MEETING NOTES
MEETING:Initial Meeting with LB Haringey Planning Officers
DATE:20 November 2009
PRESENT:Ismail Mohammed – LB Haringey (IM); Paul Tomkin – LB Haringey (PT); Matthew Gunning – LB Haringey (MG); Jill Warren – LB Haringey (JW); Ian Holt – LB Haringey; Ben Donald – LB Barnet (BD); Nicola White – NLWA (NW)
APOLOGIES:-
CIRCULATION:All of above
Item / ActionIntroductions were made.
IM summarised the LBHaringey (LBH) position. Part of the site may be suitable in principle for development, hence its inclusion in the NLWP Preferred Options. The ecological designations are also important. LBH would prefer a joint planning application for the site.
NW confirmed that the intention of the NLWA and LBB was to submit a joint application for the site. The NLWA proposal for the site is for a 240,000 tpa mechanical biological treatment (anaerobic digestion) facility. The site would be accessed via existing roads, which corresponds well with the majority of waste coming from Barnet plus some from Camden. In terms of site area the waste facility requires approximately 8.5 acres, from the total site area of approximately 17 acres. The site constraints including topography dictate the approach to site engineering to ensure that a viable and safe site is designed.
BD summarised the proposals for the depot and confirmed that this will require a site area of approximately 3.5 acres. BD confirmed that the site is owned by LB Barnet, but that NLWA is in the process of securing ownership. IM noted that the form and design quality of the proposed development will be important – LBH has been dealing with similar issues on its own depot site proposals. High quality design will be required, including at least a very good BREEAM rating.
PT commented that the site is very prominent and that the water treatment plant proposals at the Hornsey treatment works may be an interesting comparison. In that example high quality design, including a curved roof and use of different materials contributed to the overall quality of the scheme.
NW outlined the approach to consultation, including briefings for Members and officers, meetings with neighbours and the surrounding community and an exhibition.
Regarding consultation IM advised that all pre-application consultation will need to be completed before the end of March 2010 due to the purdah period in advance of the local elections on 6 May.
Following submission of the application it would be reported to the Development Control Forum. The planning team would be responsible for this activity and normally the DCF meeting would be held two to three weeks following submission (normally on a Thursday). Invites will be issued by the Head of Development Control to local residents and the applicants will be required to present the planning application proposals and then respond to questions. The meeting will be minuted and the minutes incorporated in the planning committee report. Officers will be able to arrange the meeting in advance is the applicants advise of the submission date (ideally two to three weeks prior to the application being lodged).
NW provided an overview of the material to be submitted in support of the application and confirmed that the full details are set out in a planning strategy that has been prepared for the site. The NLWA and Barnet would like to agree the content of the planning strategy with LBH so there is certainty for all parties as to the information to be submitted as a part of the planning application and the approach that will be adopted to consultation. The planning application documents will include: application plans (for approval and illustrative); Environmental Statement; Transport Assessment; Flood Risk Assessment; Planning, Design and Access Statement; Report on Community and Stakeholder Involvement;, Health Impact Assessment; Sustainability and Energy Assessment; Construction Code of Practice; Draft Heads of Terms.
The proposal is that the planning application will be submitted in outline, but with details of access included. The rationale for the submission of an outline application is that the NLWA wishes to establish the parameters for development of the site by future waste operators. This is an approach that is being adopted by a number of waste authorities, and where the application is supported by sufficient detail the planning authority is able to fully consider the potential impacts of the scheme. The application would therefore include parameter plans that set out the minimum and maximum width, length and height of proposed buildings.
It was agreed that the planning strategy could potentially be used to inform a planning performance agreement for the site. IM to provide a copy of the standard PPA to NW.
MG queried whether information on contaminated land would be provided and NW confirmed that this would be included in the ES. NW also advised that the applicants would like to discuss the scope of the ES and TA with LBH. It was agreed that IM would be the main channel for communications until LBH has appointed a project manager. NW requested that a suitably senior officer be assigned as the case officer.
PT indicated that LBH would wish to include relatively restricted building parameters, as well as a maximum floorspace threshold. Details would also be required in respect of elevational treatment. PT stated that the site may not be able to accommodate both uses and that the ecological considerations will be important, particularly to Members.
There was discussion as to whether the application can be submitted in outline. NW advised that an appropriate level of detail will be provided to allow the LPA to make a decision on the scheme. PT confirmed that the application can be submitted in outline, it would only need to be a full application if the site was in a conservation area, furthermore, there may be some benefits to an outline scheme as its would define the scale of development by an operator. JW was tasked with checking whether there is anything that would preclude an outline planning application.
NW requested a series of pre-application meetings with LBH to discuss the application. IM stated that LBH would welcome such meetings and that it may be possible to hold two meetings prior to the Christmas holiday. It was agreed that NW would provide a list of suggested meeting themes.
There was discussion on open space within the site, with IH indicating that the open space should be useable. IH stated that ideally 50% of the site should be retained for nature conservation, but recognised that this may not be feasible. An education centre may mitigate the loss of open space, and if this was proposed LBH may propose that it be run by a wildlife trust in the future and this may be included in any S106, plus a commuted sum for its ongoing operation. IH suggested that the open space could be managed as brownfield land reflecting the current use of the site. PT stated that the planning committee members are likely to have strong views on the ecological value of the site. NW advised that the NLWA would like to work with officers to develop solutions for the site and suggested that one of the pre-application meetings could address this issue.
IH also highlighted a number of issues regarding the inclusion of the site in the NLWP Preferred Options, noting that his review of the site score indicated that a number of incorrect scores have been attributed to the site. IH advised that he was preparing representations regarding the site for submission to the NLWP. BD and NW queried how LBH would be dealing with issues on the NLWP given it was understood that the Council supported the proposed designation of the site for waste management. Officers agreed to share a copy of any representations submitted in respect of the site with NLWA and LBB.
Agreed Actions:
NW to prepare and circulate minutes;
NW to provide copy of planning and consultation strategy and high level programme;
NW to propose a schedule and suggested dates for pre-application meetings;
IM to provide a copy of the standard planning performance agreement.
IM to provide a copy of any NLWP Preferred Options representations submitted by LBH in respect of the Pinkham Way site. / NW
NW
NW
IM
IM
Next Meeting / TBC – see actions
Minutes from Project Team Meeting 30Jul08v1
Ref: PD-00581