Agenda item

Proposal: Hybrid planning application seeking outline permission for the demolition of existing buildings and for the creation of a new mixed-use development comprising residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Use Class E), leisure (Use Class E and Sui Generis) and community uses (Use Class F1/F2) together with the creation of a new public square, park and associated access, parking and public realm works with matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access within the site reserved for subsequent approval; and full planning permission for Plot A including the demolition of existing buildings and the creation of 60 residential units (Use Class C3) together with landscaping, parking  and other associated works.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the hybrid planning application seeking outline permission for the demolition of existing buildings and for the creation of a new mixed-use development comprising residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Use Class E), leisure (Use Class E and Sui Generis) and community uses (Use Class F1/F2) together with the creation of a new public square, park and associated access, parking and public realm works with matters of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access within the site reserved for subsequent approval; and full planning permission for Plot A including the demolition of existing buildings and the creation of 60 residential units (Use Class C3) together with landscaping, parking and other associated works.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was clarified that the proposal would provide space for a possible bridge over the railway, as set out in the masterplan. It was also confirmed that it was intended to provide the library on the ground floor.

·         It was noted that the proposals would aim to provide at least 35% affordable units by habitable room, with 500 social rent units, 406 shared ownership units, and the remaining units for market sale. The Committee understood that the current proposal was just under 35% and that, under the London Plan, the Mayor was seeking at least 50% affordable units to be delivered on publicly owned land. It was noted that the council owned the majority of the land south of White Hart Lane but that the proposals did not appear to be seeking this level of affordability. The applicant team explained that the figure of 50% related to surplus public owned land, for example where public bodies were disposing of land that was surplus to requirement. It was noted that the applicant was aiming to deliver at least 35% affordable housing across the masterplan and was achieving 40% in the south of the site; they were exploring different funding options and would provide additional affordable housing if possible.

·         The Committee noted that there were multiple density figures set out in the report and enquired what the density of the proposal would be. The applicant team commented that there were different ways to calculate density, with varying levels of detail, which could produce slightly different figures. It was also noted that the density calculations which related to land area would be affected by green spaces, such as Peacock Park, which could explain some of the differences.

·         The Committee welcomed the size of the social rent units, including the higher proportion of 3-bed and 4-bed units, and enquired whether additional larger units could be provided. The applicant team explained that the social rent unit proposals were bespoke to the needs of community based on the results of consultation. It was added that the initial phase of delivery would focus on rehousing the existing residents.

·         In relation to car parking, it was set out in the report that, if needed, a further 7% car parking could be provided; it was enquired when this would be assessed. The applicant team stated that, following consultation, anyone in the Love Lane estate with existing parking would be given the opportunity to retain their parking but that the rest of the masterplan was more aligned with the London Plan and it would be aimed to provide blue badge parking only. It was added that, if space for car parking was not needed, the applicant would look to repurpose this space.

·         The applicant team stated that there were a number of landowners in the wider area. It was explained that the regeneration element of the proposal would be delivered first and that, during this time, it would be possible to work with other landowners.

·         The Committee noted that the scheme would be tenure blind but queried whether this was accurate as the council units would be delivered in a specific location, at the southern end. The applicant team confirmed that phase one of the scheme, which would be developed first in the schedule, was purely affordable housing. It was highlighted that there would be no difference in the approach to buildings for affordable and private housing, although the detailed design would be presented later on. It was added that the south of the site would incorporate a mix of different uses.

·         It was commented that 35-36% of the units would be single aspect and it was asked whether this could be improved. The applicant team explained that this was being considered and that there were some areas in the masterplan with more flexibility than others.

·         In relation to the design of the proposal, it was commented that there was a gradual increase in building height from the east to the west but that the view from the west, and also the south, would be quite stark. It was requested that these views were provided so that the impact on this area, including public benefit and heritage, could be fully considered. The applicant team noted that a full set of views would be provided as part of the application.

·         It was suggested that it would be beneficial to manage waste on site through a combined underground system and enquired whether there would be car charging points. The applicant team noted that the proposal would have to meet the council’s standards for waste and that there was an ambition to provide a communal waste solution. It was also aimed to provide electric charging points for cars.

·         The Committee queried the acceptable daylight and sunlight levels which were set at 15% and asked how this compared to the average level in other projects. The applicant team noted that the proposal was situated in an urban location. It was explained that the Building Research Establishment (BRE) testing process set the levels against which the proposals would be compared and that the majority of the buildings would be required to meet these levels. It was added that the detail of these assessments would be shared in due course.

·         It was noted that there would be strong cycling infrastructure as part of the scheme and that the full details would be set out in the application.

·         In relation to wind levels, the applicant team stated that wind tunnel testing was considered to be the most accurate form of testing. It was explained that the scheme had undergone three rounds of testing and that each block would be fully tested to ensure that it was appropriate.

·         It was explained that Lendlease’s policy was to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2025 and absolute zero by 2040. It was added that they were moving all of their construction sites to be fossil fuel free by 2022 and were converting to 100% renewable electricity. It was also hoped to move a number of targets forward where possible and to use very few offsets.

·         The Committee acknowledged that the proposals would have practical design that would involve low maintenance requirements but expressed some concerns that this would lead to underinvestment in the long term. The applicant team noted that the scheme would aim to provide more focused, manageable public spaces. It was explained that there would not be disparate, small, public spaces as these had historically led to maintenance issues.

·         Some members of the Committee noted that a number of events took place at the nearby Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and enquired how the impact of this on the area, including the impact on the W3 bus, would be mitigated through the design of the estate. The applicant team explained that work was ongoing to alleviate issues through the masterplan, including work with residents.

·         The Assistant Director of Planning, Sustainability, and Building Standards noted that the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium had its own permissions and consents and that there was a specific business and community liaison group to shape and influence some of the issues raised. It was acknowledged that the design and layout of the current proposal should allow for crowds and other uses of the area but it was highlighted that the Committee should focus its questioning on the application in question.

·         Some members of the Committee commented that there was a lot of churn in flats in the area, which could impact the local community spirit and character, and it was enquired how the applicant would mitigate any excessive purchase of units by private companies. The applicant team explained that they were committed to selling locally with a broad amenity-based offering and different types of homes and spaces. It was noted that the agreement between Lendlease and Haringey had a contractual obligation to sell locally in the first instance and that Lendlease undertook their own monitoring relating to buyers.

·         The Committee commented that the design of Plot A was not architecturally interesting and it was suggested that this could be improved, possibly with some detailing or additional ideas. It was also noted that projecting balconies were not considered to work well for residents and it was queried whether the proposed heights would sit well with the neighbouring streets. The applicant team commented that these queries had lengthy responses, particularly around the incorporation of the history of the site within the design, and that further details could be shared. It was added that the proposals did include projecting balconies but that these helped with overheating and that the depth of the flats and design of the balconies meant that the units remained quite private.

·         It was clarified that there would be no residential units on the ground floor by Moselle Square. It was also explained that the podium gardens would be located at first or second storey level. The provision of amenity space, including doorstop play space, would be prioritised at podium level before being provided on lower rooftops.

·         It was noted that the Quality Review Panel (QRP) had expressed some concerns about the wind levels in the proposals. The applicant team explained that the second round of testing had been shared with the QRP but that there had been a further, third round of testing and it was hoped that this would allay any concerns. The Committee noted that the application should provide assurance that the proposals would deliver comfortable spaces in relation to wind levels.

·         It was enquired whether the site could be divided so that the part of the site that was council owned would be used for 100% social rent homes and the remaining part of the site would be required to provide 35% affordable homes. The Planning Officer explained that officers were not able to develop a strategy for an application in this way but would scrutinise and test proposals against policy and financial viability. Officers from Regeneration and Economic Development noted that the scheme had been developed over many years, including the procurement of a development partner and delivery in accordance with the development agreement. It was explained that the council had identified that there were requirements for external support and it was considered that this was a strong scheme that could not be delivered using an alternative method. It was added that it would not be practical to deliver elements of the scheme differently at this stage.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.