Outline Application with matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for mixed use redevelopment to comprise the demolition of existing buildings/ structures and associated site clearance and erection of new buildings / structures to provide residential units, employment uses (Use Class B1 and B8), retail uses (Use Class A1 and A3), community uses (Use Class D1) associated access, parking and servicing space, infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development
RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and subject to conditions.
The Committee considered a report on an application to grant planning permission for an outline application with matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for mixed use redevelopment to comprise the demolition of existing buildings/ structures and associated site clearance and erection of new buildings / structures to provide residential units, employment uses (Use Class B1 and B8), retail uses (Use Class A1 and A3), community uses (Use Class D1) associated access, parking and servicing space, infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development. 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 a s106 Legal Agreement and subject to conditions.
The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an amendment to the s106 Agreement heads of terms, proposed conditions and to recommendation 2.
A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application and in response to questions of clarification subsequently asked by the Committee:
· The application would set a dangerous precedent for future developments in north Haringey for both high density schemes in suburban locations and the loss of protected employment land. The likelihood of a domino affect was of concern where landowners would elect to run down Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) in order to justify conversion to more financially valuable and in demand residential land.
· The area surrounding the site had been mis-characterised as an urban area but in reality was suburban in nature, with two storey housing predominating and as such was unsuitable for such a tall, overbearing scheme.
· The site had poor transport links being served only by one overcrowded bus route, the W3 and not in close proximity to any stations.
· The area already suffered from poor access to amenities and public services including oversubscribed schools and a lack of GP surgeries within walking distance.
· Proposals for onsite parking provision were insufficient.
· The scheme would have a significant visual impact in being double the height of neighbouring properties to the north of the site including Devonshire Hill Lane due to the sloping of the site. The applicant’s artistic representations of the scheme were misleading in not reflecting the absolute height of the building envelope being sought.
· Siting the scheme in a suburban area was contrary to planning policy and the London Plan and as such should be refused on the grounds of illegality. Such a scheme would more appropriately be located in a town centre location or close to the new Spurs stadium as part of the regeneration approach.
· The conversion of the designated industrial and employment land on site for residential development should not be permitted and the Council had given conflicting advice on the planning policy position for the site relating to retaining the land for employment use.
The Committee raised the following questions in response to the objector’s representations:
· In response to a question regarding the accuracy of visual representations of the building height, officers confirmed that the application had been assessed against the absolute building height figures set out within the parameter plans submitted by the applicant. It was also advised that ground levels had been taken into account when assessing the application and that buildings on site would not exceed a height of 25m.
· Further explanation was sought on the acceptance of the position of there being no reasonable prospect of the site being utilised for employment use in the future as set out in the NPPF. Officers responded that the application was for a mixed use scheme incorporating 500sqm of employment floorspace. The scheme aimed to strike a balanced position, with the benefits including the provision of new housing and some employment floorspace considered to outweigh the net loss of employment floorspace.
· Concerns were expressed over the impact of the loss of employment land on delivery of the Council’s targets for new jobs creation and the apparently competing interests of the delivery of new housing and new jobs. Officers advised that the reprovisioned employment floorspace under the scheme was projected to support 24 jobs compared to the 10 currently onsite. It also reflected a general direction of travel in demand shifting away from traditional heavy industry landuse on commercial land towards more tertiary industries. An additional driver for the scheme was the role it would play in unlocking the High Road West regeneration scheme with the associated delivery of new housing and jobs.
· Further information was sought on concerns raised by objectors regarding GP and school place provision in the area. Officers advised that the scheme would not generate sufficient need for an additional GP surgery or school class. A strategic approach would be taken to assessing education and health service provision across the borough to support regeneration and projected growth forecasts and how best to focus CIL, NHS and Department for Education funding to meet demand.
· The potential for overlooking to properties on The Green was questioned. It was advised in response that four properties on the Green backed onto the site, none of which contained south facing windows. The main impact would be on the gardens but which would remain within BRE guidelines for daylight and sunlight.
· In response to a question about parking stress from the scheme, officers advised that the site had good public transport connectivity with 6 bus routes operating within walking distance. The results of a recent consultation on parking in the Tottenham area had shown broad support for the introduction of CPZs and the applicant would have to contribute to any future implementation alongside restrictions on permits for future residents of the scheme.
· Further assurances were sought on the accessibility of the site, particularly in light of overcrowding on the W3 bus route during peak times. The Transport officer advised that TfL had assessed this bus route and the applicant would be make a contribution in order to increase the frequency during morning rush hour but that overall there was sufficient capacity.
· An objector was asked to clarify what was meant by illegality. She responded by reading an email from Matthew Paterson (Head of Strategic Planning) dated 11 July and her own statement concerning proposals to change the site allocation. Officers commented that this was not illegal as the Council was duty bound to take into account such policies and it was noted the emerging development management policies were after the examination more flexible regarding the release of employment land.
Cllrs Adje, G Bull and Stennett addressed the Committee as local ward councillors and raised the following issues:
· The scheme was too dense and poorly thought out
· The site had been deliberately run down by the applicant to justify redevelopment to residential
· The reasons for not retaining the site as commercial employment land had not been fully set out including evidence that it could not successfully be used as industrial land in the future. It therefore undermined regeneration approaches and set a precedent for the conversion of Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS) to residential use.
· The two GP surgeries in the area were already at full capacity.
· The site was unsuitable for residential development due to the proximity of commercial businesses, a fact which supported its retention as employment land.
· The scheme constituted overdevelopment of the site and would result in the provision of insufficient amenity space.
· The affordable housing contribution was low and didn’t reflect the financial benefit to the applicant of the uplift in land values from the conversion of LSIS land to residential.
· The application made no reference to the potential exacerbation of existing traffic and parking problems in the area.
· The site was no longer required for decanting from the Love Lane estate.
Cllr Strickland addressed the Committee in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning and raised the following points:
· It was acknowledged that it was a challenging site to develop due to the land designation and mixed views on the best approach but that a balanced position had been reached.
· The scheme would provide 144 new homes including affordable housing units at social rent levels.
· The site, as well as the surrounding industrial units, supported only low job density commercial operations and was unsuitable for higher job density activities due to the location away from key transport hubs. A commercial operation onsite would likely have a greater impact on surrounding properties.
· The height of the scheme was reasonable and proportionate.
· The applicant would provide a contribution towards additional capacity on the W3 bus route towards Finsbury Park during the morning peak and a significant level of parking would be provided onsite.
Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application:
· The scheme would bring forward the mixed use development of an underutilised site.
· Council policy allowed for the release of protected employment land in certain circumstances where there would be an increase in jobs provided and wider regeneration benefits, in this case unlocking the High Road West regeneration scheme.
· The site had been marketed for lease for various commercial uses but had been unsuccessful. This was inline with GLA research showing a shift in job generation away from manufacturing and traditional industrial jobs.
· Demand was high for both open market and affordable housing units within the borough and the Council had challenging targets to meet on the delivery of new homes.
· The density of the scheme was inline with the London Plan and the height within Council guidelines.
· Consultation had been undertaken with local residents and design changes made in response to comments received including reducing the height by a storey. Further consultation would be undertaken with the local community as part of a future reserved matters application.
· The Quality Review Panel were in support of the scheme.
· The site although suburban in nature had urban characteristics.
· S106 contributions would secure benefits such as affordable housing, environmental improvements, improvements to W3 service etc.
· The scheme would support at conservative estimate an additional 10 new jobs.
The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the representations received:
· Clarification was sought on concerns over the setting of a precedent for the conversion of employment land to residential. In response, officers outlined that at a general level, planning applications could only be determined on their individual merits. In terms of this application, the change was supported based on its specific circumstances, it being located on the edge of the employment area and having no substantial viable commercial operation currently onsite. The legal officer confirmed that in certain instances the courts had held precedent can be a material planning consideration when there was an evidential basis except in exceptional cases where the facts spoke for themselves e.g. row of terrace houses where one has a rear development.
· Further details were sought on the position related to decanting and the degree this could be considered as a material planning consideration. In response, it was outlined that current Council policy set out that wider regeneration benefits could be considered as one of the reasons for the release of employment land, in this instance provision of potential decant units for the Love Lane estate. This scheme would provide the opportunity for these residents to move locally to Council owned units to speed up the redevelopment of the estate and free up the housing register.
· Further clarification was sought on the reasons that the site could not successfully be used for employment in the future. Officers outlined that the mixed use scheme would provide both new homes whilst supporting a higher job density than currently in place. Due to the location, the site could not support high density employment.
· In response to a question, confirmation was provided of an error within the developer’s brochure referring to 17 units being at affordable rent instead of social rent which was necessary in order to facilitate the decanting of Council tenants.
· In terms of car trip generation surveys undertaken, clarification was sought on why comparisons had been made against a previous consented scheme and not the current operations on site. Officers advised that this was a standard approach for traffic forecasting and that a car capped residential scheme onsite would have lower traffic generation than a commercial operation.
· Haringey’s employment plan set out a target for 12k new jobs and progress to date on delivering this was questioned. Cllr Strickland outlined that new jobs were a priority for the key regeneration areas of Tottenham and Wood Green, with a focus on retaining and maximising employment space in well connected sites located near to stations and in town centre locations.
· Concerns were raised over the small contribution proposed for improvements to the pedestrian pathway adjacent to the site. Officers advised that the £15k contribution would fund lighting enhancements but that further improvements to the public realm in the area including new pedestrian crossing, relocating bus stop and improvements to the structure of the public right of way etc would require a s278 agreement.
· Further concerns were raised that the scheme was contrary to the protections in place under DM38 and 40 for the retention of the site as employment land. Officers advised that these documents were being updated under the emerging draft Local Plan documents to provide greater flexibilities and alignment with the Core Strategy. Irrespectively, the scheme was compliant with overriding provisions within SP8 and EMP4 as set out within the officer report.
· Clarification was sought on the level of jobs that could be provided on the site should it be redeveloped from its rundown state for employment use. Officers reiterated that the Committee could only consider the application before it and not alternative proposals for the site. The applicant advised that the projected 24 jobs to be supported onsite under the scheme was a conservative estimate.
· Further clarification was sought from the applicant regarding the density of the scheme related to the London Plan guidelines. The applicant acknowledged that the site was in a suburban location but also had urban characteristics and a PTAL of 3 and as such sat between suburban and urban parameters on the London Plan. The nature and constraints of the site had been key drivers for the scheme as opposed to density and height parameters.
Cllr Bevan put forward a motion, seconded by Cllr Carter, to reject the application on the grounds of Supplementary Planning Documents, layout and density, the provision of affordable housing, lost economy and employment generation and the cumulative impact.
In response to this motion, the Assistant Director Planning advised the Committee against moving refusal on the grounds of affordable housing as the applicant had provided evidence that the maximum reasonable level would be provided and also density which would be hard to defend at appeal. Objections around layout would also need further expansion as to whether this related to the layout of the blocks or the residential units inline with it being an outline application. It was suggested that the loss of LSIS and the scale of the scheme to the north-eastern corner of the site would be more robust grounds for refusal. In response to this, Cllr Bevan agreed to amend the wording of his motion to remove the reference to layout but otherwise the motion remained unchanged. The revised motion fell at a vote.
The Chair moved the substantive recommendation of the report and it was
· That planning application HGY/2016/0828 be approved subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement and that the Head of Development Management be delegated the authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to any direction from The Mayor of London and the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement. The section 106 Legal Agreement referred to in resolution above is to be completed no later than 12 December 2016 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow. Following completion of the agreement within the time period provided for above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of all conditions all conditions imposed on application ref: HGY/2016/0828. Delegated authority is granted to the Head of Development Management to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice-Chairman) of the Sub-Committee.
1. All applications for the approval of Reserved Matters within the OUTLINE permission hereby approved, as depicted on the approved plans shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, and the development hereby authorised must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates, failing which the permission shall be of no effect:
a) The expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
b) The expiration of two years from the final date of approval of any of the reserved matters.
Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of Section 92 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
2. This permission is granted in OUTLINE, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and before any development is commenced, the approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained to the following reserved matters, namely:
i) (a) appearance; (b) landscaping; (c) layout; (d) scale;
Full particulars of these reserved matters, including plans, sections and elevations and all to an appropriate scale, and any other supporting documents indicating details of
B1) the materials to be used on all external surfaces
B2) details of boundary walls, fencing and other means of enclosure
B3) the provision for parking, loading and turning of vehicles within the site
shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of obtaining their approval, in writing. The development shall then be carried out in complete accordance with those particulars.
Reason: In order to comply with Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988 (as amended) which requires the submission to, and approval by, the Local Planning Authority of reserved matters.
3. The OUTLINE development hereby authorised shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those being:
15/0809/SK08 Rev A - Proposed Site Access Junction Arrangement with Visibility Splays
90 – 101 Rev PL-1 - Site Location Plan
90 – 102 Rev PL-1 - Site Demolition and Existing Levels Plan
90 – 103 Rev PL-2 - Building Plot Plan
90 – 104 Rev PL-1 - Public Realm Plan
90 – 105 Rev PL-2 - Building Use Plan
90 – 106 Rev PL-1 - Site Access Plan
Development Specification and Framework – June 2016
Design Codes – June 2016
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and to ensure the Devlopment keeps within the parameters assessed pusuant to the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Development.
4. The number of dwellings to be developed on the application site shall not exceed 144. A minimum of 500 sqm of employment floorspace and a minimum of 300 sqm of retail floorspace shall be provided.
Reason: To ensure the Development is carried out in accordance with the plans and other submitted details and to ensure the Development keeps within the parameters assessed.
Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic or the conditions of general safety of the highway consistent with Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2011 and Saved Policies UD3 and M10 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.
Reason: To promote sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies 6.1 and 6.9 of the London Plan 2011 and Policy SP7 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013.
7. At least 10% of all dwellings within each tenure type shall be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair use (Part M4 (3) 'wheelchair user dwellings' of the Building Regulations 2015) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development meets the Council's Standards for the provision of wheelchair accessible dwellings in accordance with Haringey Local Plan 2013 Policy SP2 and the London Plan Policy 3.8.
8. No development (save for demolition above ground level and those temporary and/or advanced infrastructure and enabling works previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (incorporating a Site Waste Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and to preserve the amenities of the area generally, in accordance with London Plan Policy 7.6, Local Plan Policies SP1 SP4 and SP7, and Saved UDP Policy UD3.
9. No development (save for demolition above ground level and those temporary and/or advanced infrastructure and enabling works previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy shall include a restriction in run-off and surface water storage on site as outlined in the FRA and should evidence how the development will achieve green-field run-off rates or explain why it cannot achieve these levels. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and improve habitat and amenity, in accordance with London Plan Policies 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, Local Plan Policy SP5.
10. No development (save for demolition above ground level) shall take place until such time as:
a) A desktop study has been carried out, details of which shall include the identification of previous uses, potential contaminants that might be expected given those uses, and other relevant information. A diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors shall be produced. The desktop study and Conceptual Model shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Only if the desktop study and Conceptual Model indicate no risk of harm may the development commence, upon the receipt of written approval from the Local Planning Authority;
b) If the desktop study and Conceptual Model indicate any risk of harm, a site investigation shall be designed for the site using information obtained from the desktop study and Conceptual Model. This shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to that investigation being carried out. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:
· a risk assessment to be undertaken;
· refinement of the Conceptual Model; and
· the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements.
The risk assessment and refined Conceptual Model shall be submitted, along with the site investigation report, to the Local Planning Authority.
b) If the risk assessment and refined Conceptual Model indicate any risk or harm, a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, using the information obtained from the site investigation, and also detailing any post remedial monitoring shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to that remediation being carried out on site.
Reasons: To ensure the development can be implemented and occupied with adequate regard for environmental and public safety in accordance with Policy 5.21 of the London Plan 2011 and Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.
11. No development shall take place (including demolition) until an impact study of the existing water supply infrastructure has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Thames Water. The study should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. Should additional capacity be required, the impact study should include ways in which this capacity will be accommodated. The development within each phase will then be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of this impact study and retained in perpetuity thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the addition demand created by the development.
12. No impact piling within each phase shall take place on site until a piling method statement (detailing depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such poling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage and water infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling within each phase must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.
Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground sewerage utility and water infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground sewerage utility infrastructure.
13. Prior to the submission of the Reserved Matters application, details of the proposed detailed energy strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This strategy should comply with the London Plan energy hierarchy and the London Plan carbon reduction target.
Reason: to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 5.2.
14. Prior to the submission of the Reserved Matters applications, details shall be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, that both domestic and non-domestic buildings within the Development are designed to reduce potential overheating and reliance on air conditioning systems and demonstrate general accordance with the cooling heirarchy as outline in London Plan Policy 5.9 and that all domestic dwellings are designed without the need for active cooling. The development shall be implemented in accordance with these details and retained in perpetuity thereafter.
Reasons: To ensure that the development achieves a high level of sustainability in accordance with Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.15, and 5.9 of the London Plan and Policies SP0 and SP4 the Haringey Local Plan.
15. The hereby approved retail and office (A1 & B1a Use Class) floorspace shall not be occupied until a final Certificate has been issued certifying that BREEAM (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainable building which replaces that scheme) rating Very Good has been achieved for the hereby approved retail and office floorspace,
Reasons: To ensure that the development achieves a high level of sustainability in accordance with Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.15 of the London Plan 2011 and Policies SP0 and SP4 the Haringey Local Plan 2013.
16. The dwellings hereby approved shall achieve a carbon reduction in CO2 emissions of at least 35% under Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 standard.
Reasons: To ensure that the development achieves a high level of sustainability in accordance with Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.15 of the London Plan 2011 and Policies SP0 and SP4 the Haringey Local Plan 2013.
18. At detailed submission stage details of how the applicant will reduce the development’s effect on the biodiversity and increase access to the local environment must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development provides the maximum provision towards the creation of habitats for biodiversity. In accordance with regional policies 5.3, 5.9 and 5.11 of the London Plan (2011) and local policy SP05 and SP13.
19. No works shall be carried out on the site until a detailed report, including Risk Assessment, detailing management of demolition and construction dust has been submitted and approved by the LPA with reference to the GLA's SPG Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition. All demolition and construction contractors and Companies working on the site must be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme. Proof of registration must be sent to the LPA prior to any works being carried out on the site.
INFORMATIVE: In dealing with this application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our development plan comprising the London Plan 2011, the Haringey Local Plan 2013 and the saved policies of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 along with relevant SPD/SPG documents, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. In addition, where appropriate, further guidance was offered to the applicant during the consideration of the application.
INFORMATIVE: Community Infrastructure Levy. The applicant is advised that the proposed development will be liable for the Mayor of London and Haringey CIL. Based on the information given on the parameter plans, the Mayor's CIL charge will be £494,655 (14,133 sqm of residential floor space and office/ retail floor space floorspace x £35) and the Haringey CIL charge will be £207,000 (13,800 sqm of residential floorspace x £15). This will be collected by Haringey after the scheme is implemented and could be subject to surcharges for failure to assume liability, for failure to submit a commencement notice and/or for late payment, and subject to indexation in line with the construction costs index.
INFORMATIVE: Details of Highway Agreement - Section 278. The applicant is advised that an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Acts 1980 is required.
INFORMATIVE: All works on or associated with the public highway be carried out by Council's Transportation Group at the full expense of the developer. Before the Council undertakes any works or incurs any financial liability the developer will be required to make a deposit equal to the full estimated cost of the works.
INFORMATIVE: Prior to commencing any work on the highway official notification under The New Roads & Street Works Act shall be given to the Council. Notifications are to be sent to The Highways and Street Numbering (tel. 020 8489 1000).
INFORMATIVE: The new development will require numbering. The applicant should contact the Local Land Charges at least six weeks before the development is occupied (tel. 020 8489 5573) to arrange for the allocation of a suitable address.
INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that prior to demolition of existing buildings, an asbestos survey should be carried out to identigy the location and type of asbestos containing materials. Any asbestos containing materials must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the correct procefure prior to any demolitiono r consutrion works carried out.
INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 850 2777 to discuss the details of the piling method statement and other water supply and drainage issues required by condition.