have now done that and since then the applicant has provided further information. The decision of the Local Planning Authority, in legal terms, is not a decision until such point we issue a decision notice with reasons for refusal. This has not been done and his legal advice to planning and legal officers is that we are duty bound to bring that information back to Members as has been done this evening. Failure to do that would attract criticism of officers for not informing embers of the full position.

So, the application has been brought back to Members with the new information which is why there are 2 choices, as detailed at page 163 of the report.

·         Councillor Rye’s concern regarding the non-attendance of appropriate officers (Heritage) to advise Members on any decision that they wish to take. On both applications (items 8 & 9), one of the reasons for not supporting the officers’ recommendations was Heritage. Therefore, both applications should be deferred and brought back when appropriate officers are in attendance. The Director of Law & Governance clarified that on a procedural route, Councillor Rye had identified a 3^rd and fully legitimate option. Which is, Members defer the entire matter, the report as drafted in full is deferred to a date of your choosing until appropriate officers are in attendance. Full referral is legitimate if Members’ request for Heritage officers has not been provided. Officers apologised, they were aware of the request for heritage officers to attend this meeting, but personal circumstances dictated otherwise, and they were unable to arrange a substitute. If Members accept the first recommendation and the application comes back on the 22 January 22 officers would ensure heritage officers are present including a reserve on standby to assist members making a final decision.

·         Members’ debate and discussion regarding clarity on what Members are voting on as regards the application. Councillor Rye’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Levy, that no decision is made this evening and the full matter is deferred until such time that a heritage officer is in attendance and then the committee could make a decision regarding option 1 or option 2. Officers clarified that if option 1 was accepted, it would not be a new application that comes back until officers issued a decision. Officers would still be able to amend and look at the current application. The application would come back as an amendment and the time taken prior to coming back in January 22 would enable officers to do and engagement with stakeholders to ensure that when the application comes back, Members have the full consideration to make a final decision.

·         The Director of Law & Governance further clarified that on the 26 October 2021, Members made an in-principle decision to refuse this application. The application wasn’t refused on the night with reasons because it was deferred for officers to come up with the correct terminology to support Members’ in-principle decision. Therefore, the statement made by members of the committee stating that a decision was made on the 26 October 21 is correct but in terms of a decision notice, this has not been issued. We are now in a scenario where new information has come to light. It is clear that there was a request from this committee for specialist advice to be available this evening but has not been available. Any decision the committee make, other than deferral, Members will need to decide if they have enough information to make that decision. There are 3 options:

1.  Option 1 – ask officers to consider the new information and write an entirely new report.

2.  Option 2 – The meeting to go into part 2 to talk about the reasons for refusal and refuse the application.

3.  Option 3 – An outright deferral and the application brought back as it has been written with no amendments.

All 3 options are legitimate decisions Members can take. If Councillor Rye’s proposal is unsuccessful and the committee to vote for Option 1, in the report, the clear instruction to officers should be:

·         The relevant officers must attend any future meeting otherwise the matter is automatically deferred to a future meeting.

·         The reasons for refusal, prepared in advance for this meeting, must be available on the evening should they be required for a part 2 discussion in a future meeting.

·         Invite the Director of Law & Governance to attend.

6.    A vote was taken on Councillor Rye’s motion, seconded by Councillor Levy, for a complete deferral of the item.

The majority of the committee did not support the motion with 5 votes for and 7 against.

7.    The unanimous support of the committee for Option 1 of the officers’ recommendation including the 3 points made by the Director of Law & Governance (as above), proposed by Councillor Rye and seconded by Councillor Taylor.

AGREED to consider the Part 2 report and Option 1:

1.  In light of the additional information as set out in the report, to defer the application to enable the updates to be further assessed and balanced as part of an amended report for a future Planning Committee.