Agenda item

Demolition of existing mixed use building (North Road, No. 26) and adjoining single storey structure with basement under; change of use (No. 28 North Road) from residential building to ancillary medical centre for Highgate School; demolition of existing pitched roof (Garner Building); erection of four storey and lower ground (School Building); erection of roof extension (Garner Building) of 1 storey; forming a new entrance into the existing science building and relocation of external steps.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all relevant planning policies and guidance. In addition the Committee considered the accompanying Conservation Area consent and Listed Building applications.

 

The Planning Officer gave an outline of the planning application, highlighting the key points. The Officer outlined that conditions 2 to 10 of the CAC and Listed Building applications needed to be deleted as they should only apply to the planning consent. The Officer highlighted that a standard condition preventing demolition works until there was a signed contract for the implementation of the scheme needed to be imposed on the CAC consent. The Officer responded to questions from the Committee.

 

In response to questions regarding comments submitted in writing by Mr MacBryde, an objector to the proposal, the Planning Officer advised that he disagreed with the assessment that the design was not sensitive, and judged that the proposal fitted the context of its environment. The Committee asked about the impact on neighbouring properties in respect of light, in response to which it was reported that there was an impact on one first-floor window in a property in the almshouses, but that the overall impact was not felt to be significant.

 

The Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy advised the Committee that the scheme had gone through a pre-application process, resulting in the application in its present form, which addressed issues raised by the Council. In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether officers agreed with the objectors’ assessment of the degree of overlooking to the almshouses which would arise from the proposal, it was confirmed that officers did not agree with this assessment, as it was their view that the existing high wall facing the almshouses prevented the proposed new building from affecting these properties further.

 

Two local residents, Mr MacBryde and Ms Goudy addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of a number of other local residents. Mr MacBryde explained that he was an architect and planner who had formerly worked for the Planning Inspectorate. Mr MacBryde had submitted a written statement objecting to the application, expressing a number of concerns, the main issues being the impact on the amenity by loss of light, noise and disturbance caused by traffic on the access lane and failure to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. Ms Goudy advised the Committee that she was a resident of the Island site, where local residents felt that the proposals were disproportionate and would loom over residential properties. Ms Goudy also expressed concerns that the proposals would exacerbate existing issues of traffic and parking, and that the back lane was unsuitable for vehicular access to the site. Ms Goudy read out a letter from a resident of the almshouses who was alarmed to hear of the proposals due to concerns about loss of sunlight, as sitting in her garden, which was her pride and joy, was her life.

 

Cllr Bob Hare addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. Cllr Hare recognised the contribution the school made to the area and to the borough as a whole, but expressed concerns that the proposals would be like an overhanging cliff and would reduce light to the almshouses. Cllr Hare stated that the Council should be encouraging better proposals and that the current application should be rejected on the grounds of its bulk, scale, massing and impact on the Conservation Area.

 

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr MacBryde confirmed that the issues of overshadowing and unsuitability of access via the back lane remained unchanged since a former application that was refused, and were still not addressed in the current scheme. Mr MacBryde clarified that the main issue was the scale of the proposal.  The Committee asked whether the Highgate CAAC had responded to state that they had no objections, or had simply not responded and it was confirmed that a response had been submitted, stating that the CAAC did not object.

 

The Committee asked about the difference in opinion between the objectors and officers regarding the impact of the proposals on light to nearby properties, in response to which Mr MacBryde reported that there appeared to be no disagreement regarding what the impact would be, but the significance and materiality of this impact was disputed.

 

In response to questions from the Committee regarding the view that the proposals would lead to an increase in noise and disturbance for local residents. Mr MacBryde stated that this was his professional opinion. The Committee asked whether there was any agreement about the impact of the view of the proposed building from the rear of the almshouses, in response to which Mr MacBryde stated that there was no agreement on this, as the applicants had not demonstrated the impact from this viewpoint, which would be damaging to residents.

 

Mr Richards, architect for the application, Mr Pheasant, the school bursar and Mr Harris, adviser on light issues, addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was reported that three public meetings had been held at the school and local residents had been sent leaflets regarding the application. It was reported that there was a genuine need for the proposals to improve safety and accessibility at the school and that the design was as sensitive as possible to the local area. Mr Harris reported that the school was very concerned about its impact on local residents, and light issues had been factored into the design process from a very early stage. Mr Harris advised that he had undertaken various tests and modelling in line with BRE guidelines and had objectively assessed the impact on neighbouring properties to be minimal. One bedroom window was assessed to be affected, but the impact on all other windows was within BRE guidelines for daylight and sunlight, with no increase in overshadowing.

 

In response to concerns raised by local residents regarding construction noise, Mr Pheasant advised that in order for the school to keep functioning, it was essential for the construction work to be as quiet as possible, and that measures would be in place to ensure this. Mr Pheasant also confirmed that the back lane would not be used for vehicular access.

 

The Committee asked whether the school had a travel plan to increase the number of people accessing the school by foot or public transport, rather than cars. Mr Pheasant confirmed that this was a priority for the school, which was working closely with the Council on this issue; there was a travel plan which was overseen by a senior staff member, and the school held a number of green days throughout the year, where travel other than by car was encouraged. Mr Pheasant confirmed that deliveries to the school would continue to be made via the middle courtyard and not the back lane or North Road. The Committee asked for the applicants’ view on whether they agreed that the proposals failed to enhance the conservation area, as stated by the objectors. Mr Richards advised that the proposed development would create a further symmetrical element which would add to the appearance of the North Road elevation.

 

The Committee asked about the concern expressed by a resident of the almshouses that the application would affect her ability to sit out in her garden. Mr Harris advised that any impact would only occur late in the day when the sun set, by which time light would already have been blocked by the high wall to the back of the almshouses, so there would be no change as a result of the proposed building. Mr Harris added that an accurate computer model had been used to establish that the building would not be visible from the almshouses, due to the existing wall. In response to questions from the Committee regarding whether there would be an increase in parking and traffic issues in the area, Mr Pheasant advised that there were no proposals to increase the number of pupils or teachers at the school, and therefore there would be no increase in traffic.

 

The Committee inspected the plans.

 

The Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy proposed that, if minded, the Committee could impose an additional condition preventing the Garner Quad vehicle gate access being used for deliveries.

 

RESOLVED

 

That, subject to conditions, including an additional condition preventing the Garner Quad vehicle gate access being used for deliveries, application HGY/2010/1888 be approved.

 

Conditions:

 

IMPLEMENTATION

 

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 and in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

 

SUSTAINABILITY/ ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMACE

 

4. A certificated BREEAM Post Construction Review, or other verification process agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be provided, confirming that the agreed sustainability/environmental standards have been met, prior to the occupation of the development.

 

Reason: To ensure that the proposal complies with the principles of sustainable development

 

5. A plan indicating the location of the air source heat pumps to be installed in the Foundation block and the associated calculations showing compliance with the reduction of 20% CO2 shall be provided to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the occupation of the building. Thereafter the renewable energy technology/ system shall be installed in accordance with the details approved and an independent post-installation review, or other verification process agreed, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority confirming the agreed technology has been installed prior to the occupation of the building, hereby approved.

 

Reason: To ensure the development incorporates on-site renewable energy generation to contribute to a reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the development, in line with national London and local planning policy.

 

TREES AND LANDSCAPING

 

6. An Arboricultural method statement, including a tree protection plan, must be prepared in accordance with BS5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction, for approval by the Council. A pre-commencement site meeting must be specified and attended by all interested parties, (Site manager, Consultant Arboriculturalist, Council Arboriculturalist and Contractors) to confirm all the protection measures to be installed for trees.

 

Reason: To ensure the adequate protection to trees on the site and adjacent sites.

 

7. Before any works herein permitted are commenced, all those trees to be retained, as indicated on the approved drawings, shall be protected by secure, stout, exclusion fencing erected at a minimum distance equivalent to the branch spread of the trees and in accordance with BS 5837:2005 and to a suitable height. Any works connected with the approved scheme within the branch spread of the trees shall be by hand only. No storage of materials, supplies or plant machinery shall be stored, parked, or allowed access beneath the branch spread of the trees or within the exclusion fencing. Robust protective fencing / ground protection must be installed prior to commencement of construction activities on site and retained until completion. It must be designed and installed as recommended in the method statement. The protective fencing must be inspected by the Council Arboriculturalist, prior to any works commencing on site and remain in place until works are complete.

 

Reason: In order to ensure the safety and well being of the trees on the site during constructional works that are to remain after building works are completed.

 

CONSTRUCTION

 

8. 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 1300 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.

 

9. Prior to the commencement of work a Construction Management Plan including a scheme for the management of the construction traffic associated with implementing this scheme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

 

Reason: To ensure the construction period of the development does not result in unreasonable disturbance for neighbouring properties and to minimise vehicular conflict at this location.

 

10. The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Local Planning Authority, and shall allow that person to observe the excavation and record items of interest and finds.

 

Reason: To enable archaeological investigation of the site.

 

OTHER

 

11. After the completion and occupation of the development hereby approved the Garner Quad vehicle gate access shall not be used for daily or other regular vehicular deliveries other than those essential for the upkeep and maintenance to this part of the school site.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

 

INFORMATIVE: The erection of the footway gantry, management of any footway diversions and use of the bus stand in North Road will require the developer to obtain the appropriate licences and/or traffic orders. The gantry will require a scaffold/hoarding licence which can be obtained from Haringey Council Traffic Management. The developer should telephone 0208 489 1712 for further information regarding this matter. The developer will need to liaise direct with Transport for London Buses regarding the use of the bus stand in North Road during the construction period.

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

The reasons for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

 

(a) The proposal is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

I.                    The design, form, detailing and facing materials of the proposed development is considered acceptable and has been designed sensitively in relationship to adjoining properties, its setting adjacent to a Listed Building and the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

II.                  The proposal will provide a high quality education facility which will provide enhanced opportunities for teaching and learning, with wider benefits to the local community.

 

(b) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan (July 2006); in particular the following G1 'Environment', G2 'Development and Urban Design', G9 'Community Wellbeing', UD2 'Sustainable Design and Construction', UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', UD7 'Waste Storage', ENV5 'Noise Pollution', M4 'Pedestrian & Cyclists', M10 'Parking for Development', CW1 'New Community/Health Facilities', OS17 'Tree Protection, Tree Masses and Spines', CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas', CSV2 'Listed Buildings', CSV5 'Alterations and Extensions in Conservation Areas', CSV8 'Archaeology' and Haringey Supplementary Planning Guidance (October 2006); SPG1a 'Design Guidance and Design Statements', SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology', SPG5 'Safety by Design', SPG7a 'Pedestrian & Vehicular Movement', SPG7b 'Travel Plans', SPG8b 'Materials', SPD Housing.

 

 

Section 106: No