Agenda item

The Committee agreed to a request to vary the order of the published agenda in order to take item 13 next.

 

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application in relation to land at Lawrence Road, N15 4EX, including the site plan, images, site and surroundings, planning history, proposal, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis of the application, human rights and equalities considerations. The report recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions, a section 106 legal agreement and the direction of the Mayor of London. Mr Dorfman gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, which included an alternative design for the building on the corner of West Green Road and Lawrence Road, proposed by the applicants in response to criticisms of the original design. An addendum was also tabled at the meeting, setting out a number of revisions or corrections to the report, and additional consultation responses received.

 

The Committee examined the drawings and plans associated with the application.

 

Two local residents addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and raised the following issues in their presentations and responses to questions from the Committee:

 

• It was felt that the draft officer report should have been made publicly available in advance of the meeting.
• Residents would have fewer concerns were this an existing residential area, but a significant concern was the loss of employment use.
• Referring to the planning framework documents, development in this location should be mixed-use, whereas this scheme was primarily residential in nature and did not reflect the type of scheme that residents had understood would be delivered.
• It was not felt that employment or training possibilities for the site had been explored, and there had been no incentive from the Council to look at alternatives to residential use.
• The site had the potential to contribute to the regeneration of Tottenham, as a prime site for employment or training.
• Concern was raised regarding the increase in the number of local residents this scheme would entail, particularly with regard to the provision of local school places, as local schools were already over-subscribed. It was noted that the proposed s106 contribution for education was just £837k.
• It was suggested that the site could be used for small and medium-sized businesses in industries such as fashion or IT, and that there was the potential to link the two shopping areas on West Green Road and Philip Lane.
• It was reported that the existing buildings were currently unoccupied, but objectors felt that they had been allowed to become run-down deliberately.

 

Cllr Strickland, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Social Inclusion, Cllr Watson, local Ward Councillor and Cllr Bevan, Cabinet Member for Housing addressed the Committee with regards to the application, and responded to questions. Cllr Bevan noted that he was speaking in his capacity as design champion, rather than Cabinet Member for Housing.

 

• It was recognised that this site had been a problem for a long time, and was consistently raised as a concern by local residents and businesses, as its current condition had attracted anti-social and criminal activity.
• Employment uses were being developed across Tottenham as part of the wider regeneration programme, and this development would contribute to the improvement of West Green Road. The scheme would deliver investment and construction jobs.
• It was welcomed that the applicant had confirmed that they would not accept betting shops or payday loan providers as tenants.
• As a Ward Councillor, Cllr Watson advised that he received more complaints regarding Lawrence Road than other area. The empty buildings had been used illegally and had a negative effect on local residents and businesses.
• It was felt that the applicant had engaged positively with the local community and had adapted the scheme in response to points raised. The inclusion of a café and community space, and the increase in the play space within the scheme were welcomed.
• It was not felt that the scheme detracted from the nearby conservation area.
• It was reported that the whole of the south end of Lawrence Road, of which this scheme formed only a part, was identified for mixed-use development. Additional uses could be explored as part of other developments in the area. 
• Some concern was expressed regarding the proposed s106 amounts, particularly in respect of education, and clarification was sought as to why the amount offered was less than the contribution sought by the Council on the basis of the proposal.
• The Design Panel had been split with regard to the proposal, particularly in respect of the design and height of the building on the corner of Lawrence Road and West Green Road. The Committee was asked to give consideration to this issue as part of its decision.
• In response to a question regarding the predominantly residential nature of the proposal and why no action had been taken to encourage employment at the site, Cllr Strickland advised that priority was being given to increase employment at other sites within Tottenham as part of the regeneration work, as it had been demonstrated that there was no demand for employment use at this location.
• Cllr Bevan confirmed that he was happy with the design of the rest of the scheme, it was only the corner building that he had concerns about; he felt that it was for the Committee to form a view on the merits of the two alternative designs put forward for this element.
• Concern was expressed that, because there was already a high level of affordable housing in the area, this seemed to give developers a green light to offer very little affordable housing in order to create a greater housing mix. It was felt that this was concerning, given the level of housing need in the borough.
• Cllr Strickland acknowledged that there had been a number of developments in Tottenham with a low proportion of affordable housing, but advised that the local authority was trying to bring forward schemes in a very challenging market, and this was having an impact on viability. It was felt that a provision of 21% affordable housing was positive, given market conditions.
• It was noted that there was a high level of affordable and social housing in the area, and that the Council’s policy  was to encourage mixed communities. The Committee noted the distinction between social and affordable housing.
• The Committee asked whether viability was influenced by the price at which land had been purchased, and in which case, whether a scheme could be made viable by selling off the land at a lower price. It was not felt, however, that the Council should be encouraging developers to sell land at a loss. 

 

Two local residents addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from the Committee:

 

• This scheme would encourage regeneration in the area, and it was hoped would reduce crime as at the moment Lawrence Road could be frightening.
• The owner of a neighbouring business at Zenith House advised that, while he originally objected to the scheme on design grounds, he felt that there was a need to deliver regeneration at this location and so was supporting the application. He felt, however, that the proposed building at the north west edge of the site was too close to his business, and requested that, were the scheme approved, this building should be relocated so that future residents of the block would not have cause to complain about disturbance from the commercial premises.
• The Committee suggested that a condition could be imposed requiring adequate sound-proofing for the new building in order to avoid any disturbance to future residents from the neighbouring commercial property.

 

The applicants addressed the Committee in support of the application, and responded to questions:

 

• This scheme would deliver high quality housing in the area, in accordance with the planning brief for the site.
• Two public exhibitions had been held, and the applicants had also met with Members to discuss the scheme; 70% of respondents had been in favour of the proposal, with only 7% against it.
• The applicants were committed to delivering the redevelopment of the site and were ready to start work as soon as possible; the affordable housing would be delivered up front.
• With regards to issues raised on the loss of employment use, the adopted brief stated that the proposals should be housing-led, and the decisions around the use of the site had been based on discussions with officers, market advice and the adopted brief.
• The applicants had submitted a viability assessment, based on the residual land value, but following an assessment by the DVS, who had taken a different position, an alternative offer had been negotiated, to include 21% affordable housing to be delivered up front, and s106 contributions totalling £1.5m.
• With regards to the concerns raised regarding the design of the corner building, particularly with regard to the continuation of the frontage, the applicants had listened to the concerns raised, and proposed an alternative, amended design for the Committee’s consideration.
• In response to a question regarding the issues raised about the proximity of part of the scheme to the commercial premises at Zenith House, the applicants advised that they felt comfortable that the scheme offered an appropriate balance between employment use and residents, and would be happy to take on board any comments or conditions in respect of sound proofing.
• In response to a question from the Committee, the applicant confirmed that they did not have a specific company policy on buy to let properties; it was reported, however, that the market no longer supported significant buy to let investment, and that projections had been based on the basis of sales to individual home owners.
• The applicants confirmed that they had no intention of coming back to the Committee to seek permission for an increase in the height of the development, and confirmed that the scheme was deliverable as applied for.
• The Committee asked why the applicants were confident they could sell this number of units at market value, given the challenges other developments in the area had faced, for example at Hale Village. It was confirmed that this was always a commercial risk, but that the applicants felt they had priced the units appropriately and the area benefited from good transport links. It was felt that the development itself would enhance the character of the area and have a wider regeneration impact. It was noted that at the two public consultation exercises, people had enquired about the availability of units in the development, and this had been taken as an encouraging sign.
• In response to a question regarding the pricing of units for shared ownership, it was confirmed that this would be set by the housing associations that purchased the units.
• The Committee asked about the mix of units proposed and whether the viability of the scheme was based on the price at which the land was purchased. The applicants advised that the mix of units had been negotiated with officers, and that the viability was assessed on the basis of market value; it was reported that a compromise had been sought, based on the assessment provided by the DVS, and that this had already stretched the project in terms of viability.

 

Marc Dorfman summed up the points that had been covered as follows:

 

• With regard to the concerns that this was not a mixed-use scheme, it was confirmed that this site formed only a part of the southern part of Lawrence Road, which was covered by the planning brief requiring mixed use development.
• While there were some operational employment sites within Lawrence Road, the rest of the site had been vacant for many years and had been identified in the 2006 UDP as being suitable for a residential led mixed use scheme. There was further opportunity for new employment space, as well as the preservation of the existing employment space, elsewhere on Lawrence Road, but this particular development would signal the start of the redevelopment of the area, bringing in more investment and bringing forward further schemes.
• Negotiations had been held with the applicants and the DVS, as a result of which the applicant had agreed to the improved s106 offer as set out in the addendum report.
• S106 contributions were pooled across developments, along with other funding, in order to deliver community infrastructure; plans were in place for the expansion of existing schools and the potential delivery of new schools in the borough over the next couple of years.
• It was reported that officers supported the proposed additional condition on sound proofing.
• In light of the concerns raised regarding buy to let, officers could look at the possibility of wording a condition or informative to address this.
• Cllr McNamara had made some comments which had been tabled; in response to these comments, Mr Dorfman advised that conditions around local jobs were part of the s106, that there would be an opportunity for Members to inspect materials prior to work commencing, that an additional condition requiring a management plan could be added, that there was an existing condition proposed to deal with waste and recycling, and that an additional condition around landscaping issues could be added, particularly in the event that the second design for the corner building, which would involve more landscaping, was preferred by the Committee. It was further noted that the applicants had already submitted a detailed plan with regard to landscaping.

 

• The Committee requested an additional condition that the management company should provide information for residents around waste and recycling issues, in order to avoid future problems.
• The Committee unanimously expressed a preference for the alternative design of the corner unit, as presented at the meeting, although it was suggested that there should be some scope for revisiting the issue of the commercial floorspace, if this was felt to be affecting the ability to attract retailers to lease the premises.
• In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether increasing the level of affordable housing might avoid the risk of large numbers of flats being sold as buy to let, Mr Dorfman advised that such a recommendation may jeopardise the planning consent, were it to be granted, as the applicants would not agree to sign the s106 agreement under such terms.
• The Committee asked whether it might be possible to condition that leases for the units should include an owner-occupier covenant. Serinther Atkar, Legal Adviser, advised that, as a non-planning consideration, such a condition would be in breach of the planning circular around appropriate planning conditions, and would be unenforceable.
• As a means of addressing the concerns raised regarding buy to let sales, Mr Dorfman suggested that the Committee allow officers to discuss a means of addressing the Committee’s concerns with the applicants, with a resulting condition or informative then agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.

 

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report, on the basis of the alternative design of the building on the corner of West Green Road and Lawrence Road, with additional conditions around sound-proofing of the building at the north-west corner of the site, a management plan for facilities management, landscaping issues and a condition or informative, to be formulated by officers in discussion with the applicants around how to avoid large numbers of buy to let sales in the development, this to be agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee. On a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That permission be granted for application HGY/2012/1983, subject to:

 

• Conditions set out below, plus additional conditions around sound-proofing of the building at the north-west corner of the site, a management plan for facilities management, landscaping issues and a condition or informative, to be formulated by officers in discussion with the applicants around how to avoid large numbers of buy to let sales in the development, this to be agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.
• A legal agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
• The direction of the Mayor of London; and
• In accordance with the approved plans and documents in the tables below:

 

DOCUMENTS

Design and Access Statement by bptw Partnership

Planning Statement by Savills

Transport Statement by Transport Planning Practice

Sustainability / Energy Statement prepared by Abbey Consultants

Air Quality Assessment by Ardent

Flood Risk Assessment by Ardent

Daylight and Sunlight Assessment by Savills

Statement of Community Involvement and Equality Statement by Green Issues Communiqué

Ground Investigation Assessment by Groves

Arboricultural Method Statement by ACD Ecology

Arboricultural Impact Assessment by ACD Ecology

Tree Report by ACD Ecology

Ecological Assessment by ACD Ecology

Landscape Design Strategy prepared by ACD Ecology

Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan by ACD Ecology

Supplementary Report: Lawrence Road Design Proposals by Savills

Design Commentary by bptw Partnership

 

Plan Number	Plan Title
100	Location Plan – Existing
151	Site Plan
160	Contextual elevations – proposed
161	Contextual elevations – proposed
200	Courtyard house – floor plans
201	3B5P Terraced house – floor plans
202	4B7P Terraced house – floor plans
203	3B5P wheelchair house – floor plans
220	A – Terraced House – Courtyard Elevations
221	F – Terraced house – elevations
300	Block B – floor plans
301	Block B – floor plans
320	Block B – elevations
400 rev C	Block C – floor plans
420	Block C – elevations
500	Block D & E  - floor plans
501	Block D & E – floor plans
520	Block D & E – elevations
521	Block D & E – elevations
600	Bay Study 01 – Block C_West Green Rd
601	Bay Study 02 – Block C&B_Lawrence Rd
602	Bay Study 03 – Block E_Lawrence Rd
603	Bay Study 04 – Block A_Mews Houses
604	Bay Study 05 – Block B_Walkway Access
605	Bay Study 06 – Block F_Terraced Houses

 

Implementation

 

1. The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission shall be of no effect. 

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

 

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
           

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

           

Materials

 

3. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development of the relevant part shall be commenced until precise details of the materials, to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted, including samples of all materials to be used for the external surfaces, have been submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area

 

Thresholds and Boundary Treatment

 

4. That the levels of all thresholds and details of boundary treatment be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the visual amenity of the area and to ensure adequate means of enclosure for the proposed development.

 

Waste storage and recycling

 

5. The scheme for refuse, waste storage and recycling be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and permanently retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the locality.

 

Logistics

 

67. The applicant/developer is required to submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) for the local authority’s approval prior to construction work commencing on site. The Plans should provide details on how construction work (including demolition) would be undertaken in a manner that disruption to traffic and pedestrians on Lawrence Road, West Green Road and Philip Lane is minimised.  It is also requested that construction vehicle movements should be carefully planned and co-ordinated to avoid the AM and PM peak periods.

 

Reason: To reduce congestion and mitigate any obstruction to the flow of traffic on the transportation and highways network.

                  

7. The applicant/operator is required to submit a Service and Delivery Plan (SDP) for the local authority’s approval prior to occupancy of the non-residential elements of the proposed development. The Plans should provide details on how servicing and deliveries will take place.  It is also requested that servicing and deliveries should be carefully planned and co-ordinated to avoid the AM and PM peak periods.

 

Reason: To reduce traffic and congestion on the transportation and highways network.

           

Control of Construction Dust:

 

8. No works shall be carried out on the site until a detailed report, including Risk Assessment, detailing management of demolition and construction dust has been submitted and approved by the LPA.  This shall be with reference to the London Code of Construction Practice.  In addition either the site or the Demolition Company must be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme.  Proof of registration must be sent to the LPA prior to any works being carried out on the site. 

 

Reason:  In order to ensure that the effects of the construction upon air quality is minimised.

 

Contaminated land:

 

9. Before development commences other than for investigative work:

 

a)  A desktop study shall be carried out which shall include the identification of previous uses, potential contaminants that might be expected, given those uses, and other relevant information. Using this information, a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors shall be produced.  The desktop study and Conceptual Model shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. If the desktop study and Conceptual Model indicate no risk of harm, development shall not commence until approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

b)  If the desktop study and Conceptual Model indicate any risk of harm, a site investigation shall be designed for the site using information obtained from the desktop study and Conceptual Model. This shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to that investigation being carried out on site.  The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:-

 

§  a risk assessment to be undertaken,

§  refinement of the Conceptual Model, and

§  the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements.

 

The risk assessment and refined Conceptual Model shall be submitted, along with the site investigation report, to the Local Planning Authority.

         

c)  If the risk assessment and refined Conceptual Model indicate any risk of harm, a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, using the information obtained from the site investigation, and also detailing any post remedial monitoring shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to that remediation being carried out on site.

 

Where remediation of contamination on the site is required completion of the remediation detailed in the method statement shall be carried out and a report that provides verification that the required works have been carried out, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is occupied.

 

Reason: To ensure the development can be implemented and occupied with adequate regard for environmental and public safety.

 

Piling Method Statement

10. No impact piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 850 2777 to discuss the details of the piling method statement.

 

Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground water utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground water utility infrastructure.

 

Water Supply Infrastructure

11. No development shall be commenced until a Water Supply Impact Study, including full details of anticipated water flow rates, and detailed site plans have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Thames Water). 

 

Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand in accordance with policy ENV3 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006. 

 

Trees

 

12. No tree works other than those specified in the submitted Tree Report October 2012 and Landscape Specification October 2012 prepared by ACD shall be carried out and no excavation shall be cut under the crown spread of the trees without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the trees in the interest of visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy OS17 of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

 

13. The tree protection measures recommended in the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement October 2012 prepared by ACD must be carried out in full. A pre-commencement site meeting must be arranged and attended by all interested parties, (Site manager, Consultant Arboriculturist, Council Arboriculturist and Contractors) to confirm all the protection measures to be installed for trees.

 

Reason: In order to safeguard the trees in the interest of visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy OS17 of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

 

Flood Risk Assessment

 

14. Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Lawrence Road FRA (N260-001A) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall include a restriction in run-off and surface water storage on site as outlined in the FRA.

 

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and improve habitat and amenity.

 

Heat Network

 

15. The development shall have a communal onsite heat network, and connect to an area wide decentralised energy network if an offer of connection is forthcoming between the date of this approval and three months after the start of construction. Prior to commencement of the development full details of the decentralised energy solution should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details should include:

·        How the proposed building design(s) realise(s) opportunities to include design and technology energy efficiency measures;

·        Plan of the development showing the energy centre, connection to the decentralised energy network, and the onsite communal network.

·        Details of the energy centre, and demonstration of compliance with area wide decentralised network design guidance as regards temperature and pressure design parameters for the flow and return pipes and heat exchangers, arrangements for connections and heat metering;

·        An outline of details for the proposed Street works Licence application; and

·        The reduction in carbon emissions achieved through these building design and technology energy efficiency and supply measures, compared with the emissions permitted under the national Building Regulations prevailing at the time the application(s), and achievement of the required Code for Sustainable Homes/BREEAM

 

If an offer is not forthcoming in the nominated timeframe, prior to commencement of the development, full details of the single plant room/energy centre, CHP and Boiler specifications, communal network and future proofing measures should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details should include:

·        how the proposed building design(s) realise(s) opportunities to include design and technology energy efficiency measures;

·        Technical specifications for the energy centre, and proposed plant and buffer vessels, and its operation;

·        Evidence showing that the combustion plant to be installed meets an emissions standard of 40mg/kWh.  Where any installations do not meet this emissions standard it should not be operated without the fitting of suitable NOx abatement equipment or technology as determined by a specialist to ensure comparable emissions.  Following installation emissions certificates will need to be provided

·        Full details of the location and appearance of the flues, including height, design, location and sitting;

·        Plan showing the energy centre and pipe route for the communal network for the development ;

·        An outline of details for the proposed Street works Licence application;

·        An assessment of the opportunity for the energy centre to connect and supply hot water to other regeneration sites in the area;

·        Details of the design of building services to future proof to connect to an area wide DE network in the future;

·        Details of other future proofing measures to enable connection to an area wide DE network, such as provision in the building fabric, external buried pipework routes from the plant room to Lawrence Road, and space allocation for a heat exchanger; and

·        The reduction in carbon emissions achieved through these building design and technology energy efficiency and supply measures, compared with the emissions permitted under the national Building Regulations prevailing at the time the application(s), and achievement of the required Code for Sustainable Homes/BREEAM

 

The energy centre and onsite network shall be installed and maintained as approved.

 

Reason: To maintain the opportunity for the development to connect to a district heating scheme and contributes to a reduction in overall carbon dioxide emissions in line with G1, UD1, and UD2, of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006 and London Plan Policy 5.6.

 

Shopfront Design

 

16. Detailed plans of the design and external appearance of the shopfronts, including details of the fascias, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any shopfront is installed.
                                               

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity of the area.

 

Hours of Construction

 

17. No demolition, construction or building works shall be carried out except between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours (Monday to Friday) and 0800 and 1200 hours (Saturday) and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays unless written approval from the Local Planning Authority has been obtained prior to works taking place. 

 

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers of their properties in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment and policy ENV6 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006

 

Accessibility

 

18. In order to ensure that the shops are accessible to people with disabilities and people pushing double buggies, the door must have a minimum width of 900mm, and a maximum threshold of 25mm.           

 

Reason: In order to ensure that the shop unit is accessible to all those people who can be expected to use it in accordance with Policy RIM 2.1 'Access For All' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

 

Secured by Design

 

19. The development hereby authorised shall comply with BS 8220 (1986) Part 1, 'Security Of Residential Buildings' and comply with the aims and objectives of the Police requirement of 'Secured By Design' and 'Designing Out Crime' principles.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development achieves the required crime prevention elements as detailed by Circular 5/94 'Planning Out Crime'.

 

Satellite Aerials

 

20. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 4 (1) and Part 25 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995, no satellite antenna shall be erected or installed on any building hereby approved.  The proposed development shall have a central dish / aeriel system for receiving all broadcasts for the residential units created: details of such a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the property, and the approved scheme shall be implemented and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to prevent the proliferation of satellite dishes on the development.

 

Lifetime Homes

 

21. That all the residential units with the proposed development with the exception of these referred to directly in the Design and Access Statement as not being able to be compliant shall be designed to Lifetime Homes Standard.

Reason:  To ensure that the proposed development meets the Councils Standards in relation to the provision of Lifetime Homes.

 

22. That at least 22 flats within the proposed development shall be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair use.

Reason:  To ensure that the proposed development meets the Council's Standards for the provision of wheelchair accessible dwellings.

 

Cycle Parking

 

23. That the proposed development shall provide service covered storage for 378 cycle spaces.

Reason:  In order to promote a sustainable mode of travel and improve conditions for cyclists at this location.

 

Parking

 

24. A minimum of 12 disabled car parking spaces shall be provided on site.

 

Reason: In order to ensure well designed and adequate parking for disabled and mobility impaired in accordance with policies UD3, M3 and M5 of the London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006. 

 

25. The applicant/developer is required to submit a Parking Management Plan for the local authority’s approval prior to occupation of the proposed development. The plans should provide details on how spaces are to be allocated between uses and purposes, such as maintenance, the monitoring of EVCP use to assess whether there is a growing demand and establish when passive spaces need to be brought into use.

 

Reason: In order to ensure that parking is allocated and management adequately to minimise parking impacts.

 

Commercial Opening Hours

 

26. That the commercial uses shall not be operational before 0700 or after 0100 hours on any day.

Reason:  In order to protect the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers.

 

Electric Vehicle Charging Point

 

27. 20% of all residential parking spaces hereby authorised shall be fitted with electric vehicle charging points (EVCP’s), with a further 20% having passive provision.
 

Reason: To encourage the uptake of electric vehicles in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.13.

 

INFORMATIVES

 

A          Prior to demolition of existing buildings, an asbestos survey should be carried out to identify the location and type of asbestos containing materials.  Any asbestos containing materials must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the correct procedure prior to any demolition or construction works carried out.

 

B         The new development will require naming/numbering. The applicant should contact the Transportation Group at least six weeks before the development is occupied (tel. 020 8489 5573) to arrange for the allocation of a suitable address

 

C          In accordance with Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act and the Duty of, Care, any waste generated from construction/excavation on site is to be stored in a safe and secure manner in order to prevent its escape or its handling by unauthorised persons. Waste must be removed by a registered carrier and disposed of at an appropriate waste management licensed facility following the waste transfer or consignment note system, whichever is appropriates.

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

The reasons for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

 

a)    It is considered that the principle of this development is supported by National, Regional and Local Planning policies which seek to promote regeneration through housing, employment and urban improvement to support local economic growth.

b)    The scheme is considered to be of a high-quality design in respect of the local area and the surrounding conservation area. It would be a well designed replacement for the existing buildings and will enhance the public realm and community safety.

c)    The Planning Application has been assessed against and on balance is considered to comply with the:

 

o    National Planning Policy Framework;

 

o    London Plan Policies 3.3 'Increasing housing supply', 3.4 'Optimising housing potential', 3.5 'Quality and design of housing developments', 3.6 'Children and young people's play and informal recreation facilities', 3.8 'Housing choice', 3.9 'Mixed and balanced communities',  3.12 'Negotiating affordable housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes', 4.7 'Retail and town centre development', 4.8 'Supporting a successful and diverse retail sector', 4.9 'Small shops', 4.12 'Improving opportunities for all', 5.2 'Minimising carbon dioxide emissions', 5.3 'Sustainable design and Construction, 5.7 'Renewable energy', 5.10 'Urban greening', 5.14 'Water quality and wastewater infrastructure', 5.15 'Water use and supplies',  5.21 'Contaminated land', 6.3 'Assessing effects of development on transport capacity', 6.5 'Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure', 6.9 'Cycling', 6.10 'Walking', 6.12 'Road network capacity', 6.13 'Parking', 6.14 'Freight', 7.1 'Building London's neighbourhoods and communities', 7.2 'An inclusive environment', 7.3 'Designing out crime, 7.4 'Local character', 7.5 'Public realm', 7.6 'Architecture', Policy 7.8 'Heritage assets and Archaeology', 7.9 'Heritage-led regeneration', 7.15 'Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes'; and

 

o    London Borough of Haringey Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006 Policies  G2 'Development and Urban Design', G3'Housing Supply', UD2 'Sustainable Design and Construction', UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', UD6 'Mixed Use Developments', UD9 'Locations for Tall Buildings', HSG1 'New Housing Developments', HSG4 'Affordable Housing', HSG7 'Housing for Special Needs', AC3 'Tottenham High Road Regeneration Corridor', M2 'Public Transport Network', M3 'New Development Location and Accessibility', M5 'Protection, Improvements and Creation of Pedestrian and Cycle Routes', M9 'Car- Free Residential Developments', M10 'Parking for Development', CSV1 Development in Conservation Areas', CSV2 'Listed Buildings', CSV3 Locally Listed Buildings and Designated Sites of Industrial Heritage Interest', CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas', EMP3 'Defined Employment Areas - Employment Locations', EMP5 'Promoting Employment Uses', ENV1 'Flood Protection: Protection of the Floodplain and Urban Washlands', ENV2 'Surface Water Runoff', ENV4 'Enhancing and Protecting the Water Environment' ENV5 'Works Affecting Watercourses', ENV6 'Noise Pollution', ENV7 'Water and Light Pollution',  ENV11 'Contaminated Land' and ENV13 'Sustainable Waste Management'.

 

Please note that the conditions referred to in the minutes are those as originally proposed in the officer's report to the Sub-Committee; any amended wording, additional conditions, deletions or informatives agreed by the Sub-Committee and recorded in the minuted resolution, will, in accordance with the Sub-Committee's decision, be incorporated into the Planning Permission as subsequently issued.