Agenda item

Erection of part three/two storey block comprising 1 x 3 bed flat, 1 x 1 bed flat and 7 x 2 bed flats with associated landscaping, parking/cycle spaces and bin store.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to

a s)106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Schmitz absented himself for the duration of this item and took no part in discussions].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a part two, part three storey block comprising 9 flats to the rear of 600 Green Lanes following the demolition of existing garages on site. 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 grant permission subject to conditions and a s)106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was advised that the development would be designated as ‘car capped’ through the provision of four onsite parking spaces and not car free as stated within the report. In addition, the Committee were informed that a late objection had been received from 75 Haringey Park and which had been inline with the key points of objection summarised within the report by other local residents. An additional condition was also proposed to be imposed, should permission be granted, to require the development to achieve Code Level 4 for Sustainable Homes.

The following points were raised by the Committee in discussion of the officer report:

·        Concerns were raised regarding the funding arrangement to be entered into between the applicant and the landowner to secure the viability of the scheme. The applicant, a housing developer, would work in conjunction with the adjoining Langham Working Men’s Club as the owner of the site to deliver the scheme on the proviso that three of the flats on the development would be given to the Club to provide income to be used towards the upkeep and running of the venue as a community facility. This arrangement in turn impacted on the proposed s)106 contributions assessed by the applicant to be viable for the scheme and the proposed lack of provision of affordable housing units on site which was of particular concern to the Committee.

·        Members noted that the site was accessed via Colina Mews which had no segregated footway provision, with concerns subsequently raised regarding the safety of pedestrian access to the development. Officers from the Transport Team advised that the projected traffic flow of the road would remain low volume and as such, it was not considered necessary at the current time to have a shared use road. It was confirmed that this would however be kept under review and that future consideration could potentially be given to implementing a Home Zone in the area.

·        In response to a question regarding the potential for displacement parking issues to arise following the demolition of the garages currently on the site, confirmation was provided that it appeared that the majority of the garage units were used for storage. Parking was also available along Colina Mews.

A number of local residents addressed the Committee and raised the following points about the application:

·        The access arrangements to the site, including for wheelchair users, were insufficient, with subsequent risks posed to pedestrians on Colina Mews from the lack of a designated footpath.

·        The scheme had the potential to cause an increase in the volume of traffic in the area, and could exacerbate parking pressures.

·        The Langham Working Men’s Club should not be classified as a community asset as it operated as a private members club and that it would be inappropriate for the venue to in effect receive a subsidy as such. The majority of objectors stated that they had never used the Club. 

·        The lack of affordable housing provision and the dwelling mix proposed were in contravention of a number of Council policies.

·        Concerns were expressed that not all of the written objections submitted by local residents had been incorporated within the agenda report pack although they were present on the Council’s website.

·        The potential for the development to result in overlooking and overshadowing to the neighbouring properties on Park Road, particularly in light of the proposed balconies to the flats and the proximity of the scheme to the rear gardens of the Park Road houses.

·        The scheme was out of character with the surrounding two storey Victorian houses and due to its proposed size, had the potential to be overbearing and result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

A representative of the Langham Club addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        The Club had been in operation since 1915 and was run as a not for profit co-operative. The Club was considered a community asset as a venue for events such as exercise classes etc that local people could attend.

·        It was confirmed that the Club was open to women.

·        In order to make the scheme viable, the Club was working in conjunction with a developer to bring the application forward and thereby release equity from the site to secure the financial viability of the Club.

·        The applicant had undertaken a viability assessment for the scheme which had identified that due to the size of the development and the funding arrangement with the Club, that the provision of affordable housing would not be viable for the scheme. 

·        In terms of the concerns expressed on the scheme regarding overlooking and access issues, it was advised that the plans had been altered following comments received on a previous application and that planning officers were satisfied with the application and as such were recommending granting permission.

Cllr McNamara put forward a motion, which was subsequently carried, to refuse the application on the grounds of a lack of affordable housing provision; a lack of amenity space; design, bulk and massing issues; a lack of disabled access due to the absence of a pavement to Colina Mews and the risk of overlooking. It was

RESOLVED

·         That application HGY/2013/1119 be refused for the following reasons:

1. In the absence of providing an appropriate level of on-site affordable housing or commuted sum the proposal is considered contrary to 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 proposal would have a substandard provision for private amenity space/ communal gardens for the benefit of future occupiers of the development resulting in a poor quality of living accommodation contrary to Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011, Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013, Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and is inconsistent with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG1A and its Housing Supplementary Planning Document.

3. The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable by reason of its design, bulk and size and is considered contrary to Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006, Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013, Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2013 and inconsistent with the advice in Haringey Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance Note SPG1a.

4. The proposed development would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of local residents through the creation of overlooking and a resulting loss of privacy contrary to Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013, Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and inconsistent with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance note SPG1A and ‘Housing’ Supplementary Planning Document.

5. The proposed development and associated mews to the front of the site would not provide adequate access arrangements for people with disabilities and is therefore contrary to Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006, Policy SP7 of the Haringey Local Plan and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2011.