Issue - meetings

Comprehensive redevelopment of the Brook House (former Cannon Rubber Factory site), including the erection of a 22 storey building (plus a part top floor mezzanine) providing 100 residential units (use class C3) and 190 sqm of commercial floorspace (use class B1, D1 and D2), two buildings of 6 and 9 storeys respectively providing 101 residential units (use class C3) and a part 2/part 5 storey building comprising a 2,388 sqm 2 form entry primary school (use class D1) and 21 residential units (use class C3), together with associated car and cycle parking, refuse stores, highways, infrastructure, open space and landscaping works.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions, completion of a s106 legal agreement and subject to Mayoral Direction.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant planning permission for the former Cannon rubber factory, 881 High Road, N17 8EY. 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 conditions, completion of a s106 agreement and subject to Mayoral Direction. Marc Dorfman, Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Economy, gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the circulated addendum report setting out revisions and amendments to the initial report including a revised drawing schedule and units table, replacements to a number of conditions and details of two additional consultation responses.

The following points were raised in discussion of the officer report:

·        With regards to whether the Council had a strategic policy covering tall buildings, it was advised that although they were specifically promoted in Tottenham and Haringey Heartlands areas under UDP 9, this did not preclude their siting in other areas of the borough. The tower met the criteria for tall buildings set out within UDP 9. The Planning Officer also confirmed that the tower would progress through a Design Gateway consisting of a group of experts to further develop detailed designs for consultation and approval by the Committee as required by a planning condition. 

·        Concerns were expressed over the potential over development of the site. Officers advised that based on calculations used by LB Haringey, the density of the development was comparable, and in some instances, slightly lower than that of other comparable development sites in the borough.

·        The tenure mix of the development was queried, in particular the lack of family homes. Confirmation was provided that the proposal put forward by Newlon was focussed on shared ownership and intermediate rent homes.

·        In response to questions about the health and safety of amenity sites to be located above ground floor, it was advised that these were fairly commonly used in new developments and would be well designed to ensure safety of users.

·        Clarification was provided that the development would not create any new public open space but that the school would be a facility available for community use.

·        The poor condition of the Sainsbury’s car park boundary wall was raised. Although this was not part of the development site, it was advised that efforts were in train to secure improvements with the freeholder. 

Three local residents, Messrs Murray, Springthorpe and Harvey, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and raised the following issues in their presentations and responses to questions from the Committee:

·        A number of concerns were raised about the consultation exercise undertaken, including claims that a unanimous vote taken by local residents against the large tower at the Development Forum meeting on 3 December had not clearly been reflected within the subsequent minutes or in the officer report. Concerns were also expressed over the scope and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266