Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of garages and removal of parking area and erection of 3no. x 2-storey houses fronting Barrington Road with front and rear gardens and associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Erection of 6 apartments in a 3-storey building fronting onto Park Road and associated external amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Landscaping improvements around Ramsey Court including new communal garden, planting, trees and boundary hedging, and provision of new refuse/recycling store and cycle storage facilities for existing residents. 2no. on-street wheelchair parking spaces and new street trees along Park Road.

 

Recommendation:  GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of garages and removal of parking area and erection of 3no. x 2-storey houses fronting Barrington Road with front and rear gardens and associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Erection of 6 apartments in a 3-storey building fronting onto Park Road and associated external amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling storage. Landscaping improvements around Ramsey Court including new communal garden, planting, trees and boundary hedging, and provision of new refuse/recycling store and cycle storage facilities for existing residents. 2no. on-street wheelchair parking spaces and new street trees along Park Road.

 

Conor Guilfoyle, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a question about Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), the Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the parking stress had been calculated within a radius of 200 metres. It was noted that the worst case scenario for parking stress was 101% but this assumed that all garages were used for parking and this was known not to be the case. It was stated that the realistic parking stress was estimated to be approximately 92%; although this was above the 85% threshold for parking difficulty, it was concluded that the parking stress survey was robust and it was supported from a transport planning perspective.

·         In relation to daylight impact, the Planning Officer noted that the BRE (Building Research Establishment) Guide was not an absolute indictor of acceptability. It was explained that it was intended to be used more flexibly and pragmatically in an urban context. It was added that daylight in certain rooms, such as living rooms, was considered to be more important than other rooms, such as bedrooms. On balance, it was considered that the proposal was compliant.

·         Some members commented that the site was classified as Flood Risk Zone 1 but that it had flooded twice last summer; it was asked what mitigations were in place. The Planning Officer explained that the flood rating was set by the Environment Agency but that the scheme included a mandatory sustainable drainage requirement.

·         It was acknowledged that Block B had a noise limit for air source heat pumps but it was queried whether Block A needed similar measures. The Planning Officer believed that there was also plant on the roof of Block A but it was explained that Block B was a lower building and there was a higher risk of noise traveling to residential units.

·         It was confirmed that there would be a net loss of open space. It was commented that Policy DM20 recognised the importance of the quality of space, rather than just the quantity, and that the scheme aimed to provide a higher quality of space.

·         Some members commented that some distances between buildings seemed tight and it was queried whether there was a requirement to have a 20 metre gap. The Planning Officer explained that the 20 metre guidance was typically for more suburban areas. It was acknowledged that this was not always possible on constrained sites but it was stated that the layout of the scheme was designed to have a lower impact.

·         It was queried whether the site was within 5 metres of a strategic water main. It was clarified that this was not the case and that Thames Water had initially thought that this site was in a different location.

·         Some members queried the suggestion in the report that there would be a 101% reduction in carbon as the site was currently a grass area. The Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning explained that, in this case, there was no carbon offset requirement. All carbon targets would be met on site and so there was no requirement for a financial payment offsite. It was clarified that there would be a reduction against the threshold target.

·         In relation to the replacement trees, it was enquired how long it would take for the same level of canopy coverage to be achieved on Park Road. The Tree and Nature Conservation Manager noted that there would be a net increase in tree cover. On Park Road, it was recommended that the existing Norway Maple trees and small apple tree were replaced with five London Plane trees. It was clarified that it would take approximately 15-20 years to achieve the same level of canopy cover but it was noted that the current trees had a limited life expectancy.

 

At this point, Cllr Ross joined the meeting.

 

Lea Govender spoke in objection to the application and explained that she was speaking on behalf of residents who were strongly against the proposals. It was noted that nearly 1700 people had signed a petition opposing the scheme and that there was no local support for development. In terms of grounds for rejection, it was stated that there would be a 40% loss of amenity green space and a 38% increase in units. It was considered that the proposals had excessive density and that the worth of green space had been underestimated. Lea Govender stated that the noise from the heat pumps was significant and would have a detrimental impact on mental health, particularly as more people were now working from home. It was felt that the environmental enhancements proposed would not provide adequate compensation for the loss of space. It was stated that the proposal would conflict with planning policy and would negatively impact residents and their wellbeing.

 

Joe Banks spoke in objection to the application and stated that the key reasons for the objection were set out in the written document that had been submitted. He explained that the main issue was whether the green site should be built on. It was stated that the space was a much loved feature and amenity in the community for the last 70 years and was beneficial for wellbeing as well as providing a carbon sink and flood runoff. It was noted that preserving green space and tree cover was essential for climate change and was a key priority for the Council. Joe Banks commented that a survey in July 2020 had played a key role in encouraging development on the site and he believed that the advice in survey was wrong. It was explained that the Norway Maples were said to be Category B and C trees that were of lower quality with a lower life expectancy but that this had been re-assessed by an expert who thought that at least two of these trees were Category A trees. It was stated that local authorities should do everything possible to retain Category A trees. It was considered that the replanting would be inadequate, that the loss of trees and green space would be irreversible, and that this was an unsuitable location to build. The Committee was asked not to grant the application.

 

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

·         The Committee asked whether the proposals had been co-designed with residents. Lea Govender noted that there had been a meeting but that the proposals were located so close to the building that co-designing was not possible. It was stated that the second phase of consultation had been undertaken through letters because of Covid-19. It was acknowledged that the plans had changed for building on the green space and the land at the back but that the development was still considered to be too close to existing buildings.

·         In relation to the existing space, Lea Govender noted that the Council maintained the area but that residents also looked after the space and had planted hedges and picked up litter. She added that the area was important for residents as it provided an alternative to the nearby road, which was noisy and polluted. It was stated that, if the area had buildings, there would be reduced space and additional noise.

 

Cllr Pippa Connor, Muswell Hill ward, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the social rent elements were welcomed but that the material considerations were density, loss of green space, removal of mature trees, poor air quality, design of the flats, and daylight and sunlight levels. She noted that Policy DM 23 stated that all proposals should consider air quality and that the air quality assessment for this application showed high levels of pollution. It was commented that the application proposed to remove mature trees and build on green space and that this was not considered to meet Policies G1 or DM23. Cllr Pippa Connor noted that London Policy D3 stated that scheme should enhance the local context but did not consider that the proposed block, brick building enhanced the area. She stated that there would be a lack of daylight in some flats and that some bedrooms would have no direct sunlight for a significant part of the working day; it was added that this was considered to be more important as more people worked from home. Cllr Pippa Connor asked the Committee to address the material considerations and to reject the application.

 

Cllr Ruth Gordon, Cabinet Member for House Building, Place-Making, and Development, spoke in support of the application and stated that it was part of an ambitious council housing programme. It would provide three 3 bed family homes at affordable council rents. Cllr Ruth Gordon acknowledged that there had been a number of objections and that the plans had been adapted in response to comments over the last 18 months. She stated that there was a need for council housing in the west of the borough, as well as the east, particularly for family sized accommodation. She added that the scheme would increase biodiversity, would have net zero carbon, and would be economical to heat. Cllr Ruth Gordon asked the Committee to approve the application.

 

In response to the points raised by councillors, the following responses were provided:

·         In response to a question about the development of the application, Cllr Ruth Gordon stated that there had been online and face to face consultation with residents. Martin Cowie, Haringey Planning Advisor, stated that there had been ongoing engagement with residents. There had been an initial community engagement exercise based on a different scheme and that, following some concerns about the proposal to build some homes on the existing hardstanding, other options had been investigated. The scheme was amended and relocated from the Barrington Road side to the Park Road side and this change had been subject to wider engagement. It was noted that the team had carefully managed the block to ensure that the minimum number of trees was affected. In addition, there was a focus on enhancing environmental quality and replacing trees where possible. It was considered that the current scheme struck a balance between delivering affordable homes and ensuring mitigation against environmental harm and detriment to neighbouring amenity.

 

Samantha Jones, Haringey Housing Project Manager; Kiran Curtis, Architect; Frances Christie, Landscape architect; and Martin Cowie, Haringey Planning Advisor; addressed the Committee. Kiran Curtis, Architect, stated that there had been a number of consultation events in relation to the application. It was noted that, in response to comments from the consultation, the location of the block had been altered to the Park Road side. It was acknowledged that the scheme would involve building on green space and the removal of some trees but it was highlighted that there would also be a new garden; this garden would be over 420sqm and would be located in a better and more accessible space than the existing garden which was next to the road. Kiran Curtis noted that some of the proposed bedrooms in Block A did not meet the BRE recommendations in relation to sky sight but explained that all rooms passed the criteria for average daylight factor. In relation to design, he commented that significant work had been undertaken to echo the features of Barrington Road and Park Road, including building lines, plot widths, window proportions and rhythms, and building materials.

 

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

·         In relation to resident engagement, the applicant team explained that the proposal had been refined incrementally after consultations with the community rather than being presented as a choice between two options. The team had aimed to enhance the environmental quality of the estate, to mitigate loss of sunlight and privacy, and had worked with the Local Planning Authority to ensure compliance.

·         In response to comments about the design of the proposal, it was explained that the project team had aimed to optimise the land available to deliver predominantly social housing and so had reduced the size of the block on Park Road. The block was designed to be a contemporary building with traditional materials and a high quality appearance which reflected the varied appearance of Park Road.

·         In relation to the proportion of social housing, the applicant team explained that it was sometimes possible to fund entirely social rent homes but that it was sometimes necessary to fund social housing through private units in order to deliver genuinely affordable homes.

Following a vote with 6 votes in favour and 2 votes against, 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 an agreement providing for the obligations 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 & 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.

 

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.    Details of hard and soft landscaping

5.    SuDS Maintenance and Management

6.    Energy Strategy

7.    Overheating measures

8.    Living roofs

9.    Land contamination

10. Unexpected contamination

11. Non-Road Mobile Machinery

12. Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plans

13. Construction and Energy Plan

14. Noise limits from plant

15. Cycle Parking

16. Construction Management Plan

17. Roof restrictions as balconies

18. Central Satellite dish

19. Satellite dish restriction

20. Highway works

21. Part M4(2)

22. Part M4(3)

23. Permitted development restrictions

24. Architect Retention

 

Informatives

 

1.    Co-operation

2.    CIL liable

3.    Hours of construction

4.    Party Wall Act

5.    Street Numbering

6.    Fire safety and sprinklers

7.    Surface water drainage

8.    Thames Water

9.    Asbestos

10. Secured by Design advice.

 

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