Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 40 extra care units and provision of 8 off-street parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject o conditions.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that Cllr Harris had tabled a letter with the agreement of the Chair.

The Committee was further informed that there was an error on Condition 11, under Reason: the words ‘and Parkland Walk’ should be removed.  The Highgate Society had asked that a further condition be added that a professional photograph of the property be taken before the demolition and be kept by the Society.  As the building was part of the history of Highgate’s development. 

The planning officer advised the Committee that a further condition was also to be added to the planning consent in relation to a Section 278 agreement.  That no development would commence until the developer had entered into a Section 278 agreement that works would be undertaken to improve the section of footways in the interest of highways and pedestrian safety.

Representations had also been received from Building Control who advised that formal building regulations applied.  Three local residents had submitted letters objecting to the proposed building being over large in terms of bulk, mass and layout.  The style of the proposed development was not in keeping with either the style of buildings it was replacing nor the surrounding buildings.  No construction traffic would be allowed to use Grange Road as it was a private road.

The application site was occupied by two converted and extended villas known respectively as The Tree and Homfray House, and was a vacant nursing home.  There was no prevailing architectural style in the area, being a mix of Victorian and Edwardian developments.  The application site was located within Highgate Conservation Area, however the building was not listed.

This application followed on from a recent refusal which was for a similar application for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the erection of a part 4 / part single storey building to accommodate 41 extra care units.

A fundamental component to the development of extra care schemes was that they must be near to local amenities and services.  The Borough currently only had 60 such units and the provision of extra care housing had been identified as a priority in the Borough’s ‘Supporting People Strategy 2005-2010’.  The project had the full support of the Council’s Adult, Culture and Community Services.  The self contained units were designed to be fully wheel chair accessible and compliant with Lifetime Home Standards.  

The replacement building would be of a contemporary architectural design and its footprint would be similar to that of the existing buildings on site, with an additional single storey being built along the western boundary.  The main building fronting onto Broadlands Road would take the form of 3 villas.  The height of the North East corner of the building had been reduced by 3m, therefore minimising the impact on neighbouring Broadlands flats.  The overall composition of the proposed development would consist of brick, and white render with some timber cladding.  The reduction in height and proximity of the proposed building would not adversely affect the daylight and sunlight received to neighbouring properties.  The scale, height, massing, alignment of the building, and its fenestration pattern had been redesigned sensitively to avoid adverse additional overlooking to neighbouring properties.

The site was populated with many trees (39 in total) of various ages and species, ten of which were the subject of Tree Preservation Orders.  Four trees were categorised to be removed and a further seven classed of low quality and identified to be removed.

The Committee enquired what the changes were between the previously refused application and the current one before the Committee and whether the flat roof on the single storey structure would be made of cedar.  In response the Committee was informed that the main difference between the two applications was the reduction of the height on the corner at the junction of Grange Road and Broadlands Road and the single storey structure would have cedar roofs.

An objector addressed the Committee and advised that he was representing 19 householders who primarily objected to the fourth storey.  The reduction on the height of the single storey only benefited certain properties.  The original reason for refusal of the first application was due to the height which was considered detrimental to neighbouring occupiers.  There was no significant difference between the two application and therefore requested that the entire 4^th storey be removed completely.   The second objector addressed the Committee and stated that officers, applicant nor agents had visited residents to assess the current site.  The proposed balconies and side windows to the South East elevation of the planning application would look directly onto the gardens and rear windows of the flats on North Hill. Regardless that provision had been made for obscure windows and privacy screening the windows and balconies were considered to be too close.   A request was made to retain the tree behind the property at 23 North Hill as it provided screening for residents.

The Committee queried whether overlooking would occur as the eventual occupants of the units would be frail and elderly.  The objector replied that there would be balconies along the front which would overlook their back garden and sitting room.

The Applicants addressed the Committee and advised that they had taken into account the reason for refusal of the original application, in terms of a reduction in the number of units to be provided from 41 to 40 units in total and a reduction in the height of the building.  The proposed development was considered to be a modern building which would integrate with the Conservation Area and provide community benefits.  The scheme would benefit the elderly and provide extra care in the next few years.

The Committee queried the central block on Broadlands which appeared to be rendered, however it was noted that the predominant character of the buildings on both roads was of brick construction. The applicant was requested to reconsider reducing the white rendering and supplying a second type of brick.   The applicant responded that the idea was to create a vision of separate villas, as the original refused plan was completely rendered.  There were a number of rendered buildings in the locality , therefore the proposed application took into consideration the whole area and its character.

Members further queried whether it was possible to retain the tree behind 23 North Hill and were advised that the applicant was not against retaining any tree on the site and would reconsider this request.  The Committee queried whether the applicant’s proposal would increase the carbon footprint bearing in mind that it was an issue for the Director and Cabinet Member for the Environment to make Haringey a greener borough.  The applicant stated that it was proposed to develop a building with high quality components, using low energy appliances and this was dealt with in condition 18.  The Committee also enquired whether the Highgate Society had expressed a view with regard to the proposed development.  In response the Committee was informed that there was a comprehensive response from the Highgate Society who stated that they had studied the revised application and debated the new application.  They supported Hill Homes’ view that the benefits of having the home in this form outweighed issues relating to the conservation area.

The Committee requested that additional conditions be imposed in terms of landscaping the garden, fencing and shrubs to be provided along Grange Road.

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application subject to conditions.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted and approved subject to conditions and the additional conditions requested.