Agenda item

Proposal - Full planning application for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a replacement building up to four storeys to include residential (C3), retail (Class E, a) and flexible medical/health (Class E, e) and office (Class E, g, i) uses; hard and soft landscaping works including a residential podium; and associated works

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for full planning application for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a replacement building up to four storeys to include residential (C3), retail (Class E, a) and flexible medical/health (Class E, e) and office (Class E, g, i) uses; hard and soft landscaping works including a residential podium; and associated works

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

-           Percival Court was in different ownerships and the applicant would need to work with all owners to ensure that resurfacing of the front of the court could be carried out.  The addendum included an additional Heads of Terms which set out that the applicant shall “implement approved surface improvements to the section of Percival Court in its ownership and use reasonable endeavours to work with adjoining landowners to secure a scheme of surface improvements to land outside the applicant’s ownership prior to first occupation.” 

-           The Co-op Funeral Services were still potential tenants for the commercial unit and the scheme had been designed with them in mind.

-           There would be a centrally placed bin store with 11 wheelie bins (domestic size).  On collection day these would be moved out to an agreed on-street collection point.  A residential waste management plan would be devised to set out the detail, although it was intended that bins would be collected at the same time as the above shop scheme.  Commercial waste was managed by a separate waste contract.

Members discussed the inclusion of an additional contract in relation to commercial waste and requested that a condition be added in relation to the collection of commercial waste from Percival Court rather than the High Road, unless permission was granted in writing by the Council.

Members also questioned the term ‘reasonable endeavours’ and whether the term could be made stronger.  Ed Telepneff, Legal, advised that ‘best endeavours’ was a legal term, however ‘all reasonable endeavours’ or ‘best endeavours’ could also be used.  The applicant would not be able to say that improvements would be made to the whole section of land, as they did not own the whole section.

Councillor Bevan proposed that the application be refused on the same grounds as previous refusal and in relation to the uncertainty that Percival Court would be resurfaced to a better standard.  The was seconded by Councillor Rice.

The Chair moved to the vote to refuse the application and with three in favour, six against and one abstention, the vote to refuse was not carried.

Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management, summed up and advised that the recommendation was to grant the application.  He added that an additional condition in relation to commercial waste could be added and following a discussion with the Committee, the Heads of Terms in relation to surface improvements be amended to read ‘best endevours’.

The Chair moved to the vote to grant the application with the additional condition and amendment to the Heads of Terms wording and following a vote with six in favour, three against and one abstention it was

RESOLVED

i.          That planning permission be GRANTED and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informative and signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below .

ii.         That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 31 July 2021 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director shall in her/his sole discretion allow.

iii.        That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, planning permission is granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

iv.        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.

v.         That, 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 application be refused for the following reasons:

I.          In the absence of legal agreement securing Traffic Management Order (TMO) amendments to prevent future residents from obtaining a parking permits, the proposals would have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the highway network, and give rise to overspill parking impacts. As such, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies T4 and T6.1 Spatial Policy SP7, Tottenham Area Action Plan Policy NT5 and DM DPD Policy DM31.

ii.         In the absence of a legal agreement securing the provision of financial contributions towards off-site affordable housing in the event that the commercial unit in Block A is converted in to a dwelling, the proposals would fail to secure affordable housing and meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents. As such, the proposals would be contrary to London Plan Policies H4 and H5, Strategic Policy SP2, and DM DPD Policies DM 11 and DM 13, and Policy TH12.

iii.        In the absence of a legal agreement securing the implementation of a further revised Energy & Sustainability Statement, including connection to a DEN, and carbon offset payments, the proposals would fail to mitigate the impacts of climate change. As such, the proposal would be unsustainable and contrary to London Plan Policy SI 3 and Strategic Policy SP4, and DM DPD Policies DM 21, DM22 and SA48.

iv.        In the absence of a legal agreement securing the developer’s participation in the Considerate Constructor Scheme and the borough’s Construction Partnership, the proposals would fail to mitigate the impacts of demolition and construction and impinge the amenity of adjoining occupiers. As such the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies SI 1 and SI 3, Policy SP11 and Policy DM1.