Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide approx. 275 new dwellings (min. 50% for social rent) in buildings of between four and thirteen storeys, two commercial units, 41 car parking spaces, new pedestrian/cycle routes, landscaping and public realm improvements.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition of buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide approx. 275 new dwellings (min. 50% for social rent) in buildings of between four and thirteen storeys, two commercial units, 41 car parking spaces, new pedestrian/cycle routes, landscaping and public realm improvements.

Cllr Rice noted that the land in this case was owned by Haringey Council and enquired whether it was a conflict of interest for the case officer to be a member of Haringey Council staff. He stated that it would be better for the case to be presented by an external person. The Head of Development Management noted that the case officer would present the case and then the applicant team would deliver a 15 minute presentation on the application; this was an accepted position where the applicant was the council.

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

·         It was confirmed that pitched roofs were no longer proposed within the application.

·         It was noted that the site had a sunken petrol tank to service vehicles and it was enquired what measures would be taken to ensure that the land was uncontaminated. The applicant team noted that the previous owner had only recently vacated the site and that, after the proper studies had been undertaken, further information would be reported back to the Committee. It was added that there was provision in the cost plan for decontamination.

·         The applicant team explained that the existing wall around the north and west of the site would be taken down, except for some sections of the wall which would be retained in order to preserve existing trees. It was explained that this would create some new public realm to replace the existing, narrow, concrete path.

·         It was noted that the council owned the land and it was enquired whether 100% social housing could be provided. The applicant team stated that about 62.5% of the habitable rooms would provide social housing. It was explained that this scheme also provided larger, family, social housing units which met an important need in Haringey but that this made it more challenging to meet the required levels of financial viability.

·         In relation to amenity, it was enquired whether Down Lane Park would be counted towards the amenity in the application as a number of developments in the area had used the park in their amenity calculations. The applicant team explained that the proposal would meet the required standards for playspace on the site, including integrating play into the landscape, and it was important that the site worked well for the community. It was added that there was a desire for the residents to use and activate the park as well.

·         The applicant team confirmed that the relevant child density calculations had been undertaken and this would inform the play strategy. It was also clarified that the there were three, communal, amenity spaces which were located in areas A and B, as well as in the podium garden at first floor level, above the integrated parking in Building C. It was added that all family homes would have a private amenity space as front and rear gardens. It was also noted that there would be amenity space in the routes around the site, including greening of the route and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) rain gardens. It was commented that there was no intention to have amenity on roof tops but these areas would likely have solar panels and air source heat pumps.

·         In relation to refuse, it was noted that the applicant team had carefully considered movement across the site and had produced vehicular movement and refuse movement diagrams. It was explained that there would be refuse storage in each building to reduce any issues with refuse across the landscape of the site. As part of the refuse strategy, it was explained that refuse lorries would be able to access the roads within the site, via collapsible bollards, for collections.

·         The report suggested that the social rent units would have deck access and members expressed concerns about the safety of this. The applicant team noted that there would be limited use of deck access to serve approximately four doors but these would enable the scheme to achieve dual aspect for the units.

·         In relation to tenure distribution, it was explained that there was a mix of social rented and market sale homes throughout the site but that all units would be delivered to the same quality. It was added that the social rented units were generally the family homes which were in the lower rise buildings and reflected the homes on the other side of the street. It was explained that this worked better for management and maintenance but also for the families themselves.

·         The Committee asked about the safeguarded waste site. It was noted that the Ashley Road Depot had been closed as part of a strategic decision on waste management and that the small recycling facility had been relocated to the Western Road facility near Alexandra Palace.

·         It was enquired whether any of the blocks had mixed tenure. The applicant team explained that, purely from a service charge perspective, individual floors generally did not have mixed tenures. In this scheme, the taller buildings were generally for outright sale and these would require more maintenance and lift access which would result in additional service charges. It was added that all of the communal and social spaces were shared.

·         Some members noted that other applications on council land had proposed 100% social rent. It was enquired whether the sale of homes would be funding the development and whether it would be possible to provide additional intermediate units to have a better, overall blend of tenures. The applicant team noted that there would be some subsidy from the sale of homes on site. It was accepted that additional intermediate units could be provided but it was noted that this was a matter of judgement and would reduce the number of larger, family homes.

·         It was noted that the Committee had previously expressed concerns about shared pedestrian and vehicle streets as they were considered to be unsafe. The applicant team explained that this area was primarily a space for cyclists and pedestrians but that some vehicular access was required for disabled parking and essential vehicle access. It was noted that there would be bollards and the surface would not be fully shared between cars and other users; it was considered to be a safe route and the applicant was discussing the details with the Highways Team.

·         In relation to a query about the wider facilities, such as schools and GPs, the applicant team understood that some provision was being developed in the area but it was noted that this would form part of the considerations for the main application.

·         It was noted that there was reference to a ‘special building’ and it was enquired what this would contain. The applicant team explained that this building was considered to be special as it was located in a prominent position near the park and on a main thoroughfare. The exact nature of the ground floor was a work in progress but it was anticipated that it would be a space for community use, such as a café or shop.

·         Some members noted that it was important to encourage active travel and suggested that fewer car parking spaces could be provided by the scheme.

·         It was enquired whether any changes had been made following the initial feedback from community engagement. The applicant team noted that a number of amendments had been made in response to comments, including some reductions in scale and massing and the movement of the five storey building deeper within the site. There had also been some feedback about the non-residential uses which the applicant team would try to bring forward.

·         In relation to the pathway from the area to the Tottenham Marshes, the applicant team explained that this was outside of the site boundary and was not within the scope of the application. It was noted that the applicant team wished to influence improvements in the area and were working closely with the Regeneration Team who were looking at the wider area.

·         The applicant team confirmed that the building in the southeast of the site was due to be demolished as part of the scheme. It was noted that the building was not locally listed and would be difficult to retain as it was set back from the street. It was commented that the materials from the building would be re-used within the public realm on site.

·         The Committee enquired about the standard of Passive House and London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI) credentials. The applicant team explained that testing was currently underway and that the design of the buildings was crucial to obtaining Passive House certification. It was noted that there was a need to undertake additional testing in response to any design changes. It was also commented that finalising the orientation of the buildings would be the first priority and then the building fabric would be considered. It was noted that there would be triple glazing and that the southern facades would have additional glazing to optimise compliance with Passive House.

·         The Committee suggested that it would be useful to clarify the diagram which showed the distribution of council homes and market sale homes as the existing grid suggested that the buildings had mixed tenures; t was suggested that additional block names or letters could be used.

·         It was noted that there was a policy to give priority for council homes to local residents within 250 metres. The applicant team stated that there were no known council tenants within this area. It was believed that priority would then be given to existing tenants and wheelchair users but that the detail of the policy would have to be confirmed.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.