Agenda item

Redevelopment of vacant site for a residential development of 19 dwellings comprising eighteen flats and one dwelling house (all C3 Use Class) including private and communal amenity spaces, refuse facilities, cycle storage, landscaping, three parking spaces and new vehicular access from Kings Road

 

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for redevelopment of a vacant site for a residential development of 19 dwellings comprising eighteen flats and one dwelling house (all C3 Use Class) including private and communal amenity spaces, refuse facilities, cycle storage, landscaping, three parking spaces and new vehicular access from Kings Road. The report set out details of the proposed development, site and surroundings, relevant planning history, consultation and responses and material planning considerations.

 

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report.

 

Cllr Wright, ward councillor for Woodside, addressed the Committee on behalf of a local resident and raised the following points:

 

·         The site was ideal for residential use, especially as there was a need for land for new developments in the borough.

·         Redevelopment of the site would be welcomed, as it was currently in a state of disuse.

·         The design was supported, there would be no overlooking of neighbouring properties and the proposal was felt to be in keeping with the area.

·         Neighbours had been consulted properly and the applicants were commended for their engagement with the local community.

·         Cllr Wright personally expressed concerns regarding the level of affordable housing contribution, but stated that this was a wider issue that he would take up in his role as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and was not specific to this particular application.

 

In response to a further question from the Committee regarding the lack of affordable housing and the onus being on developers in relation to viability assessments, Cllr Wright confirmed that this was a wider issue than this particular application. It was noted that the application had been considered at the pre-application stage, and that Members had noted at that time that the affordable housing contribution offered by the applicants was higher than that required in accordance with the viability assessment.

 

The Committee asked questions of the officers in relation to the application, and the following points were raised as part of the discussion:

 

·         The Housing Service had been consulted on the application, but had not formally provided any comments for inclusion in the report. Officers advised that the Housing Service had, however, attending the pre-application meeting and had given the view that, given the small number of units at the site, an off-site contribution would be preferable.

·         The Committee expressed concern that not all of the eligible housing associations in the borough had been asked whether they would be interested in managing on-site affordable units at this site. It was confirmed that all five of the Council’s preferred providers had been approached, but that in general housing associations took the view that  it was not practical or cost-effective to take on sites with only one or two affordable units. It was noted that discussions with Homes for Haringey in relation to the possible management of sites with a small number of affordable units were progressing separately.

·         It was confirmed that the viability assessment submitted had been independently assessed, and that the contribution arising from that assessment was £165k. The applicants had chosen to offer an increased amount of £250k.

·         In response to further concerns regarding the level of affordable housing contribution, it was confirmed that details of the viability assessment and the reasons for the proposed contribution were set out in the report.

·         It was confirmed that the proposed development was compliant with the Lifetime Homes Standard, as set out in paragraph 6.11.1 of the report.

·         The Committee asked about the lack of green spaces proposed in relation to the policy on sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). The applicants confirmed that a green communal space was proposed and that they were happy to explore the options in respect of SUDS provision. The Committee agreed that an informative be added for the applicants to explore the option of delivering a SUDS within the proposed green space.

·         The Committee asked the architect about the efforts made to ensure the design fit in with the surrounding area. The architect advised that there had been extensive discussion with the planners around the massing and appearance of the scheme; the stepping of the roof level on both sides of the block was intended to fit in with the height of the surrounding buildings, and the gap for the stair core was designed to break down the overall volume and to be in keeping with other buildings in the vicinity. It was noted that the buildings in Canning Crescent were of a diverse nature and that the materials and details proposed were intended to pick up on the best of the neighbouring features, with a contemporary interpretation. The architect did not agree with the suggestion made that the proposal resembled an office block.

·         Officers confirmed that the quality of the materials as demonstrated by the applicants so far was felt to be satisfactory, and it was noted that there was also a condition giving the Council’s planners approval of the final materials to be used.

·         The Committee asked about the reasons for the viability assessment having been submitted on the basis of an alternative use for the site, in this case student accommodation, and whether this was usual practice. Officers advised that, as the site had been vacant for a significant period of time, it was standard industry approach to use an alternative use value. Officers advised that they would not have supported the alternative of using the market value, as this would have resulted in a lower affordable housing contribution level being identified.

 

In response to a question from the Committee, the legal advisor confirmed that it would be improper for the Committee to seek refusal for an application on the basis of the level of affordable housing contribution when that application had been determined as compliant with the relevant planning policies. The Committee was advised that such a decision would fall outside the Committee’s remit and would be subject to legal challenge.

 

Cllr Bevan moved an alternative recommendation that the application be refused on the basis of design and the level of section 106 contribution proposed, and this motion was seconded by Cllr Rice. On a vote of four in favour and five against and one abstention, the motion was not agreed.

 

The Chair moved the recommendation as set out in the report, that the application be granted subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 legal agreement with the additional informative that the applicant explore the option of delivering a SUDS within the proposed green space, and on a vote of four in favour and five against and one abstention, this motion was not agreed.

 

The Committee was advised by the legal advisor that the application was currently undetermined and could be subject to appeal against non-determination. It was noted that the failure to agree the recommendation to grant permission was not the same as a positive vote to refuse, supported by a majority of the Committee. It was noted that it was available to the Committee to move a further recommendation.

 

Cllr Rice moved a recommendation that the application be refused on the grounds that the design was inappropriate in this location, and this motion was seconded by Cllr Carter. The Committee was advised that any refusal on the grounds of design should set out why the Committee felt that the design was unacceptable with reference to the relevant design guidance, particularly as the Quality Review Panel had commented that the design was acceptable. It was noted that design was a subjective matter. On a vote of three in favour, six against and one abstention, this motion was not agreed.

 

Cllr Weston moved the original recommendation as set out in the report, that the application be granted subject to conditions and subject to a section 106 legal agreement, with the additional informative that the applicant explore the option of delivering a SUDS within the proposed green space, and this was seconded by Cllr Doron. On a vote of four in favour, four against and two abstentions, there was a tied decision.

 

The Committee sought the advice of the legal advisor, who indicated that there was the option of the application remaining undetermined or for the Chair to exercise her right to a casting vote. In response to questions from the legal advisor the Chair indicated that she wished to exercise this right and that she would use her casting vote in favour of the motion. With the vote therefore standing at five in favour, four against and one abstention, this motion was carried.

 

In response to a point of order raised by a member of the Committee, the legal advisor confirmed that the Chair’s right to a casting vote as set out in the Council’s constitution was not dependent on a preliminary vote having previously been cast by the Chair for or against the motion in question.

 

RESOLVED

 

i)          That the Committee resolved to grant planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out below and subject to the prior completion of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

 

ii)         That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 31 March 2016 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management shall in her sole discretion allow.

 

iii)       That, following completion of the agreement referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

Conditions

 

1)  Development  begun no later than three years from date of decision

2)  In accordance with approved plans

3)  Materials submitted for approval

4)  Sustainability

5)  No permitted development for satellite dishes

6)  Cycle parking

7)  Refuse storage

8)  Land contamination investigation works

9)  Contamination remediation if required

10)  Landscaping

11)  Landscape management

12)  Construction Management Plan

13)  Sustainable drainage

14)  Dust

15)  Electric vehicles

16)  Piling

 

Informatives

 

1)  Co-operation

2)  Drainage

3)  Thames Water

4)  Sewers

5)  Street Numbering

6)  Hours of Construction

7)  CIL

8)  Highways works

9)  Asbestos

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

 

1)  An affordable housing contribution of £250,000

2)  A carbon offsetting contribution of £4,050

3)  A Construction Training and Local Labour Initiatives contribution of £24,052

4)  Resident’s Parking Permit restriction (‘Car-Free’ development)

5)  A transport and highways contribution of £25,000

6)  A Traffic Management Order contribution of £1,000

7)  Car Club membership (two years membership and £50 credit)

8)  Provision of 10% wheelchair accessible dwellings

9)  Considerate Contractors Scheme

 

iv)        That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (i) above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

(i) In the absence of a financial contribution towards Affordable Housing, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on affordable housing provision within the Borough. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy SP2 and London Plan policy 3.12.

 

(ii) In the absence of a financial contribution towards the amendment of the Traffic Management Order, highways works and car club funding, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the highway and fail to provide a sustainable mode of travel. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy SP7, saved UDP policy UD3 and London Plan policies 6.9, 6.11 and 6.13.

 

(iii) In the absence of a financial contribution towards the carbon offsetting, the proposal would fail to deliver an acceptable level of carbon saving. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policy SP4 and London Plan policy 5.2.

 

v)         In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (iv) above, the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of Planning sub-committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission which duplicates the Planning Application provided that:

(i) There has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and

(ii) The further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Head of Development Management within a period of not more than 12 months from the date of the said refusal, and

(iii) The relevant parties shall have previously entered into the agreement contemplated in resolution (1) above to secure the obligations specified therein.