Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new building ranging in height from 3 to 6 storeys to accommodate 13 residential units (Use Class C3), employment floorspace (Use Class B1a) at upper ground and first floor level and retail / café floorspace (Use Class A1 / A3) at lower ground floor level, along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage and other associated works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new building ranging in height from 3 to 6 storeys to accommodate 13 residential units (Use Class C3), employment floorspace (Use Class B1a) at upper ground and first floor level and retail / café floorspace (Use Class A1 / A3) at lower ground floor level, along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage and other associated works.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           A development which was not viable for the provision of social housing did not mean that it was not viable to build at all.  When considering the viability of a development for social housing, there had to be regard to a minimum level of profit for the developer.

-           Page 6, paragraph of the 6.2 addendum report noted that bat surveys had recently completed and no bat activity had been found.  However, bat boxes and other measures would be incorporated into the development.

Laurie Elks spoke in objection to the application.  He felt that the River Lea area was becoming more and more enclosed by developments – Hale Village and Hale Wharf were high buildings next to this development.  The Area Action Plan set out that the Lockkeepers cottages should be developed as part of a comprehensive proposal – Mr Elks added that any development on the site should enhance the character of the area.  Mr Elks referred to the comments of the Parks Authority that the development was too much and requested that the Committee reject the application.

Councillor Gordon spoke in objection to the application.  She referred the Committee to the large number of local residents who had objected to the application.  There were too many high-rise towers in the area and local residents needed some open space.  Cllr Gordon referred to the sale of properties in Hale Wharf, which were advertised for sale in China and stated that these were built for investments and not for local residents.  She requested that further thought be given to the development to provide a better proposal.

Tom Cole, Planning Consultant, addressed the Committee.  The site was a mixed-use development, which was wholly in accordance with planning policy.  The development would create c.60 jobs, new offices for Lea Valley Estates, as well as providing employment, training and apprenticeships for Haringey residents.

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

-           Deliveries would be directed to the concierge at Hale Village, who would then deliver to the development.

-           Waste would be collected by Hale Village as part of the ongoing management of the development.

-           The development was six storeys in height and did not encroach on the park or the waterway.

-           The viability assessment set out that the development was unable to form any contribution to affordable housing either on or off site.

The Chair moved the vote to approve the application and with four in favour, four against and one abstention, the Chair used her casting vote and it was

RESOLVED that

i)          Planning permission be GRANTED and that the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director of 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 below.

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

iii)        Following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, planning permission shall be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions; and

iv)       Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning/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 Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

v)      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:

1.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing the provision of early and late stage financial viability reviews, would fail to ensure that affordable housing delivery has been maximised within the Borough and would set an undesirable precedent for future similar planning applications. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 of the Council's Local Plan 2017, Policy 3.12 of the London Plan 2016, emerging Policy H5 of the draft London Plan and the Mayor of London’s Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance document.

2.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to work with the Council’s Employment and Skills team and to provide other employment initiatives would fail to support local employment, regeneration and address local unemployment by facilitating training opportunities for the local population. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP9 of Haringey’s Local Plan 2017.

3.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing sufficient energy efficiency measures and/or financial contribution towards carbon offsetting, would result in an unacceptable level of carbon dioxide emissions. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 5.2, 5.3 and 5.7 of the London Plan 2016, Local Plan 2017 Policy SP4 and Policy DM21 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

4.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure an appropriate financial contribution towards the Paddock, would fail to meet the development requirements of Site Allocation TH9 and would fail to provide sufficient mitigation for the ecological impact of the development. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy SP13 of the Local Plan 2017, Policy 7.19 of the London Plan 2016 and the development guidelines of Site Allocation TH9 of the Tottenham Area Action Plan.

vi)     In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (v) above, the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of the 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 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 (1) above to secure the obligations specified therein.