Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of site including demolition of garages to provide 46 new homes for Council rent (Use Class C3) comprising part 3, 5 and 6 storey apartment buildings (31 homes) and 1, 2 and 3 storey houses and maisonettes (15 homes) with associated amenity space, landscaping, refuse/ recycling and cycle storage facilities. Reconfiguration of Remington Road as one-way street, 7 on-street parking spaces, children's play space, public realm improvements and relocation of existing refuse/recycling facilities.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of site including demolition of garages to provide 46 new homes for Council rent (Use Class C3) comprising part 3, 5 and 6 storey apartment buildings (31 homes) and 1, 2 and 3 storey houses and maisonettes (15 homes) with associated amenity space, landscaping, refuse/ recycling and cycle storage facilities. Reconfiguration of Remington Road as one-way street, 7 on-street parking spaces, children's play space, public realm improvements and relocation of existing refuse/recycling facilities.

 

Tania Skelli, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was enquired why the proposal would be built on green space and how many trees would be removed. The Planning Officer explained that the site was not classified as green space but included an area of non-designated open space which was considered to be low quality. It was noted that 15 trees would be lost but that there would be 63 new trees. The Head of Development Management acknowledged that the quantitative loss of open space was not strictly in accordance with Policy DM20, which stated that there should be no net loss. However, as the area had been assessed as low quality space and the proposal would deliver enhancements, it was considered that the benefits outweighed the harm of the proposal and that the scheme was acceptable.

·         Some members noted that there had been little response to the consultation and commented that it was reassuring to see some comments in the addendum. It was suggested that the council should employ a community development worker to coproduce the communal areas with residents. Martin Cowie, applicant team, explained that residents and the local community would be consulted on the specifics of the landscaping. It was noted that the current proposals were based on the comments received so far but that further engagement would take place. It was confirmed that, although it may not be possible to deliver some requests, the applicant would be happy to accept a condition to reflect this.

·         In relation to a question about the response from the Conservation Officer, it was clarified that the site was located in the St Ann’s Conservation Area, not the Wood Green Conservation Area. It was confirmed that the Conservation Officer had not objected to the proposals and it was considered that there would be no harm to the conservation area.

·         The Head of Development Management explained that, as this was a council application, the carbon offset payment would be undertaken as an exchange of letters between Council Directors as it was not possible for the council to secure a section 106 agreement with itself.

·         Some members drew attention to the illustration of the village square and raised concerns that there was a pathway from the playspace directly onto the road. It was also noted that raised walls were considered to be unsafe as pedestrians could be pinned against these walls by cars. It was suggested that the square should be redesigned. Sarah (Landscape Architect), applicant team, noted that this area was currently a triangular area of grass with two benches and bins. It was explained that the proposed village square was not a formal playspace but would be used for doorstep play. It was added that there were raised planters to create a buffer and that there was separation between the pavement and road so that there was a clear distinction.

·         It was enquired whether there could be a safety audit in relation to the village square. Satish Jassal (Architect), applicant team, noted that the proposals had been subject to a road safety audit and no concerns had been raised.

 

Jack Grant spoke in objection to the application. He commented that the applicants had described the playspace as informal but that the main justification for removing the park was that it was not a designated playspace. It was stated that there was analysis of the child yield calculations but that current residents were not counted within this. Jack Grant noted that the applicant’s response in the addendum stated that 17 out of 38 respondents to the ballot had confirmed that they used the park but he commented that most people did not respond to planning issues as they did not believe they were listened to. It was stated that there were 670 units on the estate and that these residents required open space. It was noted that playspace would be lost and that most of the playspace and space would be shared with the wider community. Jack Grant expressed concerns that there were some units which would not meet lighting standards and that a number of these were disabled units. He added that, although most areas allowed an appropriate wheelchair passing width of 1.5m, the areas where this was not provided were between wheelchair units and the parking spaces for these units.

 

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

·         Jack Grant confirmed that he did not live on the site but that he was a member of the Homes for Haringey residents’ liaison committee.

 

Satish Jassal (Architect), Sarah (Landscape Architect), and Martin Cowie (Planning Advisor), applicant team, addressed the Committee. Satish Jassal noted that a section 105 consultation had taken place on the loss of open space. It was reported that letters had been sent to 671 households; 17 responses had been received from those who used the open space and four responses had been received from those who used the area daily. It was added that there had been no objections from the houses in the immediate area in relation to the detailed plans.

 

The applicant team provided a correction in relation to the comments made in relation to daylight and sunlight. It was noted that only one of the wheelchair homes would have a reduction in daylight and sunlight. It was explained that, as this unit would have an open plan living and kitchen area, this would be a deeper room but that it should be more accessible.

 

It was noted that there would be 900sqm of open space and playspace, which exceeded the requirement by 340sqm. It was explained that there would be additional space for existing children in the area although there was no requirement for the applicant to factor this in for existing homes.

 

In relation to arrangements for people who used wheelchairs, it was noted that regulations required a minimum of 1.5m for pavements, which allowed two wheelchairs to pass, and that this would be provided in all locations.

 

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

·         In relation to a question about how many respondents did not use the open space, Satish Jassal noted that 671 letters had been sent out, approximately 38 responses had been received, 17 responses indicated occasional use of the space, and four responses indicated daily use of the space.

·         It was confirmed that the applicant had tried to maximise the use of solar panels and that there would be 247 solar panels across the roofs. It was noted that the energy from these solar panels would go directly into the homes and would be supplemented with an air source heat pump. It was added that green roofs would also be incorporated for biodiversity and drainage purposes.

 

The Committee requested that the conditions should include a requirement for the applicant to coproduce with residents in relation to the open space and to undertake an assessment of safety. Martin Cowie, applicant team, asked that the safety assessment was specified as an assessment of play space safety rather than road safety; this was accepted by the Committee.

 

In relation to the Committee’s request to include coproduction with residents and playspace safety, the Head of Development Management suggested that this could be incorporated into condition 18 as follows: No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including measurements to coproduce with local residents and to include an assessment of playspace safety, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. This was agreed by the Committee.

 

Following a vote with 10 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 0 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 obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

 

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability 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.

 

3.    That the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 10/02/2022 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director 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 the resolution above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

Conditions (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report)

1)    Development begun no later than three years from date of decision

2)    In accordance with approved plans

3)    Materials submitted for approval

4)    Energy strategy

5)    Overheating

6)    Living roofs

7)    Biodiversity

8)    Land contamination

9)    Unexpected land contamination

10) Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM)

11) Demolition management Plan (DMP)/ Construction Management Plan (CMP)

12) Drainage/ SuDS

13) Drainage/ SuDS – Maintenance

14) Telecommunications apparatus/ S Dishes

15) Secure by design

16) Cycle storage

17) Refuse storage

18) Hard and soft landscaping including tree replacement as amended

19) Electric vehicle charging points (EVCP)

20) Obscure glazing

21) Servicing and Delivery Plan

 

Informatives

1)    CIL liable

2)    Hours of construction

3)    Asbestos removal

4)    Street Numbering

5)    Thames Water

6)    Thames Water 2

7)    Fire safety and sprinklers

8)    Network Rail

9)    Secure by design

 

Planning Obligations

 

5.    Planning obligations are usually secured through a S106 legal agreement. In this instance the Council is the landowner of the site and is also the local planning authority and so cannot legally provide enforceable planning obligations to itself.

 

6.    Several obligations which would ordinarily be secured through a S106 legal agreement will instead be imposed as conditions on the planning permission for the proposed development.

 

7.    It is recognised that the Council cannot commence enforcement against itself in respect of breaches of planning conditions and so prior to issuing planning permission measures will be agreed between the Council’s housing service and the planning service, including the resolution of non-compliances with planning conditions by the Chief Executive and the reporting of breaches to portfolio holders, to ensure compliance with any conditions imposed on the planning permission for the proposed development.

 

8.    The Council cannot impose conditions on planning permissions requiring the payment of monies and so the Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning has confirmed in writing that the payment of contributions for the matters set out below will be made to the relevant departments before the proposed development is implemented.

 

Head of Terms:

1.    Carbon offset contribution

o    Initial and deferred payment of £31,722.90 (50% of expected carbon offset based on the energy report) + any uplift. Payable on implementation including a 10% management fee.

2.    Amending TMO

o    The applicant must contribute a sum of £4,000 (four thousand pounds) towards the amendment of the TMO for this purpose.

3.    Employment skills provision

o    Provision of employment skills and support payment

4.    Social Rent

5.    Car Club membership

6.    Residential Travel Plan

7.    Employment and skills plan

8.    Considerate Contractors

9.    Carbon offset financial contribution (see below)

10. Architect retention