Agenda item

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 3 storey building comprising 1 x three bed, 4 x two bed and 4 x one bed flats with commercial use (A1 / A2) at ground floor level, offices at first floor level and parking at basement level. (Revised Scheme)

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permissions subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

In a brief introduction of the report the committee were advised that a petition had been submitted from 52 residents of Rostrevor Avenue objecting to the proposals, and also detailed submitted reasons of objection.

 

The Committee were advised that the proposal site consisted of 2 individual buildings currently part used as a garage and workshop, and was sited on the southern end of a block that fronted the High Road between Norfolk and Rostrevor Avenue’s. The rear of the site abutted the rear garden of No.1 Rostrevor Avenue.  The Committee were informed that the adjoining roads were residential in nature consisting of 2 storey terraced houses many of which had been substantially extended in the form of ground floor rear extensions and loft conversions in the form of full width dormers front and rear. This was an acceptable feature within the South Tottenham area.

 

The Committee were further advised that on the western/opposite side of the High Road near the junction with St Ann’s Road – north of the application site was the very prominent church of St Ignatius also the primary school of the same name. The site was situated within the designated South Tottenham High Road Conservation Area and had also been designated as an Area of Community Regeneration – Haringey East.  The site was not within an area of archaeological importance or an area subject to flooding. The eastern side of the High Road was on the higher section of the main road – the road falls way westward and northward toward St Ann’s Road.

 

The Committee were advised that planning permission had been refused in 2007 for erection of a part 4/5 storey building comprising a mix of one, two, three and four bed self contained flats with commercial units at ground floor level with parking at basement. The proposal was also dimissed on appeal.

The current proposal was seeking planning permission for erection of a 3 storey building comprising 4 x one bed, 4 x two bed, and 1 x three bed self contained flats with office accommodation at first floor and commercial units at ground floor level with parking in the basement area. The commercial unit was capable of being split into 3 separate units and was serviced not from the High Road but from the basement area where parking for the scheme would  also be provided. The basement area would be accessed from an access point on Rostrevor Avenue.

 

In response to points of clarification from the Committee as to the comments of the Planning Inspector officers advised that the main points of concern were in relation to the impact of the 5 storey height on  the Listed building on the opposite side of the road, and the Inspecor had stated that the height and mass of the proposed building on the appeal site especially the 5-storey part at the corner junction with Rostrevor Avenue, would not relate satisfactorily to the nearby lower buildings on the Eastern side of High road or the church opposite.  Resident concerns were in relation to the building height exceeding the height of the neighbouring buildings, and the design and pitch of the roofs in relation to surrounding properties. There was also a concern as to the possible effect on the water table with underground parking and potential flooding, and that the appearance of the modern design was not contemporary to the existing buildings. The resubmitted design did show a new facade of the revised application had also changed the lower levels to included balconies, as well the proposals allowed for a roof terrace. Concerns of local residents were that there would also be possible privacy intrusion from balconies and the roof terrace.

 

The Committee commented and sought clarification as to the possible lowering of the design and the actual level of the height of the proposals above the existing buildings. The Committee were advised that the proposed height exceeded existing buildings by 1 metre, and there were no proposals to change this. The revised design showed that the ground floor did have extra height in order to give as much light within.  The height of the building was an issue for the end part of the building adjacent to the street behind – but it was considered that there were no height issues on the frontage and adjacent properties thereto.

 

Local Residents addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the basis that:

 

·        the starkness and crude design of the proposed development in relation to the local area which residents felt was like a ‘Lego’ construction;

·        the added feature of balconies being a poor addition and that it was questionable whether occupants would actually ever sit on them, together with the intrusion and loss of privacy of existing residents by both the balconies and roof terrace;

·        the height of the building and the infringement of the proposed roof terrace given the bulk and general appearance of the development, together with the pitch of the roofs;

·        the type of plants and foliage intended for the roof terrace  and the visual effects on the area ;

·        the need to re-examine the overall design and height as it was totally out of character with the existing contemporary design ;

·        the resultant effect of the traffic flow in the area where there was considerable traffic congestion ;

·        the size and design of individual dwellings being inadequate

·        the lack of community space generally in this area and whether the design impacted on the design guidance for a conservation area;

·        the overall negative impact on the existing amenity

·        that the overall redesign did not address enough of the Planning Inspector’s ruling in March 2008.

 

Councillor Kober addressed the Committee in her capacity as Ward Councillor and in sharing the views expressed by the objectors, commented that there was considerable local Jewish Community of residents (many of whom were unable to attend the meeting due to a religious festival) who felt very strongly regarding the development – in terms of encroachment, loss of privacy.  The site was on the border of the Haringey boundary line and in that sense was the gateway to the Borough. Councillor Kober echoed the comments expressed in terms of the height, and mass of the development as the proposed height was slightly higher than the existing buildings.  She also shared the views of the local community in terms of the loss of amenity/community space, as well as the impact of the development on an already heavily used road network.

 

The Committee then received a brief response from the applicant’s representative in the following terms;

 

·        that in terms of the height of the building the roof level was 600mm higher than the existing rear buildings – namely no 3 Rostrevor Road

·        the issue of service access to the building would be below the building and off road

·        that the balcony designs had been recessed to not protrude over the building line and therefore were not considered obtrusive, and their design would allow good usage as they went the full length of each dwelling

·        the roof terrace would be landscaped with potted plants and shrubs, and would be maintained by the freeholder. The terrace would also be set back by 1 metre and would encompass the length of the building and would not be visible from the opposite side of the street as the proposed screens would also obscure the terrace and any fears of overlooking

·        that the traffic measures could be clearly alleviated by Haringey Council introducing traffic calming measures in the Rostrevor Road area

·        that the overall scheme, though not cotemporary in design, would, in the applicant’s view, blend into the overall amenity of the area, and that the building materials were of good quality with the size of the accommodation and proposed office space offering excellent living and work areas, and that the offices would attract business and employment opportunities.

 

The Committee then viewed the plans.

 

The Chair asked if there were any points of clarification.

 

The Committee sought further clarification as to the actual height proposed and what would be acceptable to the residents. Residents reps commented that the height issue was in their view, a matter of 2 metres, and not approx 1 metre height difference. In response to the Committee’s comments in relation to the actual design of the buildings and the comments of the Council’s design team, officers advised that the design term had looked at the design and had made no comment.  The Committee further commented and asked the objectors for their comments in relation to the overall design which was not in character with the existing buildings/shops which were ornate and contemporary in their design.

 

The objectors, in reiterating many of their earlier comments, commented that the buildings on the north/south aspect were contemporary and not as stark or cubic as the proposed development. The design could have been more in keeping with the existing buildings and a little softer/friendlier in appearance.

 

In response to further questions from the Committee relating to the rear design, the lowering of the building further by digging further in the basement, and issues concerning the water table level and flooding, the applicant’s representative commented that the basement height had been raised in order to accommodate the service vehicle access.  The height of each floor had then been designed to maximise the light levels entering and also allow for good cross flow ventilation. In terms of digging further in the basement the existing lower level was where the site met the road.  The issue of the water table had been looked at and it was the case that the water table was no specifically high and that the basement materials would be concrete and would be a contained shell – a design method which was tried and tested. The rear corner design which would be viewed by people as encroaching on no 1 it was the case that the boundary was dragged back at an angle and therefore the actual encroachment would be minimal.

 

With regard to further points of clarification from the Committee in relation to the refuse collection etc and the reversing of vehicles down a ramp and whether this was not particularly suitable, and if there had been an alternative ground level area for refuse the applicant’s representative advised that an area had been identified with the previous design at rear ground level behind the access gates but the highways service had commented on issues of collection and loading bays adequacy.

 

There being no further points of clarification, on a motion by the Chair, there being 8 for and 1 against, it was:

 

RESOLVED  

 

That the application be granted subject to conditions and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure contributions of £24,960.00 towards local education facilities, £15,000 toward transportation works in the form of traffic calming, and environmental improvements within the locality, and £2040.00 toward administrative charges.

 

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/0593

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 09/06/2008

 

Location: 16-52 High Road N15 6LS

 

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and erection of 3 storey building comprising 1 x three bed, 4 x two bed and 4 x one bed flats with commercial use (A1 / A2) at ground floor level, offices at first floor level and parking at basement level. (Revised Scheme)

 

Recommendation: GTD

 

Decision: GTD

 

Drawing No’s: 7117/02, 03, 100a, 101a, 102a, 103a, 104a, 105a, 106a, 107a

 

Conditions:

 

1. The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission  shall be of no effect.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of  unimplemented planning permissions.

 

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure  the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

 

3. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced   until precise details of the materials to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted have been submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

 

4. That not more than 9 separate resiential units, whether flats or houses, shall be constructed on the site.

Reason: In order to avoid overdevelopment of the site.

 

5. The construction works of the development hereby granted shall not be carried out before 0800 or after 1800 hours Monday to Friday or before 0800 or after 1200 hours on Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

 

6. The proposed development  shall have a central dish/aerial system for receiving all broadcasts for all the residential units created, details of such a scheme shall be submitted to and approved  by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the property and the approved scheme shall be implemented and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenities of the neighbourhood.

 

7. The development hereby  authorised shall comply with BS 8220 (1986) Part 1, 'Security Of Residential Buildings' and comply with the aims and objectives of the police requirement of 'Secured By Design' and 'Designing Out Crime' principles.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development achieves the required crime prevention elements as detailed by Circular 5/94 'Planning Out Crime'.

 

 

8. No development shall take place until site investigation detailing previous and existing land uses, potential land contamination, risk estimation and remediation work if required have been submitted to and approved  in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: In order for the Local Planning Authority to ensure the site is contamination free.

 

9. No development shall commence until 2) and 3) below are carried out to the approval of London Borough of Haringey.

 

10. The Applicant will submit a site-wide energy strategy for the proposed development. This strategy must meet the following criteria:

 

(a) Inclusion of a site-wide energy use assessment showing projected annual demands for thermal (including heating and cooling) and electrical energy, based on contemporaneous building regulations minimum standards. The assessment must show the carbon emissions resulting from the projected energy consumption.

 

(b) The assessment should demonstrate that the proposed heating and cooling systems have been selected in accordance with the following order of preference: passive design; solar water heating; combined heat and power for heating and cooling, preferably fuelled by renewables; community heating for heating and cooling; heat pumps; gas condensing boilers and gas central heating.  The strategy should examine the potential use of CHP to supply thermal and electrical energy to the site. Resulting carbon savings to be calculated.

 

(c) Inclusion of onsite renewable energy generation to reduce the remaining carbon emissions (i.e. after (a) is accounted for) by 10% subject to feasibility studies carried out to the approval of LB Haringey.

 

11. All reserved matters applications must contain an energy statement demonstrating consistency with the site wide energy strategy developed in 2). Consistency to be approved by LB Haringey prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: To ensure the development incorporates energy efficiency measures including on-site renewable energy generation, in order to contribute to a reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions generated by the development in line with national and local policy guidance.

 

INFORMATIVE: The new development will require naming/numbering. The applicant should contact the Transportation Group at least six weeks before the development is occupied (tel. 020 8489 5573) to arrange for the allocation of a suitable addtress.

 

INFORMATIVE: A separate application will be required for either the installation of a new shopfront or the display of any illuminated signs.

 

INFORMATIVE: Details of the foundation work on the boundaries and any border treatment should be agreed with the adjoining occupiers before such works commence.

 

INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised to contact the Crime Prevention Officer,  Tottenham Police Station, 398 High Road, London N17 9JA (tel. 020 8345 0934) regarding crime prevention information that may assist the security of the proposed development hereby authorised.

 

INFORMATIVE: That all works on or associated  with the public highway be carried out by The Transportation Group at the full expense of the developer.  Before the Council uundertakes any works or inccurs any financial liability the developer will be required to make a deposit equal to the full estimated cost of the works.

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

The proposal accords with policies HSG2 Change of use to residential, EMP4 Non Employment Generating Uses, UD3 Quality Design, UD6 Waste Storage, HSG4 Affordable Housing also Policy HSG 8 'Density Standards' of Haringey Unitary Development Plan. Appropriate car parking has been proposed on site which is situated in an area with High Public Transport accessibility and is considered consistent with Policy M10 'Parking for Development' PPG 3 'Housing' and PPG13 'Transport'.

The proposal is in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance especially 1a Design guidance, 3a Density , dwelling mix, 3b'Privacy and Overlooking, 4 Access for all, 7a Parking standards, 10 Negotiation and monitoring of obligations, 12 Educational needs generated by new housing development and 8a Waste and recycling.

 

Section 106 Yes