Agenda item

Proposal: Temporary planning permission for a period of 7 years to provide 38 modular units for use as accommodation for people who have been street homeless, with associated cycle and refuse storage.

Recommendation: GRANT

Clerks note:  The Chair advised that she had received a number of emails lobbying on this application, and she had taken the decision to hand over the Chair for this item to the Vice-Chair and not take part in the discussion or decision of the application

Councillor Gina Adamou in the Chair

The Committee considered an application for temporary planning permission for a period of 7 years to provide 38 modular units for use as accommodation for people who have been street homeless, with associated cycle and refuse storage.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       Paragraph 1.2 of the addendum clarified that the previous application had been deferred in response to concerns around the relationship of Block A with neighbouring properties and to explore whether Block A could be removed.

-       A management plan was required under the conditions and would need to set out the how many staff would be on site and how the site would be managed.

-       The addition of louvres to Block A would not have any effect on Secure By Design principles, and the applicant would be adjusting the position of CCTV cameras to take the additions into account.

-       Officers had met with the applicants following the meeting to discuss the concerns raised by the Committee and whilst the applicant had decided not to remove Block A, they have amended the scheme to improve the relationship between Block A and the neighbouring properties.  The Planning Service were not able to dictate amendments to applicants.

Laura Budka spoke in objection to the application.  Principles of designing out crime advised against covering any balconies, and this had been added to the scheme.  Block A still posed a problem with overlooking, and the additions to the scheme would create an echo in the corridors.  It was also recommended to have three thresholds before a residential area, and the scheme only had one gate, which was open 24 hours a day.  Unless there was a curfew for residents on the site, there would be movement through the scheme throughout the night.  The orange doors were not in keeping with the existing pattern of build on neighbouring properties.  There would be further parking issues than already experienced in the area.  Ms Budka considered that this scheme was a social experiment at the expense of local residents.

Councillor Barbara Blake spoke in objection to the application.  The new proposal did not address concerns raised by the Committee or local residents.  The site was unsuitable for modular housing and the amendments made since the previous application would not mitigate any of the issues raised.  Block A remaining in the design left a lack of open space in the site.  Cllr Blake referred to the scheme adopted by Cambridge Council, which was a smaller scheme away from the town centre, which had helped residents to flourish away from negative influences.  Cambridge Council had said that to achieve a successful outcome a supportive local network was crucial, which was not the case with this application.  Cllr Blake urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Applicant Team – Mark Sleigh (Planning Agent), Emma Fletcher (Applicant – Hill), Adi Cooper (Chair of Safeguarding Board for Haringey), Gill Taylor (LBH) and Robbie Erbmann (LBH) – addressed the Committee.

There was no overlooking from Block A, and the stairwell was invisible to homes South of the scheme.  The presence of staff onsite 24 hours would reduce Anti-Social Behaviour – there would be CCTV onsite and staff would patrol the site on an hourly rotation.

To not maximise the life changing opportunity for homeless people would do a disservice to people in the Borough.    The Safeguarding Board had made homelessness a priority in 2019 following a spike in deaths.  Secure accommodation with support helps people to recover and manage their lives in a way that hotels and hostels did not. 

The Applicant Team and Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       The homes had been designed with homeless charities and were designed in the best way for a single occupancy unit.  Careful consideration had also been given to the design of the site as a whole and the relationship between the blocks.

-       The decision by the applicants not to remove Block A was based on the design of the whole scheme and the orientation of the site did not encourage overlooking.  There was also a road in between the site and neighbouring properties.

-       There would be a 24 hour staff presence on site.  A local management plan would be in place, which was usual in Supported Housing Services.  Each member of staff would have a caseload of 3-7 people, which would give time to support people’s needs.  This was not a service for residential care or support, but to encourage independent living.

-       It was anticipated that tenancies would last 12-18 months before residents were ready to move to other accommodation.

-       The project in Cambridge referred to by Cllr Blake was the first project taken on by the Council and they were now looking at a new scheme with a further 40-50 units.

Some of the Members expressed their disappointment at the emotive language used by the Applicant Team and stated that they would only make a decision on the application based on material planning considerations.

Dean Hermitage advised that the Committee needed to make a decision on the application before them.  There was the option to defer the decision if there were specific amendments that the Committee would wish to see.  The Planning Authority could not dictate to the applicant to make any amendments.  The options for the Committee were to vote on the officer’s recommendations in the report or make an alternative resolution.

Councillor Say proposed that the applicant be deferred for the applicant to consider Block A and either substantially reduce or remove in order to reduce the number of homes on the site.  Councillor Mitchell seconded the proposal.

The Chair moved to the vote, and with five in favour, four against and one abstention it was resolved that the application be deferred in order for the applicant to consider Block A and either substantially reduce or remove in order to reduce the number of homes on the site.