Agenda item

HGY/2021/2075 - LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF PARTRIDGE WAY AND TRINITY ROAD, N22 8DW

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing garages and the erection of a nine-storey building to accommodate 23 residential units for council rent (Class C3). Associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage facilities, accessible car-parking spaces, and landscaping and public realm improvements including a children's play space. Relocation of existing refuse/recycling facility.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing garages and the erection of a nine-storey building to accommodate 23 residential units for council rent (Class C3); associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage facilities, accessible car parking spaces, and landscaping and public realm improvements including a children's play space; relocation of existing refuse/recycling facility.

 

The Chair noted that, at her discretion under the rules of the Planning Protocol, the Committee would hear from three objectors in relation to this application. They would have three minutes each to present their views to the Committee and then those speaking in support of the application would have nine minutes to speak.

 

Cllr Rice highlighted that the Committee had considered this application previously and enquired why it was being reconsidered. The Chair stated that this would be addressed within the presentation of the application.

 

The Head of Development Management introduced the application. It was explained that the Committee had considered the application on 14 September 2021 but that, due to an error which related only to the press notice, the consultation period had been extended to 24 September 2021. As such, the Committee had resolved to grant planning permission with the condition that, if any new, material points were raised, they would be brought back to the Committee for consideration. The Head of Development Management explained that some new points had been raised in this period, which had been broadly but not specifically considered in the previous report, and therefore the application had been brought back to the Committee. It was noted that the additional points raised were disabled access and the usability of the building and fire risk and accessibility of disabled users.

 

It was stated that accessibility and layout had been broadly considered and it was highlighted that the design would have to comply with the requirements for disabled residents under Part M4(3) of the Building Regulations. It was noted that the proposals would exceed the minimum space standard set out in the London Plan and that, although there would be two flats on the first floor, Haringey Occupational Therapy Team considered the proposals to be accessible. It was added that there would be two disabled parking bays with level access. It was explained that the plans showed the arrangements in detail and that these included wheelchair turning areas, scooter parking, and assisted doors.

 

In relation to fire safety, it was noted that there was a ‘stay put’, or ‘defend in place’ strategy. There were a number of doors to ensure compliance with the required fire safety measures and the main entrance and secondary access door would be power assisted. It was noted that there was a Fire Statement and Fire Safety Strategy Report which had been reviewed by Building Control and the London Fire Brigade who were satisfied with the proposed detail. It was stated that all of the other, material points raised had been considered in the previous report.

 

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         Cllr Rice stated that the previous proposal had been agreed by the Committee and that there had been no proposal to set aside the previous agreement. Justin Farley, Legal Advisor, explained that legal advice had been provided at the previous Committee meeting which stated that, if any new matters arose during the consultation that needed to be considered, the application would come back to the Committee. He added that a decision was not given effect until planning permission was granted and that no planning permission had been granted in this case. It was explained that the additional information was presented and the Committee was asked to make a separate decision based on all of the information now available.

·         It was confirmed that all of the members who were in attendance at the previous Committee meeting were in attendance at this meeting and that no new members were present.

·         The Head of Development Management explained that the consultation period for the application had been extended as, although other notifications were made in time, the press notice had been published slightly later. It was noted that most people relied on letters and site notices and that, although the responses from a newspaper notice were anticipated to be minimal, the consultation period was extended which, in effect, extended the consultation for everyone.

·         It was clarified that the wording of the previous decision stated that the decision would be conditional on no new, material objections being received but that, if any were received, they would need to be considered by the Committee and the application reheard. It was noted that, as some new points had been raised, the application was now presented for reconsideration.

·         In relation to fire safety, it was noted that the application referred to ‘stay put’ and it was enquired whether this was current advice. Christian Pinchin, applicant team, explained that the previous advice to ‘stay put’ had been amended to a ‘defend in place’ strategy which was effective as long as the correct fireproofing was in place. It was noted that this was the official guidance and was supported by Homes for Haringey and Building Control.

·         It was noted that a parking survey had been conducted in June 2020 which was during the national lockdown in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was enquired whether this survey could be repeated now that the national lockdown had ceased. The Transport Planning Team Manager explained that, as the majority of people were required to stay at home during the national lockdown, the survey actually represented a worst case scenario as more cars were parked on the network. He noted that, even with the additional parked cars, the survey found the position to be acceptable.

 

Indigo Ayling spoke in objection to the application. She stated that residents would have to pass through eight doors or barriers in the current proposal. She noted that there would be some power assisted doors but it was not clear which doors this would relate to; it was added that, if power assisted doors failed, residents would be stuck. Indigo Ayling stated that the proposals represented the bare minimum for accessibility and that this was frustrating as the homes would be built for those on the council home waiting list. She noted that the application suggested that there were fire mitigations in place but that the circumstances of a fire in a disabled person’s flat had not been considered. It was stated that the Occupational Therapy Team had been consulted but that there had been no access audit and no mention of disabled people as part of the consultations in the stakeholder report. She believed that there were a number of barriers to having a liveable home that had not been considered.

 

Jack Grant spoke in objection to the application. He noted that fire issues were more important in disabled person’s homes as fires were more likely to occur. He stated that he had previously raised lack of consultation as an issue and that it was important to consult the people in these homes. It was noted that the homes within the development would be for 600 people on the highest priority of the disability list and that 10% of the homes would be for wheelchair users. He noted that the Occupational Therapy Team had no objections to the proposals but he queried their experience. He stated that there were specialist reports for other issues but that, in relation to disabled people’s access, there had only been an enquiry to people. Jack Grant felt that there was a lack of care, consideration, and consultation and stated that this was a council project and that effort should be made to get the proposal right as it would be replicated across the borough in future projects.

 

Paul Burnham spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the meeting on 14 September 2021 did not comply with the law as, under Part 4 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority was required to take any representations from consultation into account. He noted that he had written to the Secretary of State, that the Secretary of State had written to the council, and that the application had been brought back to the Committee. It was commented that the decision had to be based on all of the evidence and should not be based on a four page report. Paul Burnham explained that he lived in one of the tower blocks on the estate and residents were concerned that the proposal would result in a lack of amenity, loss of amenity for existing residents, overlooking, and loss of sunlight and daylight. He stated that the frontage of the proposed building contained windows to 17 bedrooms, eight lounges, and 15 balconies which would result in overlooking in both directions. He added that there would be a loss of light, including the loss of 38% of winter sunlight for the play cabin, a loss of 30% for those on the fifth floor, and a loss of 54% for those on the second floor. He stated that the proposal was badly designed and demonstrated a lack of respect for residents and he asked the Committee to refuse the application and ask the applicant to reconsider.

 

Cllr Ruth Gordon, Cabinet Member for House Building, Place-Making, and Development, spoke in support of the application. She stated that she wanted to speak to defend council housing. She commented that the Committee always pushed applicants about the question of affordability and that this proposal would provide 100% genuinely affordable council homes. The Cabinet Member noted that the homes would be provided to nearby residents in the first instance, would allow people to be taken off the waiting list, and would meet the strong need for council housing. She highlighted that the housing would be built to a high standard, including environmental considerations, and would increase green space and play space.

 

Christian Pinchin, applicant team, addressed the Committee. He stated that he would start by responding to some of the points raised in the objections first. He explained that the applicant had sought to balance the number of doors required from a security perspective with ease of access and that the proposal was designed with this balance of issues in mind. Christian Pinchin stated that the South East London Housing Partnership Guidance had been used to help develop the wheelchair units and that these exceeded the basic Building Control requirements. It was noted that disabled units were expected to be at least 76sqm in size and that the largest unit in the proposals was 96sqm. He added that the proposed flats exceeded normal standards, that there were adequate turning circles, and that the proposals included kitchens with lower sections to adapt for specific users. He noted that accessibility had been considered and that the proposals had been made as good as possible.

 

In relation to fire issues in the wheelchair units, Christian Pinchin stated that there was a defend in place strategy. He explained that, if the systems were triggered, the sprinklers would activate. It was added that the applicant was consulting with a number of organisations, including Building Control, the London Fire Brigade, Homes for Haringey, and the Occupational Therapy Team, to ensure that the scheme provided good quality homes.

 

Regarding the concerns raised about a lack of amenity, the applicant team commented that the scheme complied with the standards set out in the London Plan. It was noted that the scheme would also contribute to upgrading other landscape schemes in the area. It was acknowledged that there would be a loss of sunlight and daylight for some windows but it was stated that this was often unavoidable in the case of urban developments. It was noted that, following an assessment, this proposal complied with average daylight factors, direct sunlight and visible sky component requirements, and was not considered to be a borderline case where mitigating steps were required.

 

In relation to overlooking, Christian Pinchin stated that there was a close proximity between the proposals and some of the tower block buildings. It was explained that the design placed the balconies on the outer edges of the scheme. It was added that the rear elevation, which the existing tower blocks would mainly face, generally had kitchens, bathrooms, and some bedrooms and it was aimed to limit the number of habitable rooms facing each other as much as possible. He stated that, on balance, the applicant was trying to deliver 23 high quality council rent schemes within the defined parameters.

 

Cllr Rice moved that the proposal should not be voted on. As the motion was not seconded, it was not put to the vote.

 

The Chair stated that the recommendation set out in the report was to grant the application. The Head of Development Management noted that the item brought together the original report, the changes set out in the minutes of the previous Planning Sub Committee meeting, and the additional information as set out in the report and the addendum.

 

Following a vote with 6 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 3 abstentions, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of an agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms in Appendix 1 of the report.

 

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions 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.

 

3.    That the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 12th November or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

 

4.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (3) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions contained in Appendix 1 of the Planning Sub Committee’s report, as amended in the addendum and minutes.

 

Cllr Ibrahim did not take part in the voting for this item as she was not present for the full item.

Supporting documents: