Agenda item

Proposal:Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures to the rear of 819-829 High Road; the demolition of 829 High Road; and redevelopment for a residential-led, mixed-use development comprising residential units (C3), flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), a cinema (Sui Generis), hard and soft landscaping, parking, and associated works. To include the change of use of 819-827 High Road to flexible residential (C3), cinema (Sui Generis), and commercial, business and service uses (Class E).

Listed building consent: Internal and external alterations to 819/821 High Road (Grade II), including reinstatement of hipped roof, demolition works to the rear, facade and related external works, internal alterations, and associated works.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures to the rear of 819-829 High Road; the demolition of 829 High Road; and redevelopment for a residential-led, mixed-use development comprising residential units (C3), flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), a cinema (Sui Generis), hard and soft landscaping, parking, and associated works. To include the change of use of 819-827 High Road to flexible residential (C3), cinema (Sui Generis), and commercial, business and service uses (Class E).

The Committee also considered an application for listed building consent for Internal and external alterations to 819/821 High Road (Grade II), including reinstatement of hipped roof, demolition works to the rear, facade and related external works, internal alterations, and associated works.

Philip Elliott, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to health, some members of the Committee noted that the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had requested a section 106 contribution for new healthcare provision. The Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability clarified that the council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was clear that health contributions were made through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) rather than section 106 legal agreements. It was noted that the CIL payable was a fixed amount based on floorspace and could not be negotiated. It was explained that CIL money could be spent on health services in the borough and that the council and health partners had a wider relationship to discuss CIL spending. It was noted that CIL was decided by Cabinet but that the CIL governance policy document and delivery plan took health into consideration. It was added that the health services were regularly involved in infrastructure planning discussions.

·         Ian Laurence (F3), applicant team, confirmed that affordable housing would be distributed evenly throughout the development, across all unit sizes and different locations throughout the buildings. Richard Serra (Tottenham Hotspur Football Club), applicant team, stated that the offer was policy compliant and the council would have the option to buy some of the units. It was noted that the council would likely not look to buy the intermediate units as it would not be cost effective to obtain the units at intermediate levels and offer them as council rents.

·         It was clarified that there would be 200sqm of playspace on the podium level which would be accessible by all residents. It was noted that there would be an outdoor, communal amenity space which would be compliant with policy. It was added that the scheme would also improve the public realm in Brunswick Square and Percival Court, including a widened vehicle carriageway and delineated pedestrian area.

·         The Planning Officer noted that the applicant had requested a five year. permission and that this was considered to be acceptable to provide some time for future agreements with neighbouring land owners.

·         It was explained that the scheme would provide 19.5% family housing and it was noted that this was a relatively high level compared to other private schemes, particularly in a dense site near a town centre.

·         Some members of the Committee enquired why the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) rate would apply when the permission was granted rather than when it was issued. The Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability noted that this was a technical point. It was explained that planning permission was only issued when the section 106 agreement was agreed which, in this case, could result in an increase that would prejudice the affordable housing arrangements that had been negotiated and agreed. It was highlighted that this was a pragmatic solution and was only applicable for applications where there was a risk that the grant of permission would be finalised when a new CIL rate had come into effect.

·         It was enquired why the Public Health comments expressed concerns about the number of flats per floor. The Head of Development Management explained that the London Plan guidance advised that there should not be more than eight flats per corridor in order to prevent the use of long, thin corridors with little light in a dense development. It was noted that, due to the square shape of the proposal, this was not a scenario of concern as envisioned in the London Plan.

·         It was noted that the figures in relation to single aspect properties did not add up and clarification was sought. Ian Laurence (F3), applicant team, explained that 70% of the units would be dual aspect or greater and that 30% of the units would be single aspect. It was noted that there may be some misallocation in the report but the applicant team confirmed that there would only be one south facing, single aspect unit and that there would be no north facing, single aspect units.

·         The Committee welcomed the fact that council tenants would be spread across estate but enquired whether clustering these homes would assist in minimising service charges to ensure that the units were affordable. The Head of Development Management explained that a number of the proposed council units would be located in the maisonettes on the street and would avoid some of the issues typically associated with service charges.

·         Ian Laurence (F3), applicant team, explained that green roofs were part of the SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) strategy for the scheme. It was added that photovoltaic (PV) arrays would be located on roofs to provide on site energy generation and that these would be maximised on taller roofs.

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 or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below and a section 278 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 (1) above is to be completed no later than 10/03/2022 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.

3.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for above, planning permission is granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

4.    To GRANT Listed Building Consent and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the Listed Building Consent and impose conditions and informatives.

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

Conditions Summary – Planning Application HGY/2021/2283 (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 01 of the report).

Informatives Summary – Planning Application HGY/2019/2283 (the full text of Informatives is contained in Appendix 01 to the report).

Conditions Summary – Listed Building Consent Application HGY/2021/2284 (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 02 of the report).

Informatives Summary – Listed Building Consent HGT/2019/2284 (the full

text of Informatives is contained in Appendix 02 to the report).

Section 106 Heads of Terms: (full text is contained in the report).

6.    That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above being completed within the time period provided for, the planning application and Listed Building Consent applications be refused for the following reasons:

Planning Application

i.      In the absence of a legal agreement securing 1) the provision of on-site affordable housing and 2) viability review mechanisms the proposals would fail to foster a mixed and balanced neighbourhood where people choose to live, and which meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents. As such, the proposals would be contrary to London Plan Policies GG1, H4, H5 and H6, Strategic Policy SP2, and DM DPD Policies DM11 and DM13, and Policy TH12.

ii.     In the absence of a legal agreement securing financial contributions towards infrastructure provision (community space, library, and publicly accessible open space realm), the scheme would fail to make a proportionate contribution towards the costs of providing the infrastructure needed to support the comprehensive development of Site Allocation NT5. As such, the proposals are contrary to London Plan Policy S1, Strategic Policies SP16 and SP17, Tottenham Area Action Plan Policies AAP1, AAP11 and NT5 and DM DPD Policy DM48.

iii.    In the absence of legal agreement securing 1) a residential Travel Plan and financial contributions toward travel plan monitoring, 2) Traffic Management Order (TMO) amendments to change car parking control measures, 3) and car club contributions the proposals would have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the highway network and give rise to overspill parking impacts and unsustainable modes of travel. As such, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies T5, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T6. Spatial Policy SP7, Tottenham Area Action Plan Policy NT5 and DM DPD Policy DM31.

iv.    In the absence of an Employment and Skills Plan the proposals would fail to ensure that Haringey residents benefit from growth and regeneration. As such, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policy E11 and DM DPD Policy DM40.

v.     In the absence of a legal agreement securing the implementation of an energy strategy, including connection to a DEN, and carbon offset payments the proposals would fail to mitigate the impacts of climate change. As such, the proposal would be unsustainable and contrary to London Plan Policy SI 2 and Strategic Policy SP4, and DM DPD Policies DM 21, DM22 and SA48.

vi.    In the absence of a legal agreement securing the developer’s participation in the Considerate Constructor Scheme and the borough’s Construction Partnership, the proposals would fail to mitigate the impacts of demolition and construction and impinge the amenity of adjoining occupiers. As such the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies D14, Policy SP11 and Policy DM1.

Listed Building Consent

i.     In the absence of a planning permission for the proposed change of use of the ground floor and conversion of the upper floors to housing, the proposed removal of historic fabric and internal and external alterations would be unnecessary and unacceptable. As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan Policies HC1, Strategic Policy SP12 and DM DPD Policy DM9.

7.    In the event that the Planning Application and Listed Building Consent Applications are refused for the reasons set out above, the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability (in consultation with the Chair of Planning Sub-Committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission and associated Listed Building Consent which duplicates the Planning Application and Listed Building Consent provided that.

i.     There has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and

ii.    The further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Assistant Director within a period of not more than 12 months from the date of the said refusal, and

iii.   The relevant parties shall have previously entered into the agreement contemplated in resolution (1) above to secure the obligations specified therein.

8.    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out above, the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability (in consultation with the Chair of Planning Sub-Committee) is hereby authorised to refuse any further application for planning permission which duplicates the Planning Application provided that:

i.     There has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and

ii.    The further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Assistant Director within a period of not more than 12 months from the date of the said refusal.

At 9.05pm, the Committee agreed a short adjournment. The meeting resumed at 9.10pm.