Agenda item

Residential redevelopment of playground site adjoining Stainby Road comprising 15 units: 6 x four bed houses and a block of 9 flats comprising 4 x one bed and 5 x three bed flats (forming part of previously approved scheme, reference HGY/2005/1257.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and/or a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Cllr Bevan entered the meeting at 8:20pm.

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised that this application site was previously approved as part of the original plans for Saltram Close.  The site was an enclosed semi derelict playground, originally designed for the use of Saltram Close Estate.  The site was bounded directly to the north by Monument Way and Saltram Close Estate formed the south boundary.  Stainby Road lay to the east of the site.

The site was currently derelict and unsafe for its original purpose, it was considered that the proposed change of use to residential was acceptable.  The density was approximately 414hrh, within the density range set out in the UDP and London Plan.  The units were designed to conform to ‘Lifetime Homes Standards’ and 10% had wheelchair access. 

The scheme would provide not less than 50% of the total units for affordable housing, however the units would be for renting because the Housing Enabling Team had identified a shortage of large units for renting purposes.  The proposed scheme was modern in design and would connect with the design approach of the adjacent development on the former Rose & Crown Public House, and nearby new developments.  It was considered that the height and scale conformed to existing buildings and should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area.

The flats within the scheme would be ‘car-free’ with 9 covered and secured bicycle storage facilities and each of the six houses would have the provision of one car parking space per unit and secure bicycle stand.  Amenity space had been designed into the scheme in the form of rear garden space, balcony and terrace for all the houses.  The flat units had provision of ground floor patio, balconies and a secured roof garden.

CllrsAmin and Diakides entered the meeting at 8:30 and 8:31 respectively.

The Committee questioned  why the existing planning permission for the site was not implemented and were advised that the permission was still valid, however legal services had advised that a new application be resubmitted because it would have a fresh Section 106 agreement.  Concern was raised regarding the fact that the site was on a gyratory system and what measures had been considered to address issues such as noise.  The Officer replied that specific measures had been adopted near the rear boundary walls of the scheme and also specific windows would be installed to prevent noise intrusion.  The Committee could condition that an acoustic report be produced to address this issue.  Members further enquired about where the car parking spaces would be provided and whether the extra height of the proposed development would have an effect on the properties in Saltram Close.    The Committee was informed that parking spaces would be provided in the front garden for each of the houses.  The height of the development to the north would have the sun moving round the estate so therefore no loss of sun or daylight.   The Committee further raised concerns in relation to the roof top garden and considered it was no place for children to play, particularly as there would be a level of noise, pollution from traffic, and whether the Section 106 money could be used to provide a play space elsewhere.  The Committee was assured that roof top gardens were perfectly safe for children to play in and that some schools in the borough already had them.  The Officer explained that during the consultation there was no consensus regarding the provision of the roof top garden and therefore no real decision was taken.  The roof top garden would be sufficiently enclosed by walls  and therefore children not be affected by cars or pollution.  There would be 63.4sqm of roof terrace for the occupants of the flats.  The total amenity space was 100sqm.

A resident and objector to the application addressed the Committee and advised that the planning report was not representative and did not consider the valid objections to the planning application.  Under this application there was to be no decking removal, no new road serving the entire area and retention of both vehicle and pedestrian underpasses.  The Saltram Close playground was not derelict, however it suffered from a maintenance/upgrade issue, continually characterised as derelict.   There was no like-for-like provision proposed in an area of increasing amounts of children and anti-social behaviour.  Provision would be less than what currently existed.   The planning report ignored the pedestrian and vehicle underpass.  It was clear that there would be vehicle pressure and additional use of the underpasses by all interested groups.   There would be increased parking pressure due to the entrance and exit of the proposed development being directly onto Saltram Close.   New residents and visitors would park their cars on Saltram Close and no provision was being made for the occupants of the flats.

A local resident endorsed the statement made by the objector.  Planning officers had rejected local resident’s concerns in relation to the roof top garden, noise and pollution.  The proposed building would be an eyesore for residents and Saltram Close would be overshadowed.  There were concerns about parking for new residents of the proposed flat and visitors.  The playground was in use despite it’s condition.

In response to the Committee’s enquiry on whether any form of development should take place on the site the objector responded that Saltram Close would be overshadowed and crowded.  The playground has been characterised as derelict and the football surface had come to the end of its life, however children still played on the decking.  The square should be retained for the under 5’s and a football area.

Cllr Bevan addressed the Committee and stated that the previous  application was for a development for the whole estate.  This application was for a separate plot of land for a block of flats.  There were issues related to the design of the development, tenure mix was not compliant with the Council’s policy.  Amenity space provided within a tower block with roof garden which was considered to be unacceptable  as children could not ride bikes on a roof.  The Committee was requested to consider the density in respect of additional housing on an estate which was considered much too high.  The design and appearance of the proposed development did not fit into the surrounding location nor enhance or connect with surrounding buildings.

The Committee enquired of Cllr Bevan what involvement he had had in respect of the proposed development and in response were advised that he had attended the public Development Control Forum as part of the consultation.

The applicant responded to the objections raised and stated that he had worked on this development for a number of years with Haringey.  The site was small and there was a need to provide four bedroom houses.    In respect of Monument Way an acoustic report had already been submitted to address the concerns raised regarding traffic noise.  The proposed scheme was virtually the same as the original application in terms of access and included works to the estate.

The Committee raised several issues with the applicant:

1.      Why the original scheme which residents were happy with was now being replaced. 

2.      Materials to be used particularly the white rendering which was considered to get dirty quickly.

3.      The design was too intensive.

4.      The roof top garden for children to play in near to traffic pollution.

5.      The proposed density was considered not appropriate in terms of the surrounding area.

The applicant replied that from their point of view the original scheme was split into three sites:

• Saltram Close
• The playground
• The factory site which was in private ownership

Site 3 they were no longer in discussions with the owner to purchase it.

All the materials proposed were good sustainable finishes and it was considered that all materials collect dirt and would need to be cleaned.  A maintenance regime was proposed to deal with these issues.  In terms of the side view to Saltram Close the rooms were all non habitable and would include secured glass.  The mass of the tower element affected only two windows (bathrooms) and seen as a minimal loss.  There were no real issues of loss of light and overlooking.  The roof garden was a fairly acceptable way to retain space in terms of the design and landscaping.  The tower bock would have a lift so access would be much easier.   The applicant confirmed that an air pollution test had not been carried out on the site and this should have been done given the level of traffic on Monument Way.  The density of the proposed development was at the lower end of density levels. 

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application subject to conditions and  on a vote there being 3 in favour and 6 against the application was refused planning permission.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused planning permission on the grounds of design, scale of the proposal on the left hand side and lack of amenity space.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/1106

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 21/07/2008

Location: Playground Site adjoining Stainby Road, Monument Way N15

Proposal: Residential redevelopment of playground site adjoining Stainby Road comprising 15 units: 6 x four bed houses and a block of 9 flats comprising 4 x one bed and 5 x three bed flats (forming part of previously approved scheme, reference HGY/2005/1257).

Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions and Legal Agreement

Decision: Refused

Drawing No’s: 262/SR 00-001A, 262/SR 00-002A, 262/SR 00-003B, 262/SR 00-004B, 262/SR 00-005B, 262/SR 00-006B, 262/SR 00-007B, 262/SR 00-008B, 262/SR 00-009B, 262/SR 00-010 &262/SR 00-011.

Reasons:

1. The proposed development would contain insufficient and unsatisfactory amenity space in relation to the accommodation to be provided and the nature and character of the surrounding area including the Saltram Close Housing Estate situated immediately to the South contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles' and UD4 'Quality Design' of the Haringey unitary Development Plan.

2. The height, bulk, mass and design of the proposed block of flats would be out of keeping with and detract from the visual amenities of the locality and would be overbearing in relation to the residential amenities of the adjacent properties to the South on the existing Saltram Close Housing Estate contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles' and UD4 'Quality Design' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

Section 106: No