Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development providing 9 residential units, 3,495 sqm of commercial space and a gallery/café together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and cycle parking.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development providing 9 residential units, 3,495 sqm of commercial space and a gallery/café together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and cycle parking.

Christopher Smith, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was clarified that the development would be car free so, although residents and businesses were not allowed to have car parking permits, they could have visitor parking permits.

·         In response to a question about why small businesses would not be allowed to have one parking space, the Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the development needed to be car free to meet climate aspirations. It was noted that loading bays were provided on the street.

·         It was noted that the applicant would be required to make a deferred carbon offset payment if the development failed to connect to a District Energy Network (DEN). The Head of Development Management explained that the emissions had been calculated based on connection to a DEN and that, if the development failed to connect to a DEN, the applicant would be required to make a payment which would offset the additional emissions.

·         In response to a question about whether there would be heat pumps or gas boilers, the Planning Officer noted that the energy report would be confirmed by condition. It was explained that the applicant would be required to provide details of any proposed boilers. It was added that it was possible to connect air source heat pumps and this would still be an option.

·         It was noted that the detail of green roofs and green walls would be included in a landscaping statement which would be secured by condition. It was also confirmed that there would be a communal amenity space on the roof of the residential blocks.

·         It was enquired what would happen if any commercial space was converted into residential at a future date, whether there would be a financial contribution or whether a proportion of the space would be affordable. The Planning Officer stated that the emphasis was to seek financial contribution in the first instance.

·         In relation to affordable housing, the Head of Development Management explained that the scheme would have nine residential units which fell below the threshold requiring the provision of affordable housing. It was noted that there was a safeguard in the heads of terms whereby the applicant would be required to provide affordable housing if 10 or more units were provided on site.

·         It was enquired whether it was possible for the developer or future developers to use permitted development rights to permit a future change of use and to what extent the planning decision could protect an allocation to affordable housing. The Head of Development Management explained that this legal agreement would travel with the land, would apply to permitted development rights, and would be written into the section 106 agreement.

·         It was noted that a previous application had a higher percentage of approximately 35% affordable, residential housing and that the current proposal would provide 10% affordable, commercial space. It was commented that the site was within the TH12 site allocation and it was enquired what proportion would be commercial and what proportion would be residential; it was also queried what type of use was needed on the site. The Head of Development Management explained that commercial space was generally less viable and, therefore, a lower percentage of affordable space could be offered. It was noted that there was a need for residential and commercial space and that proposals may be weighted to one or the other.

·         It was enquired how the 10% affordable commercial space would be protected, particularly if the commercial space was sold. The Head of Development Management explained that it was not possible to anticipate the exact, future circumstances but that there was an obligation to provide 10% affordable, commercial space. The Planning Officer added that the 10% was calculated on a floorspace basis but that the exact configuration would be finalised at a later date. It was noted that the offer of affordable, commercial space was good and that this would be the minimum provided.

·         It was requested that the proposals included a number for the provision of work placements for unemployed and/ or economically inactive Haringey residents and for the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workshops to ensure that these were provided. The Head of Development Management noted that, subject to applicant agreement, the number of STEM workshops could be specified. In relation to apprentices, it was explained that this was calculated based on development cost with a maximum of 10% of the construction workforce and that this was set out in planning guidance. It was highlighted that the applicant would be bound to provide these elements by the terms and that adding a specific number was not standard practice.

·         In relation to loss of daylight and sunlight, it was confirmed that all of the residential windows on Ashby Road were found to have sufficient light for habitable rooms and there was not considered to be a detrimental loss of amenity.

·         It was noted that the report stated that many of the current occupiers would return to the site once the development had been constructed but it was queried how this would work given the construction period. Malena Oddershede Bach, agent for the applicant, explained that it was aimed to relocate existing tenants. It was noted that the applicant had started to investigate setting up a local site for tenants to use whilst the development was taking place.

Simon Finn spoke in objection to the application. He stated that, compared to the previous application, the current proposal avoided providing affordable housing. He expressed concerns that the building would be converted to residential accommodation at a later date. He commented that there had been a lack of consultation as there had only been one public meeting which had been open for four hours. He stated that there had been no consultation letters and that the council had refused to extend the consultation zone beyond 100 metres which only included commercial spaces. Simon Finn stated that these buildings would set a precedent, that commercial space would be converted to residential space, and that applicants should not have the unmonitored ability to develop higher buildings. He welcomed the provision of green roofs and asked for a stipulation about maintenance and upkeep to be included. It was stated that the area was a flood plain and that there should be adequate arrangements for rainwater collection and drainage elements. Simon Finn commented that he liked the proposed designs but that he would like to know the materials and asked that double or triple glazing was included. He added that residents wanted a high quality development that provided homes and businesses for local people.

Jack Grant spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the site had existing planning permission for 45 residential units with 14 affordable units but the current proposal had decreased to nine residential units with no affordable housing. He acknowledged that the Committee was tied to grant planning permission due to the presumption in favour of sustainable development according to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as housing targets had not been met. He commented that one reason for the failure to meet housing targets was that developers were not delivering the developments that had been approved, as in this case. Jack Grant echoed the points made by Simon Finn and agreed that this application circumvented the restrictions to provide housing. He asked that, if the affordable, commercial space was restricted, it should be done on cost per floorspace rather than floorspace to ensure that the affordable units did not get inferior spaces.

In response to the points raised in the objections and subsequent questions, the following responses were provided:

·         In relation to the consultation process, the Planning Officer stated that the application was advertised in the normal way in accordance with the statutory requirements. It was commented that 500 people had been sent letters and that there had been site notices in the area and notice in the local press. It was noted that the developer had organised a public meeting but that this was in addition to the necessary statutory requirements.

·         In relation to flood risk, the Planning Officer noted that the Environment Agency had not raised objections to the proposal.

·         In response to the queries raised about double glazing, the Head of Development Management explained that considerations relating to insulation and similar matters were included in the report and the technical term used was thermal efficiency.

MalenaOddershede Bach, applicant team, addressed the Committee. She noted that there was an existing planning consent for the site but that the freeholders were separate from the property developers. It was noted that the previous scheme had proposed three commercial units, which was not viable in the long term, and so the developers were not looking to build the consented scheme. It was explained that the developer was looking to retain, rather than sell, the flats but that the possibility of sale was noted as standard as part of the viability assessment. It was stated that there was significant demand for creative workspaces and it was noted that the scheme would provide affordable, commercial space which was needed in the borough, especially as the site was located in a creative enterprise zone. It was noted that the exact, internal layout was not yet confirmed but that there would be approximately 66 workspaces, all with natural light, and that the storeys had been reduced in accordance with tenants’ preferences.

MalenaOddershede Bach acknowledged that 36 residential units would be lost compared to the previous scheme but explained that the previous scheme was unlikely to be delivered as the freeholders did not want to build it. It was also noted that, although there had been some references to a single storey building to the rear, this was actually a two storey building. Only single storey building to the back, actually a two storey building. It was stated that the main element of the scheme was creative workspaces which would encourage co-operation amongst businesses and which would, through the installation of windows, allow the community and public to see within. This was also aimed to create a better connection with community and to inspire people locally to avoid the loss of trades in the area.

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

·         It was enquired how the affordable, commercial space would be delivered in practice, including the management of the space. Malena Oddershede Bach explained that the entire ground floor would be let directly by the freeholder and that the upper floors would be managed by a workspace provider with rent based on square footage. It was highlighted that the affordable space would be delivered with the same finish as the rest of the commercial space; it would be allocated throughout and there would be no discrimination based on affordability.

·         The Committee asked about the legislation relating to permitted development for additional storeys and how this was regulated. The Head of Development Management explained that there was a narrow allowance and that this only related to a certain time period, not to recent developments, so would not apply in this case.

·         The Chair noted the concerns expressed in relation to the conversion of commercial space to residential and enquired whether it was possible to address this through a condition. The Head of Development Management explained that the provision of on site affordable space was a strong incentive and that as much wording as possible had been included in the proposal to safeguard the conversion from commercial to residential space.

·         Some members of the Committee asked how the off site contribution would be calculated if any units were sold and whether this would be reassessed for every unit sold, particularly if the threshold for affordable housing was then met. The Head of Development Management explained that the calculation would take the residual land value of the two schemes (as amended if a residential proposal came forward) and then calculate the affordable based on the difference of those two values. He noted that it was possible to state that the calculation would be based on the residual land value and to explicitly state that this related to all sales in perpetuity so that it could not be reduced over time.

·         It was enquired whether it would be possible to require that any commercial units be offered to the market for a minimum time period before being converted to residential space. The Head of Development Management stated that this would require applicant agreement. It was added that it was not possible to prevent future applications or changes to such a requirement. Some members expressed concerns that the 10% affordable, commercial space was not sufficiently protected. The Head of Development Management suggested that the most effective solution might be to state that the requirement was 10% of the total figure.

The Committee discussed the proposed conditions:

·         It was enquired whether the applicant would agree to start development within two years, rather than within three years. Malena Oddershede Bach stated that this was risky in the current market, particularly as the cost of building materials had increased by 30%; this explanation was accepted by the Committee.

·         It was agreed that Head of Term 1 should be amended to include the wording ‘no less than 350sqm of affordable workspace (10% of the total commercial workspace)’ to provide additional clarity.

·         It was agreed that Head of Term 9 should be amended to include the wording ‘provision of on site affordable or a financial contribution towards off site provision of affordable housing if any of the commercial space is converted to residential use at any point in the future’.

·         It was agreed that Head of Term 8 should state that there was a requirement to provide two Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) sessions.

·         It was agreed that Head of Term 4 should not exclude visitor permits.

Following a vote, and subject to the amendments agreed above, it was

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is 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 below.

2.    That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above is to be completed no later than 30th November 2021 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

3.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (2.1) within the time period provided for in resolution (2.2) above, planning permission shall be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions; and

4.    That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability/Head of Development Management 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.