Read on Twitter
I wasn't 'at' #HackneyPlanning earlier this week. It had 2 items of business and can be watched back at . The main discussion was @happymantree and revisiting Woodberry Down Phase 3 which it had already nominally decided to approve in April 2020.
A decision of the Planning Committee isn't a formal one until loose ends (e.g. s106 agreement) are tied up and a formal decision notice is issued. As @hackneycouncil has recently adopted a new Local Plan and as objectors have instructed lawyers it is prudent to revisit it.
This second hearing for the same scheme is, in large, an attempt to head off any legal challenge - in particular on the basis that the approval didn't consider the newly adopted policy. A lot of this focuses on the 150 yr-old #HappyManTree - a London Plane of high amenity value
Three things stick out as unresolved at the end of a meeting which could only be described as very defensive on the part of the chair and officers.
1. LP51 is the LPA's policy on trees and landscaping. Cllr @SteveRace and Cllr Levy in particular noted the strong wording.
1. LP51 is the LPA's policy on trees and landscaping. Cllr @SteveRace and Cllr Levy in particular noted the strong wording.
"all developments MUST retain trees of amenity value" is strong wording where it could otherwise have said "should" or talked of aspirational targets. It might indicate this is a "departure application" which fails to meet policy in one regard but is outweighed by other benefits.
Officers rely on the final line of the policy which says the removal of trees such as this "will not be supported unless adequate replacement planting is proposed".
What ensued was both an attempt to weigh the harm against OTHER public benefits as well as replacement trees.
What ensued was both an attempt to weigh the harm against OTHER public benefits as well as replacement trees.
That suggests the Council knows it's an arguable point. If it were confident the planting of 175 new trees was 'adequate' it might have confidently said so. Instead it dodged an objectors point that the carbon sequestered by the mature tree dwarfs the new planting for many years.
More than one officer pointed out there is no formal or recognised structure for assessing carbon losses and carbon gains (my phrasing) within the Local Plan nor nationally policy - in a way that makes it objective. Not sure that's a problem and most judgments are subjective.
2. @HackneySociety and others point to the fact the tradeoff of (affordable) homes to save the tree is a false dichotomy that arises from thinking about it too late in the process. Officers say the 2008 indicative masterplan did NOT show the tree, but the 2013 revision DID.
They say it was again removed when a reserved matters application of the 2013 outline was approved in 2015. I think it's a bit of a sterile defence. For a start, on my count there have been around 85 planning applications to discharge conditions or vary that 2013 outline consent.
Large outline applications have huge timeframes, are complex and the public has scant resource to grapple all the nuanced details. Planners don't do much better and the complexity is often 'gamed' by applicants who disingenuously then complain that planning 'takes ages'.
Also, it's ok to change your mind or bring up issues you didn't spot before. The whole point of a new Local Plan is to shift emphasis and make some things more important than they were before, and other less so. This is exactly that.
3. The final thing that seems unresolved is perhaps less potent - the exploration of other options has been done but members haven't seen them and so rely on the officers' gist of the benefits and problems with each scheme to arrive at a decision on the central issue before them.
And that's just the alternatives the applicant has explored with officers. The @happymantree campaign have done their own work on an alternative that suffers no reduction in homes. https://www.thehappymantree.org/post/phase-3-design-option-to-retain-the-happy-man-tree
It's clear Cllr Levy wanted to know more about these but the point was dismissed by the Chair who said they were discussed in April. That's neither particularly relevant - this is being heard afresh - nor helpful if the central issue is the tradeoffs that have been discounted.
So it's a shame, that given the clear unease and having had some severe weaknesses laid before them, that only one member - Cllr Levy - abstained and all the others Planning Sub-Committee members have approved the recommendation to grant permission.
It's also a shame that Hackney's planners try to present such a defensive and unanimous recommendation before the Committee and do nothing but undermine members' doubts. I assure you there is rarely utter unanimity between officers and there will be similar concerns amongst them.
What happens next? Who knows? I assume neighbours will consult with their solicitors and hopefully legal counsel before the Council issues its formal decision notice and maybe we'll be back here again without having to go to the High Court.
/end
/end
