Agenda item

Proposal: Temporary planning permission for a period of 7 years to provide 33 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 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 33 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:

Laura Budka spoke in objection to the application.  All local residents were opposed to the scheme, not because of the people who would be housed in the units, but because the development was not right for the site or the local community.  Haringey had not provided a track record of providing the level of support required for the scheme, and residents felt that the residents of the scheme would not be safeguarded properly.  Ms Budka added that residents also felt that the consultation was a ‘tick box exercise’ and any comments made had not been taken on board by the applicants.

Councillor Barbara Blake spoke in objection to the application.  She referred to the previous deferments by the Committee where the removal of Block A was requested and expressed her confusion that the application was still submitted with part of Block A on the plans.  The development was not appropriate for the site and the local area.  Councillor Blake urged the Committee to refuse the application on a point of principle in that the recommendations of the Committee at the meetings in January and February had been ignored by the developer.

Ms Budka and Councillor Blake responded to questions from the Committee:

-           A large amount of Temporary Accommodation was situated in the East of the borough.  To include another scheme with complex requirements was unfair to residents in the area.

-           The Safer Neighbourhood Team had worked with ward Councillors to attempt to tackle street drinking in the area due to the high volume of complaints on a regular basis, and the issue remained difficult to resolve in the area.

-           The development in Cambridge was successful because it was away from busy, high crime areas so residents in the scheme could have time away from negative influences.

-           The first consultation with residents was on 24 November 2020.  This was abandoned part way through because residents had not been given enough time to speak and ask questions.  The second consultation was on 2 December 2020 and the Cabinet Member only attended for 20 minutes and therefore did answer many of the resident’s questions.

The Applicant Team – Mark Sleigh (Planning Agent), Emma Fletcher (Applicant – Hill), Charlotte Pomery (LBH) and Robbie Erbmann (LBH) – addressed the Committee.  The site was a vacant brownfield site, which represented an under-utilised pocket of land in the borough.  The site was highly accessible and in line with London and Local Plan policies in relation to temporary accommodation for homeless people.  The scheme would make efficient use of the land whilst waiting for long term development.  The removal of the upper storey to Block A would significantly increase the distance between neighbouring properties.  The scheme had the support of the design team and would achieve Secure by Design accreditation.  The homes were pre-designed and if permission were to be granted, work could begin immediately on site.

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

-           There would be a robust referral process for all potential residents.  One of the criteria would be that potential residents would need to prove a local connection to Haringey.  Dean Hermitage advised that condition 20 could be amended to include the criteria that residents shall have a local connection to Haringey.

-           Commencement on site was usually a period of three years, but the applicant was prepared to start on site as soon as permission was granted.

-           The site was developed very close to public transport, so it was expected that any staff on site would travel by public transport rather than requiring parking near the site.

-           Hill were the applicants for the development and would be gifting 16 of the units.

-           Design and Conservation Officers had confirmed that they were happy with the design, including the colour scheme of grey units with an orange door.

-           All tenants would sign a tenancy agreement and if any tenants breached the conditions of the agreement they would be monitored and supported to change their patterns of behaviour.

The Committee queried whether Block A could be re-positioned to allow the units to open out onto the small amenity space.  Dean Hermitage advised that the Committee could not redesign a scheme during a Committee meeting, a decision had to be made based on the plans submitted.

The Committee noted the addendum report which included an amendment to condition 20, and an additional informative:

Accommodation to be used only as supported housing and occupied in accordance with approved Management Plan

20.            The accommodation shall only be occupied by people who have been street homeless in accordance with a Management Plan that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation. The Management Plan must include the following:

·       Procedures for addressing complaints and concerns from neighbouring residents;

·       Details of the establishment of a Community Steering Group for the Ermine Road area;

·       A Locality & Community Management Plan to support service users and other local residents to feel welcome, safe, and connected;

·       Measures to minimise any noise and disturbance from the development;

·       Further details of the role of the night concierge and the 24 hour on site presence throughout the life of the development;

·       Details of the referral process and the assessment of suitability for occupants; and

·       Details of the support services available to residents.

Reason: In order to ensure the public benefits of the proposal are realised for the lifetime of the development and to prevent the accommodation being used as other forms of housing or causing undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

INFORMATIVE 2: CIL (updated to reflect reduced floorspace)

Based on the information given on the plans, the Mayoral CIL charge will be £47,956 (792sqm x £60.55) and the Haringey CIL charge will be £16,553 (792sqm x £20.90). This would be charged in accordance with the CIL Charging Schedule and any eligible relief and includes indexation in line with the RICS CIL Index.

Councillor Rice requested that an informative be included to state that work should commence on site at least six months after permission was granted, and condition 20 be further amended to include the requirement for residents to prove a local connection to Haringey.

The Chair moved to the vote to grant the application with the additional informatives and conditions as moved by Councillor Rice and set out in the addendum.  With nine in favour and one against, it was

RESOLVED

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives.