Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Patterson, for whom Cllr Rice was substituting and from Cllr Ryan.

It being a special meeting of the Committee, under Part 4, Section B, paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

Redevelopment of vacant site for a residential development of 19 dwellings comprising eighteen flats and one dwelling house (all C3 Use Class) including private and communal amenity spaces, refuse facilities, cycle storage, landscaping, three parking spaces and new vehicular access from Kings Road

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for redevelopment of a vacant site for a residential development of 19 dwellings comprising eighteen flats and one dwelling house (all C3 Use Class) including private and communal amenity spaces, refuse facilities, cycle storage, landscaping, three parking spaces and new vehicular access from Kings Road. The report set out details of the proposed development, site and surroundings, relevant planning history, consultation and responses and material planning considerations.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report.

Cllr Wright, ward councillor for Woodside, addressed the Committee on behalf of a local resident and raised the following points:

·         The site was ideal for residential use, especially as there was a need for land for new developments in the borough.

·         Redevelopment of the site would be welcomed, as it was currently in a state of disuse.

·         The design was supported, there would be no overlooking of neighbouring properties and the proposal was felt to be in keeping with the area.

·         Neighbours had been consulted properly and the applicants were commended for their engagement with the local community.

·         Cllr Wright personally expressed concerns regarding the level of affordable housing contribution, but stated that this was a wider issue that he would take up in his role as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and was not specific to this particular application.

In response to a further question from the Committee regarding the lack of affordable housing and the onus being on developers in relation to viability assessments, Cllr Wright confirmed that this was a wider issue than this particular application. It was noted that the application had been considered at the pre-application stage, and that Members had noted at that time that the affordable housing contribution offered by the applicants was higher than that required in accordance with the viability assessment.

The Committee asked questions of the officers in relation to the application, and the following points were raised as part of the discussion:

·         The Housing Service had been consulted on the application, but had not formally provided any comments for inclusion in the report. Officers advised that the Housing Service had, however, attending the pre-application meeting and had given the view that, given the small number of units at the site, an off-site contribution would be preferable.

·         The Committee expressed concern that not all of the eligible housing associations in the borough had been asked whether they would be interested in managing on-site affordable units at this site. It was confirmed that all five of the Council’s preferred providers had been approached, but that in general housing associations took the view that  it was not practical or cost-effective to take on sites with only one or two affordable units. It was noted that discussions with Homes for Haringey in relation to the possible management of sites with a small number of affordable units were progressing separately.

·         It was confirmed that the viability assessment submitted had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Demolition of extensions and outbuildings, the conversion of the former police station, and the construction of new residential buildings to provide 28 x 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom dwelling units, parking provision, cycle and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement 

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for demolition of extensions and outbuildings, the conversion of the former police station and the construction of new residential buildings to provide 28 x 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwelling units, parking provision, cycle and refuse storage. The report set out details of the section 106 heads of terms/ s278 agreement, proposed development, site and surroundings, relevant planning history, consultation and responses, material planning considerations and CIL.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report.

Cllr Blake, ward councillor for St Ann’s addressed the Committee in support of the application and raised the following points:

·         The increase in affordable units compared with the previous application which had been refused permission was broadly welcomed.

·         The separation between the existing police station building and the new block was welcomed; the police station was a well-loved local building and it was important to maintain its integrity.

·         It was positive that this application included more communal space and a garden area.

·         Local councillors and residents asked for the buildings to be as sustainable as possible.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding their intention to proceed with the appeal against the previous refusal of planning permission, the applicants advised that it would not make financial sense for them to appeal in the event that they had an implementable planning permission in place. The legal advisor to the Committee asked for clarification on this point in respect of the application currently before the Committee, and the applicants confirmed that the permission as set out in the report before the Committee, including the conditions and section 106 agreement, would in their view be an implementable permission if granted.

The Committee asked a number of questions of the applicants and officers, and the following points were raised during the discussion:

·         In response to a question regarding the roof, it was confirmed that a shallow pitch was proposed in order to reduce the overall height of the scheme, compared with the height that would be needed in order to accommodate a flat roof.

·         The Committee asked how the reduction in density had been achieved, in response to which the applicants confirmed that introducing the gap between the police station and new block as well as the reduction in the depth of the plan had contributed to the lower density. It was noted that the smaller plan depth had also enabled all units to be dual aspect.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding how the parking spaces would be allocated, the applicants confirmed that allocation would be on a basis of need, with priority given to the family-sized units. The applicants confirmed that none of the open-market units would be advertised as having a dedicated parking space and that allocation would be solely on the basis of need.

·         In response to a question regarding the gap between the police station and new block, the applicants confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7 March.

7 March 2016.

The meeting closed at 8.10pm.