Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Levy, Cllr Narcross and  Cllr Laudat-Scott.

1.2  Apologies for lateness were received from Cllr Desmond.

A Sub-Committee Member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial

interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

·  must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when or when the interest becomes apparent, and

·  may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must

withdraw from the meeting proceedings in person or virtually.

A Member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members Interests or the subject of a pending

notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are

defined at paragraphs 8.1 - 15.2 of Section 2 of Part 5 of the constitution and

Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

2.1  Councillor Young declared an interest; she had been involved in the planning  process prior to the pre-application meeting and had attended the Woodberry Down Community Organisations’ (WDCOs) board meetings. The Councillor stated that she would recuse herself from the future Planning Sub-Committee meeting when the application came for decision.

3.1   None.

Committee to approve the minutes of the previous pre-application meeting held on 19 October 2022.

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the previous pre-application meeting, held on 19 October 2022, subject to a minor amendment, were approved as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

4.1  The minutes of the previous pre-application meeting, held on 19 October 2022, were agreed as an accurate record of those meeting’s proceedings.

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the previous pre-application meeting, held on 19 October 2022, were, subject to a minor amendment, approved as an accurate record of those meetings’ proceedings.

5.1    The Major Projects Principal Planning Officer - Woodberry Down briefly introduced the proposals.

5.2  The Sub-Committee noted that there was a minor amendment to the presentation pack (previously included in the published papers). The main change was that the proposal was now for 473 units rather than 470.

5.3  The Sub-Committee heard from various representatives from Arup, Berkeley Homes, Fabrik, LDS and Rolfe Judd and from the Council’s regeneration team who gave an overview of the proposals for Woodberry Down Phase four, including context, vision, layout, design and the sustainability approach.

5.4  A discussion took place where a number of points were raised including the following:

·  It was noted that although the Phase 4 application would be a standalone application for full planning permission, the phase four proposals had to be considered in the wider context of the regeneration of the whole of the Woodberry Down estate. Existing tenants in phase four would move into phase three that was already under construction. Those existing tenants in phase five would also move into phase three and so forth;

·  One of the representatives for Berkeley Homes explained that the Principal Development Agreement introduced Shared Ownership as a tenure type whereas previously all units had been either Social Rent or leasehold. Some of the Sub-Committee members raised concerns about a "shrinking pool" of existing residents, i.e. that secure tenants were being replaced with temporary tenants. The Council’s Regeneration team replied that they had seen an increasing numbers of  tenants,  increasing the numbers of Social Rent, through a trend of ‘split households’;

·  Only one to two bedroom shared ownership units were proposed under Phase 4 after the applicant had taken advice from the Notting Hill Genesis Housing Association. Three bedroom units were not considered as they were seen as unaffordable;

·  The applicant stated that of the existing units in phase four 41 units were leasehold with 15 out of phase. 144 were social housing. Members queried whether the proposed 90 social rented units re-provide the 144 social rent units on Phase 4;

·  The applicant noted the “portfolio approach” to re-provision which has resulted in 2317 units so far being built on the estate of which 537 were shared ownership;

·  The whole estate development was tenure-blind;

·  The Financial Viability Assessment for phase four had not yet been submitted. It would be included as part of the future planning application;

·  By the completion of phase five all of the remaining existing tenants were expected to have been rehoused within the Woodberry Down estate;

·  The rationale behind the approach to massing was explained, in relation to the block along Seven Sisters Road providing a barrier between the highway and the courtyard garden which would protect the amenity space in relation to air quality and noise;

·  The applicant had undertaken air quality assessments on Seven Sisters Road and at the facade line, the results had shown the levels were aligned with national standards;

·  By increasing the massing of the buildings along Seven Sisters Road the south side  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.