Agenda and minutes

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 247.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for planning permission at Pembroke Works, Campsbourne Road. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, images, the planning history, description of the proposal, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis of the application, sustainability, human rights and equalities issues and planning obligations, and recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement. Marc Dorfman gave a presentation outlining key aspects of the report, and advised that a meeting could be arranged with Members in order to consider the proposed materials to be used, prior to final approval of materials. The Committee examined the drawings and plans.

The Committee discussed the application, and raised the following points:

·        The Committee noted the proposed level of affordable housing, and it was felt that this contradicted the stated policy of encouraging higher levels of affordable housing in the West of the borough. Mr Dorfman acknowledged that the level was relatively low, but advised that the Council was ensuring that affordable rents were set at no more than 32% of market rents.

·        Mr Dorfman confirmed that the section 106 agreement would include £23k for local employment and training skills.

·        The Committee expressed concern that the development would represent a change from skilled to unskilled work, in response to which Mr Dorfman advised that the scheme would deliver training and employment support for young people across a range of skill sets.

·        In response to a question from the Committee regarding the overall level of affordable housing in general, and when this would increase, Mr Dorfman reported that the current level of affordable units reflected that applications were being brought forward at a time when levels of subsidy were very low, and it was positive that affordable housing could be delivered in this environment, even at the low levels noted.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report and it was:

RESOLVED

1)    That planning permission be granted in accordance with planning application no. HGY/2012/1190, subject to a precondition that the owners of the application site shall first have entered into an Agreement or Agreements with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) and Section 16 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 in order to secure:

1.1)          26% in units and 32% of affordable habitable rooms comprising of 7 shared ownership units of 5 x 1 bedrooms and 2 x 2 bedrooms, and 4 x 4 bed affordable rent units (to be let to tenants nominated by the Council at an ‘affordable rent’ equivalent to no more than 32% of the market rent).

1.2)          A contribution of £232,000 towards educational facilities within the Borough according to the formula set out in Policy UD10 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 10c of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006.

1.3)          The applicants need to enter into a s.38 Highways Act agreement with the council as Local Highway Authority contribution of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 248.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application for planning permission at Forrester House, 52 Bounds Green Road, N11 2EU. The report set out details of the site and surroundings, images, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis of the application, planning obligations, human rights and equalities considerations and recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 legal agreement. The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee examined the plans and drawings.

• The Committee asked about how fire risk would be managed, particularly as, unlike regular hotels, there would be provisions for cooking within each unit; it was reported that this was dealt with under building regulations.
• In response to a question regarding whether it was possible to address waste control issues by means of design; it was agreed that an additional condition could be applied, requesting further details of the waste storage arrangements.
• The Committee asked  about the proposed condition that no unit is to be occupied by any individual for longer than 90 days, and how such a condition would be monitored and enforced. It was reported that this condition was intended to prevent any future change of use to convert the premises into an HMO, and was enforceable in law. It was suggested that the condition could be reworded to require the applicant to confirm to the Council in writing on an annual basis that no individual had been permitted to stay for longer than 90 days, so that, were such confirmation not received by the authority, this would act as a trigger for monitoring of compliance. It was further suggested that the condition should give the local authority the right to inspect the hotel register, on demand.
• It was confirmed that this application was for a different use-class than an HMO – were there any subsequent desite to convert to an HMO, this would require further planning permission. It was reported that serviced apartments were common in Europe, but less common in the UK.
• The legal advisor confirmed that each room was a separate planning unit in its own right, making future conversion to an HMO complex.

A local resident address the Committee in obejction to the application on the grounds that the bulk and height of the proposal would lead to obstruction and significant loss of light to his property, particularly in the morning, from around 7-11am.

The applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following issues:

• While the main concern of the objector was loss of light, the daylight study undertaken had shown a loss of no more than 1% light in any of the rooms tested. This report had been submitted to planning officers as part of the application.
• The target was for lets of 2 – 3 weeks, as serviced apartments. It was felt that this was a strong location for such a use, due to the transport links.
• It was confirmed that there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 249.