Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide a single building of between 4 and 9 storeys in height, comprising 75 residential units (C3) and 953 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1-A5, B1 and B8), with associated cycle parking, plant, refuse and recycling provision, landscaping and all necessary ancillary and enabling works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a single building of between 4 and 9 storeys in height, comprising 75 residential units (C3) and 953 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1-A5, B1 and B8), with associated cycle parking, plant, refuse and recycling provision, landscaping and all necessary ancillary and enabling works.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The Council’s position was to keep all of the Council units together rather than separate them, as this made it easier to manage the properties.

-           Service charges were driven by how the management of the properties were arranged and would depend on which services were provided.

-           Access for services would be provided via Caxton Road.

-           There would be three blue badge spaces available, two of which would include electric charging points.

-           All properties would be accessed by both lifts and stairs.

Paul Burnham spoke in objection to the application.  He commented that it was unacceptable that the number of affordable rent properties had been reduced by four, and replaced by shared ownership properties.  He felt that none of the development complied with any planning policies, none of which gave any support to tenure segregation.  He added that it was important to maximise integration of housing tenures, and asked the Committee to reject the application.

Natasha Sivandan spoke in objection to the application.  She also referred to the number of shared ownership properties, and commented that this was not affordable for most in housing need.  Ms Sivandan made reference to her submission in the agenda pack, and her statement that there had been no Equalities Impact Assessment carried out.  Ms Sivandan considered that the development was in breach of the Equality Act 2010 as it did not meet local need, and was indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of race and / or religion in relation to family sized accommodation.  The provision of homes with wheelchair access in just block A was also considered to be indirectly discriminatory.  Ms Sivandan request the Committee reject the application as it did not meet local needs and was in breach of the Equality Act.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           Individual planning applications were not subject to Equalities Impact Assessments (EQIAs).  All applications had to confirm to the Local Plan and Housing Policies which themselves had been subject to EQIAs.  There was caselaw (Harris v London Borough of Haringey 2010) relating to a development which required an EQIA, but this was due to the demolition of buildings belonging to a particular group.  This development was for a vacant site, so the caselaw was not relevant to this application.

-           In response to Mr Burnham’s submission, the number of affordable rent properties had increased since the agenda had been published and the development would now provide 15 Low Cost Rented homes (all London Affordable Rent) and 10 Intermediate homes.

Luke Cadman (Applicant) addressed the Committee.  This application was for the development of a brownfield site and would include residential, retail and employment space.  The development would deliver a high quality, well designed building.  There would be no ‘poor doors’, and all residents would access the development through the same communal entrance where post boxes would be situated. 

Mr Cadman and the applicant team responded along with officers to questions from the Committee:

-           The properties would be heated by communal boilers.

-           There were a number of operators which would work in the retail spaces, and it was proposed that the retail unit would be stepped back to provide more pavement space. 

-           The development overprovided on child’s playspace which would make it an attractive development for young families.  All playspace on the development would be accessible to all residents.

-           All properties would be dual aspect.

Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management, informed the Committee that there were some minor amendments as outlined in the published addendum.

Councillor Bevan moved that the application be rejected on the grounds that the design was not good, the views to the East of the development were unacceptable, and the development was out of keeping with the character of the local area.  Councillor Tabois seconded the motion.

The Chair moved the vote to reject the application and with two in favour and seven against, the vote to reject the application was not carried.

Councillor Cawley Harrison moved that a condition be added that the two disabled parking spaces with electric charging points should not be restricted to electric cars only.  Mr Hermitage advised that this could be added.

The Chair moved the vote to approve the application and with six in favour and three against, it was

RESOLVED that

i)          Planning permission be GRANTED and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning be authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms.

ii)         Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning 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.

iii)        The section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 30 September 2020 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow.

iv)       Following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution (iii) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions listed in full at Appendix 1.

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

(i)        In the absence of a legal agreement securing 1) the provision of on-site affordable housing and 2) viability review mechanism, the scheme would fail to foster mixed and balanced neighbourhoods where people choose to live, and which meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents.  As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan Policies 3.9, 3.11 and 3.12, Local Plan Strategic Policy SP2, and Development Management DPD Policies DM11, DM13 and DM48.

(ii)       In the absence of legal agreement securing 1) parking management plan, residential and commercial Travel Plans, Traffic Management Order (TMO) amendments and a Construction Management and Logistics Plan (CMLP) and 2) financial contributions toward travel plan monitoring, car club funding, sustainable and active travel and parking control measures, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the highway network, and give rise to overspill parking impacts and unsustainable modes of travel.  As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan policies 6.9, 6.11 and 6.13, Local Plan Strategic Policy SP7 and Development Management DPD Policies DM31, DM32 and DM48.

(iii)      In the absence of a legal agreement securing a carbon offset payment and updated energy plan, the proposal would fail to mitigate the impacts of climate change.  As such, the proposal is unsustainable and contrary to London Plan Policy 5.2, Strategic Policy SP4 and Development Management DPD Policies DM21, DM22 and DM48

(iv)      In the absence of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards child play space, the proposal would fail to deliver an acceptable level of play and informal recreation based on the expected child population generated by the scheme.  As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan policy 3.6, the Mayor’s Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and Informal Recreation SPG and Local Plan Strategic Policy SP13.

(v)       In the absence of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards construction training and local labour initiatives, the proposal would fail to deliver an acceptable level of support towards local residents accessing the new job opportunities in the construction phase of the scheme.  As such, the proposal is contrary to Haringey’s Planning Obligations SPD 20184.

(i)        In the absence of a legal agreement securing the developer’s participation in the Considerate Constructor Scheme, the development would fail to mitigate the impacts of construction and impinge the amenity of adjoining occupiers.  As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan Policies 5.3 and 7.15, Local Plan Strategic Policy SP11 and Development Management DPD Policies DM1 and DM48.

(vi)      In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (v) above, the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning (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;

(ii)       The further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director 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 (i) above to secure the obligations specified therein.