Agenda item

Proposal: Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 10 residential units (use class C3) comprising of 6  residential flats and 4 mews houses and 131m2 flexible commercial space (Class E (a) - retail, E (b)-café/restaurant E(g)-office) in ground/lower ground floor unit, basement car parking and other associated works.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered a full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 10 residential units (use class C3) comprising of 6 residential flats and 4 mews houses and 131m2 flexible commercial space (Class E (a) - retail, E (b)-café/restaurant E(g)-office) in ground/lower ground floor unit, basement car parking and other associated works.

 

Valerie Okeiyi, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         Some members expressed concern about off-site provision for affordable housing and suggested that council housing should be supported in Fortis Green. The Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability explained that section 106 funding was spent across the borough and that the funding for off-site provision would be used towards affordable housing, including in the west of the borough.

·         The Planning Officer clarified that the current application had not been reviewed by the Quality Review Panel (QRP) because it was materially the same as the previous application. The Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning noted that the previous permission had been granted under largely similar planning policies and that this could be given a reasonable level of weight in decision making.

·         It was confirmed that the report used census data from 2011 as this was the last, full set of information available. It was added that the data from the 2021 census was not fully published.

·         In relation to a query about councillor comments, the Planning Officer noted that these had raised issues about underground parking, the height of the development, daylight, sunlight, privacy, and dust from construction.

·         It was noted that it was helpful to include councillor comments and viability reports alongside the reports for ease of reference. It was confirmed that these could be included in future agenda packs.

·         It was confirmed that waste would be collected from Fortis Green Road and that there was a management arrangement to bring bins within the recommended distance on collection day.

·         In relation to distance, it was confirmed that the mews houses had habitable rooms facing onto the courtyard and bedrooms on the other side. It was added that there were a number of windows that had obscured glazing or thoughtful design. The distance across the courtyard was 11.2 metres and 12.9 metres.

·         It was noted that the QRP had commented on the narrow entrances and it was enquired whether the width could be confirmed. It was commented that the passage was approximately 2 metres and that the plans were included in the report.

·         Some members noted that there were two Victorian or Edwardian cobble crossings and it was enquired whether these stones could be retained in the vehicle crossover. It was suggested that, if the application was granted, this could be included as an Informative in relation to Head of Term 3, Section 278 Highway Agreement.

 

Chris Halton spoke in objection to the application and explained that he had been a local resident for 17 years. He stated that he had been impressed by the original design specification and would welcome a residential development on the site but not in the form of this proposal. He explained that concerns had been raised by local residents and councillors relating to the proposed density, the proximity of houses to Annington Road, and the extensive excavation. It was considered that the proposal would result in an overdeveloped site that was not sensitive to its surroundings, particularly the lower level streetscapes to the north, south, and west.

 

Chris Halton stated that four of the proposed houses were close to Annington Road and that, although these were said to be 18 metres away, this would be closer to 30 feet. It was considered that the development would feel overbearing, would be a risk to privacy, and would almost eliminate the current views of the sky in surrounding houses. It was noted that the new homes would have gardens but that these would be small in size and, as they would be two storeys below the neighbouring garden walls, it was suggested that they would feel cramped. It was also stated that, since the 2017 application, there was now a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the area and it was felt that there was no longer a need for a large underground car park with significant excavation and carbon footprint.

 

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

·         In relation to density, it was noted that the previous application was consistent with the London Plan at the time which used a density matrix. It was explained that the latest London Plan removed the density matrix and now had a design led approach.

·         Geoff Wain and Mark Powell, applicant team, confirmed that the current application sought permission for the same number of units, density, and facilities as the previous application.

 

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

·         Mark Powell, Architect, clarified that the works for the underground car park were anticipated to take between 48-52 weeks but that this would be subject to the results of detailed site analysis.

 

In response to a question about affordable housing, the Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning suggested that it would be possible to amend Head of Term 1 to prioritise off-site provision in Fortis Green ward, then surrounding wards, then other wards, before other locations were used. This was agreed by the Committee.

 

Cllr Cawley-Harrison moved to defer consideration of the application until figures were provided on affordable housing and a full viability statement was available to allow the Committee to make a fully informed decision. It was also suggested that, as the application was in a conservation area, the QRP should review the proposal; this was seconded by Cllr Ross. The Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning explained that the Council’s third party, independent assessor had reviewed the proposal and determined that it provided the maximum, reasonable amount of affordable housing. It was noted that officers were satisfied that the information required had been provided and added that the report could be published if helpful. There were 2 votes in favour of the motion to defer, 6 votes against the motion to defer, and 1 abstention. The motion was not passed.

 

It was noted that the proposal, as amended, was to grant the application subject to an amended Head of Term 1 (to prioritise off-site affordable housing provision in Fortis Green ward, then surrounding wards, then other wards, before other locations were used) and an Informative in relation the Head of Term 3 (to retain the existing cobble stones in the vehicle crossover as much as possible).

 

Following a vote with 7 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 2 abstentions, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the Committee resolve 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 a section 106 Legal 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 section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 04/04/2022 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning Building Standards and 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 (2) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

Conditions

1.    Three years

2.    Drawings

3.    Materials

4.    Boundary treatment and access control

5.    Landscaping

6.    Lighting

7.    Site levels

8.    Secure by design

9.    Secure by design (Commercial aspect)

10. Land Contamination

11. Unexpected Contamination

12. Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plan

13. Energy strategy

14. Overheating

15. BREEAM (or equivalent)

16. Living walls/roof

17. Biodiversity

18. Construction Management Plan (Basement development)

19. Basement design

20. Cycle Parking details

21. Electric charging points

22. Satellite antenna

23. Kitchen Extract

24. Restriction to use class

25. Building Regs Part M

26. Restriction to telecommunications apparatus

27. Hours of use

28. Fire safety design

 

Informatives

1)    Co-operation

2)    CIL liable

3)    Hours of construction

4)    Party Wall Act

5)    Street Water pressure

6)    Sprinklers

7)    Asbestos

8)    Secure by design

9)    Land contamination

10) Waste on site

11) Waste to be taken off site

12) Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water

13) Water pressure

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

 

1.    Affordable Housing Provision

 

·         Financial contribution of £277,343 towards the provision of affordable housing off-site (with prioritisation of off-site affordable housing provision in Fortis Green ward, then surrounding wards, then other wards, before other locations were used).

 

2.    Financial Viability Reviews

 

·         Early stage review if works do not commence within two years

·         Late Stage Review on completion of 80% (8) units

 

3.    Section 278 Highway Agreement

 

·         Reconstruction of the vehicular crossover and adjacent footways (with an Informative to retain the existing cobble stones in the vehicle crossover as much as possible).

 

    4   Sustainable Transport Initiatives

 

·         £8,000 towards enhancement of parking control

·         Monitoring per travel plan contribution of £3,000

·         Three year free car club membership for all residents and £50 in credit per year for the first two years

 

4.    Carbon Mitigation

 

·         Post-occupation Energy Statement review

·         Contribution for carbon offsetting min. £16,647, to be confirmed by Energy Statement review

·         ‘Be Seen’ commitment to uploading energy data

 

5.    Employment Initiative – participation and financial contribution towards Local Training and Employment Plan

 

·         Provision of a named Employment Initiatives Co-Ordinator;

·         Notify the Council of any on-site vacancies;

·         20% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey residents;

·         5% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey resident trainees;

·         Provide apprenticeships at one per £3m development cost (max. 10% of total staff);

·         Provide a support fee of £1,500 per apprenticeship towards recruitment costs.

 

6.    Monitoring Contribution

 

·         5% of total value of contributions (not including monitoring);

·         £500 per non-financial contribution;

·         Total monitoring contribution to not exceed £50,000

 

 

1.    In the event that members choose to make a decision contrary to officers’ recommendation members will need to state their reasons.

 

2.    That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution (2) above, the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing the provision of off-site affordable housing the scheme would fail to foster mixed and balanced neighbourhoods where people choose to live, and which meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 of the Council's Local Plan 2017, Policy H4, H5, H6 and H7 of the London Plan 2021.

 

2. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing the provision of early stage financial viability reviews, would fail to ensure that affordable housing delivery has been maximised within the Borough and would set an undesirable precedent for future similar planning applications. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP2 of the Council's Local Plan 2017, Policy H4, H5, H6 and H7 of the London Plan 2021 and the Mayor of London’s Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance document.

 

3. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing 1) Three years free car club membership and £50 driving credit per residential unit. 3) Section 278 Highway Agreement for highway works for reconstruction of the vehicular crossover and adjacent footways. 4) A contribution towards enhancement of parking controls and 5) Implementation of a travel plan and monitoring free 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 is contrary to London Plan policies T1, and Development Management DPD Policies DM31, DM32 and DM48.

 

4. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to work with the Council’s Employment and Skills team and to provide other employment initiatives would fail to support local employment, regeneration and address local unemployment by facilitating training opportunities for the local population. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SP9 of Haringey’s Local Plan 2017.

 

5. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing sufficient energy efficiency measures and financial contribution towards carbon offsetting, would result in an unacceptable level of carbon dioxide emissions. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SI 2 of the London Plan 2021, Local Plan 2017 Policy SP4 and Policy DM21 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

 

3.    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (6) above, the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of Planning sub-committee) is hereby authorised to approve 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, and

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

 

At 9.10pm, the Committee agreed a short adjournment. The meeting resumed at 9.15pm.