Agenda item

Demolition of existing structures and buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising approximately 3,250sqm (GIA) foodstore (A1 use) and 114 space surface level car parking for the foodstore; 438 residential units including affordable housing and ancillary residential gym, approximately 356sqm (GIA) unit on Hornsey High Street (flexible A1, A2 (including a temporary marketing suite), or D1 use); two live/work units fronting onto Cross Lane; together with private amenity space and new public realm, including publicly accessible routes through the site; an energy centre; 178 car parking spaces for the residential use (within a basement and undercroft); cycle parking; refuse storage; recycling centre in the foodstore car park; access; and other infrastructure work.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to referral to the Mayor of London and subject to conditions and s106/s278 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing structures and buildings on site and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development including a foodstore, 438 residential units, public realm improvements etc. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to referral to the Mayor of London and subject to conditions and the signing of a s)106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee’s attention was drawn to a tabled addendum which set out a number of wording corrections to the officer report and the deletion of reference to a £450k Transport for London contribution. In addition, a number of amendments to conditions were proposed as well as the inclusion of two additional conditions relating to the Hornsey Baths building. The addendum also referenced 8 additional representations received since publication of the agenda and which were broadly in line with the key points of representations already received.

The Committee raised the following points in their discussion of the application:

·         Concerns were expressed over the proposed low proportion of family size units to be provided within the scheme in comparison to one and two bed units. Officers advised that this dwelling mix had arisen from negotiations with the applicant in order to provide for a higher proportion of affordable housing (42%) for the scheme than achieved in other large developments in Haringey. Officers had also assessed that the proposed mix would help to address local housing need within Hornsey, with 82% of those on the Housing Register requiring a one or two bed property.

·         Members sought assurances that the flooding and drainage issues experienced in the bordering New River Village housing development would not be replicated in the new scheme. Confirmation was provided that several conditions were in place regarding onsite drainage and which addressed in full representations made in this regard by both Thames Water and the Environment Agency. 

·         The reason for the deletion of the reference to a £450k s)106 contribution towards bus capacity improvements was queried. Officers advised that this had been a typographic error within the report as upon re-examination of capacity in the area, it had been determined that a specific contribution was not warranted.

·         The ratio proposed for car parking spaces to residential units on site was queried. Officers confirmed that this was inline with Council as well as national policy in encouraging sustainable transport and that the applicant would be required to contribute to consultation on and implementation of a controlled parking zone in the area and have in place a travel plan for monitoring purposes. Access to a car club would also be provided to residents.

·         In response to a question regarding the resultant loss of the view to Alexandra Palace from above the Hornsey Baths building, the Council’s conservation officer advised that the availability of the view was deemed ‘accidental’ due to the one storey nature of the Baths building and which was out of keeping with the three storey buildings typifying the remainder of the High Street.  

A number of objectors addressed the Committee in response to the application and raised the following points:

·         Concerns were expressed that the density of the scheme was too high and constituted overdevelopment of the area, with density figures provided in the report misleading through the inclusion of the land designated on site for car parking.

·         The design of the buildings facing onto the High Street was out of keeping with the rest of the area and the scheme did not enhance or preserve the conservation area particularly through the subsequent loss of the Hornsey Baths building.

·         The floorspace proposed for the supermarket unit was too large for the area, particularly in being considerably larger than the supermarkets in nearby Crouch End, and in general was unwarranted in consideration of the number of supermarket branches in the vicinity. A new supermarket would have a negative impact on nearby local independent traders as well as potentially reducing footfall in nearby Crouch End due to the free parking proposed. This would potentially force smaller retailers out of business, with a subsequent loss of employment. 

·         At 8 storeys, the tallest building proposed in the scheme was very high and would dwarf smaller buildings in the area such as the water board cottages on Moselle Close and properties on Cross Lane.

·         The loss of the current view of Alexandra Palace from the Hornsey Baths building on the High Road had not been referenced by the applicant and would be a loss to the local area.

·         Additional congestion would be caused to Cross Lane which would serve as an access route to the proposed live/work units.

·         The development would exacerbate current issues experienced in surrounding areas with overflow parking from New River Village.

·         The new development had the potential to exacerbate existing drainage issues at New River Village.

·         Concerns were expressed over the quality of finish to the New River Village development which had been also been delivered by the applicant, St James Group and that issues apparent with this development could be replicated in the new scheme such as a lack of play facilities for children.

Cllrs Winskill and Whyte addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application:

·         The size of the supermarket proposed was too large and had the potential to negatively impact shops in nearby Crouch End and attract greater car borne traffic to the area from the free parking offer.

·         It was proposed that a number of additional conditions be added, should the application be granted, to limit the size of the supermarket to that of the branch in Muswell Hill, ensure provision of an entrance onto the High Road and restrict on site car parking to blue badge holders only.

·         A number of the buildings proposed were too high and had the potential to cause overshadowing to existing properties.

·         The new scheme did not propose to pepperpot tenure mix through the site and concerns were expressed that this would potentially preclude community development, an issue that had been identified at New River Village.

·         There were concerns that the scheme would cause significant traffic problems in the area inline with those observed on Green Lanes from the Sainsburys store built in Arena Shopping Park.

·         No information had been provided on the future registered social landlord partner for the affordable housing on site.

A representative from the applicant, St James Group Ltd, addressed the Committee and raised the following points and responses to questions from the Committee:

·         The applicant had undertaken considerable public engagement on the scheme, with subsequent design amendments made following comments received including reducing the height of a number of buildings, incorporating features from the Hornsey bath building within the development etc.

·         The scheme had considerable benefits in bringing a brown field, derelict site back into use, providing new housing including a significant level of affordable units, securing public realm and public access improvements and providing free parking to benefit local shops.

·         The benefits of the scheme would outweigh the loss of the accidental view to Alexandra Palace from the High Road and which in any event  would be obliterated by any redevelopment of the derelict Baths building.

·         The scheme had a stepped design in relation to building height thereby locating the highest blocks towards the centre of the scheme to reduce the impact.

·         The density of the scheme was within the parameters set out in the Haringey Heartlands Development Framework.

·         A full traffic modelling exercise had been undertaken.

·         Affordable housing would be separate from open market units to reflect the differences in service charge and management regimes and subsequent cost. The scheme aimed to be tenure blind in external design although the internal specification was likely to vary according to tenure type.

·         The drainage issues in New River Village related to pumping issues on site and were being addressed.

·         The scheme would provide employment opportunities in the area both during and after construction, with a local employment plan to be developed to set out details such as apprenticeships, training etc available.

·         Confirmation was provided that two incidental play spaces were proposed for the scheme centred on ‘play on the way’ features as well as provision of outdoor gym equipment off Myddleton Road.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding the feasibility of focussing employment opportunities from the scheme on Hornsey ward, it was agreed that potentially a sequential approach could be adopted under the local employment plan to prioritise Hornsey before extending opportunities to the rest of the borough.

·         The applicant’s representative indicated a willingness to accept a condition, if deemed appropriate, to prohibit the retail unit fronting Hornsey High Street being used as a betting shop.

·         It was updated that the applicant was currently at the stage of assessing bids from six registered social landlords with regards to the affordable housing provision on site.

A motion put forward by Cllr McNamara and seconded by Cllr Wilson to defer the application was, upon a vote, carried and it was

RESOLVED

To defer the application to allow officers to further review in conjunction with the applicant;

·         The dwelling mix proposed for the scheme, in particular concern regarding the low ratio of family size units (3 plus bedrooms) to 1 and 2 bed units;

·         The height, bulk and massing of the scheme design, in particular the potential for overlooking to properties on Miles Road and Moselle Close;

·         The provision of incidental play space and whether the two areas proposed were sufficient for the size of the development;

·         The proposed size of the foodstore, with concerns a medium size supermarket would be too large for the area.