Agenda item

Demolition of the buildings on site excluding the Grade II listed Adminstration Building and locally listed buildings (Roseneath and Norton Lees); refurbishment of listed buildings (providing 25 flats) and construction of 8 apartment blocks (comprising 110 flats) and including a basement carpark with 100 spaces; construction of 21 terraced houses and 5 apartment units; some surface parking and comprehensive landscaping of the site (amended description).

Listed Building Consent for the demolition of the buildings on site excluding the Grade II listed Adminstration Building and locally listed buildings (Roseneath and Norton Lees); refurbishment of listed buildings (providing 25 flats) and construction of 8 apartment blocks (comprising 110 flats) and including a basement carpark with 100 spaces; construction of 21 terraced houses and 5 apartment units; some surface parking and comprehensive landscaping of the site (amended description).

RECOMMENDATION; refuse permission for both applications (namely the planning application HGY/2013/0061 and Listed Building Consent application HGY/2013/0068.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, on the application to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the demolition of the buildings on the above site excluding the Grade II listed Administration Building and locally listed buildings; refurbishment of Listed Buildings (providing 25 flats) and construction of 8 apartment blocks (providing 110 flats) and a basement car park with 100 spaces; construction of 21 terraced houses and 5 apartment units; some surface parking and comprehensive landscaping. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to refuse permission for both the planning application and the Listed Building Consent application.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report and drew the Committee’s attention to a tabled document which had been unavailable at the time of agenda dispatch. This included a revised affordable housing offer for the site submitted by the applicant, Hanover Housing Developments Ltd, on 1 July and a number of additional responses received during the consultation period. A revised officer recommendation was also included within the tabled report, unchanged in recommending refusal of both applications but making this subject to the Mayor’s Office raising no objections to the Council’s draft decision to refuse planning permission.

The Planning Officer outlined that the primary grounds for the recommendation to refuse both applications was the lack of progress in negotiating with the applicant an acceptable affordable housing offer for the site that would be in line with Council policies setting out a borough wide affordable housing target of 50% and also met the particular recognised need for additional general needs affordable housing units in the west of the borough. Confirmation was provided that despite the revised offer from Hanover Housing constituting an increase in the original level of affordable housing proposed for the site from 24 units to 51, the units would be provided solely as affordable housing for the over 55s and not the general needs housing units originally proffered. Confirmation was provided that the Council had not identified or evidenced a significant need for additional over 55s housing provision within the borough. Officers outlined the extensive efforts made both prior to the sale of the site and before the submission of the planning application to clearly convey the Council’s expectations for the site in relation to affordable housing provision. Protracted negotiations had also been held in this regard following the submission of the application. Officers outlined that the fundamental divergence on the position of affordable housing provision related to the lack of agreement between the applicant and the Council in relation to assessments of the viability of the scheme underpinning the original affordable housing offer. The Council additionally had not been provided with an updated study supporting the revised affordable housing offer put forward by the applicant. As a knock on, negotiations had been unable to progress towards the agreement of a s106 legal agreement for the scheme to secure certain mitigation measures relating to community infrastructure, which in turn rendered the scheme unacceptable to the Council.

Cllr Bevan addressed the Committee in capacity of Cabinet Member for Housing and raised the following points in support of the officer recommendation to refuse permission:

·        Both the original and the revised offer from Hanover breached Council policy in relation to affordable housing and that the applicant had had full knowledge of the Council’s position prior to purchasing the site.

·        No recognised need had been identified within the borough for the provision of additional housing for older people.

·        The claim made by the applicant that the sale of the open market residential units on the site would release under-occupied social housing properties elsewhere in the borough was refuted.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following comments about the application:

·        Concerns were raised regarding the massing of the proposed development to the north of the site adjacent to Grand Avenue, with views expressed that this area of the scheme by design would be overdeveloped and cramped. Concerns were also expressed over the accuracy of the separation distances outlined on the plans to the variable size gardens of the Grand Avenue properties abutting the site, with the associated risk of subsequent overlooking and overshadowing.

·        The potential for the development to exacerbate existing parking pressures in the area.

·        The potential exacerbation of school place pressures in the area were of concern.

·        General support was provided for the Council’s position in relation to the proportion of affordable housing provided for the scheme.

Mr Moore, the representative for the applicant, Hanover Housing, addressed the Committee and raised the following points including responses to questions from Members:

·        The focus of the scheme would be to provide housing for older people wishing to downsize, thereby meeting a housing need as well as freeing up larger family housing elsewhere in the borough including through the offering of financial incentives. 

·        The scheme would support a number of Council policies including the Older People’s Housing Strategy etc. 

·        The focus on the housing of the over 55s age client group would mitigate the impact of the development on infrastructure in the local area. Following a question from the Committee, confirmation was provided that Hanover as an older peoples charity had a legal obligation to focus on this client group which impacted on its ability to proffer general needs affordable housing.

·        It was considered that the Council’s policy in relation to affordable housing did not constitute an absolute requirement but an aspiration and in addition was stated to be subject to the undertaking of a viability assessment. 

·        Hanover Housing had undertaken a full viability assessment for the scheme forming the basis of the subsequent affordable housing offer put forward. The land value calculations used by the Council to review the viability assessment were disputed.

·        The new affordable housing offer put forward would be supported using charitable resources, which would also remove any profit from the scheme with the sale of open market properties covering the affordable housing provision. It was considered that the revised offer would also address a number of issues identified by the GLA for the original offer.

Marc Dorfman, the Council’s Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Economy, addressed the Committee to provide further clarification on the Council’s position. It was reiterated that the primary disagreement between the applicant and the Council was over the proposed affordable housing provision for the development. The Council had employed consultants to review the viability of the scheme and to look at the amount of general needs affordable housing that could be provided, with the Council fundamentally disagreeing with the land value attributed to the site by the applicant in their viability assessment which had been based on market value levels. The Council considered that viability should be assessed using existing benchmark land use values, an approach supported by the GLA and assessed as being reasonable according to Counsel advise. Under these calculations, it had been identified that additional affordable housing provision for the scheme would be viable. The Council also had concerns regarding the lack of housing mix proposed for the site and the value for money associated with the overpayment of incentives. In summary, the officer recommendation was to reject the application on the basis of the affordable housing offer not being in accordance with Council policy as set out in the Local Plan and Unitary Development Plan as well as the London Plan in terms of meeting the housing need identified in the borough, and the subsequent absence therefore of an agreed s106 legal agreement to secure mitigation measures for the scheme.

The Chair moved the revised recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

• That subject to the Mayor’s Office raising no objection to the Council’s draft decision, that permission for planning application HGY/2013/0061 and Listed Building Consent application HGY/2013/0068 be refused.

Reasons:

1.    The proposed development, with the provision of only 15% of units (12% of habitable rooms) as affordable housing, would fail to maximise the contribution of the site to the supply of affordable housing in the borough, for which there is a demonstrable need, contrary to policy SP2 Housing of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013 and Policy 3.12 (Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed Use Schemes) of the London Plan July 2011.

2. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing a contribution towards educational infrastructure, would place an unacceptable strain on local educational resources, contrary to policies SP16 (Community Facilities) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013.

3. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement

Securing contributions towards the feasibility, design and consultation relating to the implementation of a controlled parking zone in the area surrounding the site, and the absence of an agreement to the dedication of the development as ‘Car Restricted Development’, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to parking stress and congestion in the surrounding area, contrary to policy SP7 (Transport) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013 and saved policy UD3 (General Principles) of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006

4. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing a travel plan, contributions to a travel plan co-ordinator, and agreement on car club provision and car club contributions, would be likely to give rise to significantly increased car-borne trips and would result in an unsustainable form of development, contrary to policy SP7 (Transport) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013 and saved policy M10 (Parking for Development) of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006

5.The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing financial contributions towards local safety improvements in the area, would fail to mitigate the impact of the development created by increased trips contrary to policy SP7(Transport) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013 and saved policy UD3 (General Principles) of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006

6. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing financial contributions towards bus stop accessibility measures (including the two bus stops on Muswell Hill), cycling and walking improvements in the surrounding area, would fail to promote measures to influence behavioural
 change and improve access to public transport, particularly for the mobility impaired, contrary to policy SP7 (Transport) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013, saved policy UD3 (General Principles) of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006 and policy 3.16 (Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure) of the London Plan July 2011.

7. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing the submission of, and implementation in accordance with, a demolition and construction management plan, and a construction logistics plan, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to traffic disruption and dangerous situations for pedestrians (including children attending the local schools) and other road users, and would be detrimental to the amenities of the area generally, contrary to policy SP7 (Transport) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013 and saved policy UD3 (General Principles) of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan July 2006

8.     The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement

securing local labour and procurement, would fail to contribute towards the creation of local employment and business opportunities and to contribute to the regeneration of the area, contrary to policies SP9 (Improving Skills and Training to Support Access to Jobs and Community Cohesion and Inclusion) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013

9. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing contributions for public open space and formal areas of play, would be likely to contribute to pressure and demand on the facilities in the area, contrary to policy SP13 (Open Space and Biodiversity) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013 and the London Plan SPG: Shaping Neighbourhoods; Play and Informal Recreation September 2012.

10. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards community facilities, would be likely to result in unacceptable additional pressures on existing facilities in the area, contrary to policy SP16 (Community Facilities) of the London Borough of Haringey Local Plan: Strategic Policies March 2013

Reasons for refusal of Listed Building Consent:

1. In the absence of an approved scheme for the redevelopment of the site, the proposal would result in a harmful gap site which would fail to

preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this part of the

Muswell Hill Conservation Area, contrary to policy CSV7 ‘Demolition in

Conservation Areas’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and SPG2 Conservation and Archaeology.