Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings; erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey building comprising 23 (1 x studio, 6 x 1 bed, 14 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) flats; erection of 1 detached dwelling to the rear with 1 parking spaces, provision of 3 disabled parking spaces at the front; cycle, refuse and recycling storage; provision of new access onto Brownlow Road and accessway to the rear.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings; erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey building comprising 23 (1 x studio, 6 x 1 bed, 14 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) flats; erection of 1 detached dwelling to the rear with 1 parking spaces, provision of 3 disabled parking spaces at the front; cycle, refuse and recycling storage; provision of new access onto Brownlow Road and accessway to the rear.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           There were 24 units in the development – 23 flats and one house.

-           The affordable housing contribution would provide two large homes in a Council build scheme – Council homes for Council rent.

-           Permitted development rights would apply to the house only.

-           There was a one communal bin store for all properties.  A waste management plan would be developed to set out how waste would be dealt with.

-           The rear communal garden would be accessed by an existing accessway to the south of the building, and could also be accessed on the northern side.

-           There were 7 single aspect units, but these were not either north or south facing and so were considered to be acceptable to the scheme.

-           The scheme had been amended since previous applications and officers were satisfied that previous objections had been satisfied.

Rob Steward spoke in objection to the application.  He considered that the scheme barely met minimum space standards and would cause privacy issues for neighbouring properties.  The proposal did not harmonise with existing buildings in Bounds Green.  The land had been neglected for several years and a better use would be to create an in-fill garden.

Adele Lorente spoke in objection to the application.  She objected on the grounds of knocking down an old house.  The new development would not add architectural value to the area.  The new development would add more dwellings to the area, but did not provide for any extra services.

Simon Wallis, Applicant Team, addressed the Committee.  The new submitted scheme was considered to be more sensitive design and the applicant had worked with officers on detail and design matters.  A sunlight and daylight assessment had been carried out and there was no unacceptable loss of light on the scheme.  The scheme would be subject to early and late stage reviews by the Building Control.

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

-           All apartments had been designed to be open plan with kitchen and living areas as open spaces.

-           Condition 5 could be tweaked to prohibit the installation satellite dishes on the flats only.

The Chair moved to the vote to grant the application with the amendment to condition 5 to reflect that satellite dishes shall be prohibited on the flats only.  Following a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED

i.        That planning permission be GRANTED and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability 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 and a section 278 Highways Agreement.

ii.       That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director 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.

iii.      That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 19 July 2021 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director shall in her/his sole discretion allow.

iv.      That following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution 2.3 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.       That in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution 2.1 above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution 2.3 above, the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

(i)        In the absence of a legal agreement securing 1) the provision of a financial contribution in-lieu of onsite affordable housing and 2) viability review mechanisms, 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 Policy H4, Local Plan Strategic Policy SP2, and Development Management DPD Policies DM11, DM13 and DM48.

(ii)       In the absence of legal agreement securing 1) Traffic Management Order amendment contribution and 2) car club membership funding, the proposal would give rise to overspill parking impacts and unsustainable modes of travel.  As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan Policy T4, 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, the proposal would fail to mitigate the impacts of climate change.  As such, the proposal is unsustainable and contrary to London Plan Policy SI2, 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 S4, 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 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 2018.