Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new Samaritans operation centre at ground floor level and 3 x 1 bed flat at first floor level and 1 x 1 bed flat at second floor level.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee was informed that the application building was currently being used as a training centre for the Samaritans and the surrounding area was predominantly residential.  The proposed building would replace the existing which was in a poor state of repair, of little architectural merit and not statutorily or locally listed.

The proposed scheme at Shaftsbury Hall would not cause any significant harm in terms of amenity, as a training and centre for confidential support would not detract from the amenity currently enjoyed by local residents.  There would be no additional parking as the local area had access to numerous bus routes and Bounds Green Underground station.

The scheme had a total density of 464hrh which included the ground floor office, training room and call centre space.  Refuge storage had been allocated at the side of the building and that the redevelopment of this site would not impact upon the ecological corridor.

The Officer further advised the Committee that the applicant had supplied a revised drawing to show modified front and side elevations.  The Samaritans had also submitted a petition with 27 signatures attached in support of the application.

The Committee questioned the density of the proposed scheme and commented that the London Plan guidelines were 200-250sqm.  The officer replied that the density interpretation of the London Plan depended upon the area which was close to a railway station and local shops nearby.  Also considered was the form of the development fitting in to the surrounding area which did conform.  The Committee felt that the design of the scheme did not take account of the houses along Herbert Road.   In response the officer acknowledged that the proposed development was uncompromisingly modern in design and a difficult scheme to fit into the street scene.

An Objector informed the Committee that he had not seen the revised plans or petition.  The streets around the proposed site were all residential.  The proposed scheme would be over developed by 70% and had the appearance of a warehouse.  The land was only suitable for a two small, 2 bed houses.  The proposed building would be overpowering.

The Committee questioned the objector regarding the height of the proposed building and were informed that the surrounding houses were all 100 years old.  The block on the top of the building was far too high.  The Officer confirmed that the amended plan did not change the height or size, just the elevation of the proposed development.

The Applicant addressed the Committee and advised that the density of the flats was 50sqm above the recommended level.  The design of the building was a question of taste and in context at the end of the street, near the railway line.  The design had taken account of the comments and concerns of residents and Councillors to make it more of a landmark building.  In respect of crime, it was considered to be a crime hotspot because of the current state of the building.  The new scheme proposed to have CCTV and the area would be a CPZ area as of April 2008.

The Committee questioned the applicant regarding the signatories on the petition and whether they were local residents.  The applicant replied that the petition was signed by Samaritans who lived in Haringey, however most did not live in Bounds Green.

The Committee further queried the design features as they did not blend with the Victorian look of the street, amenity space at the front of the building and the Committee sought clarification as to who would be occupying the flats.  In response the applicant stated that with respect to the design, the features took into account both sides of the site and the proposed building would act as a landmark.   In respect of the amenity space at the front of the building the applicant stated they were open to any recommendation from the Committee.  The flats would be occupied and used by the Samaritans.   Hornsey Housing Trust would be the freeholders and maintain the new building.

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application.  On a vote there was 3 in favour and 5 against the motion was lost.

Cllr Dodds requested his dissent be recorded against the outcome of the vote on the motion.  Cllr Dodds then left the meeting at 9:45pm.

The Committee refused the application on the grounds that the proposed scheme would cause over development of the site, the building design and its effects on the street scene with emphasis on character, access and traffic.  

RESOLVED

That the application be refused planning permission on the grounds that the proposed scheme would cause over development of the site, the building design and its effects on the street scene with emphasis on character, access and traffic.  

Cllr Dodds asked that his dissent to the above resolution be recorded.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/2354

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 03/03/2008

Location: Shaftesbury Hall, Herbert Road N11

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide new Samaritans operation centre at ground floor level and 3 x 1 bed flat at first floor level and 1 x 1 bed flat at second floor level.

Recommendation: Refused

Decision: Refused

Drawing No’s: 202/P/100-105, 106 & 107

Reasons:

1.       The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site and would be out of keeping with the character of the adjoining houses and would detract from the visual amenities of the locality by reason of its height, bulk, amount of development, layout and design contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles' and UD4 'Quality Design' of the Haringey Unitary development Plan.

2.       The proposed development would result in an intensity of use which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the properties in Herbert Road by reason of 24 hour access and vehicle manoeuvring contrary to Policy UD3 'General Principles' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

Section 106: No