Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of 11 dwellings and community building and replace with 18 new homes for council rent. Erect 6 no. two-storey family houses (three and four bedrooms) and 12 apartments (one and two bedrooms) in 2  three-storey blocks including 2 wheelchair user dwellings. The proposals includes 2. on-site wheelchair parking bays, amenity and play space, landscaping, cycle and refuse/recycling storage.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of 11 dwellings and community building and replace with 18 new homes for council rent. Erect 6 no. two-storey family houses (three and four bedrooms) and 12 apartments (one and two bedrooms) in 2 three-storey blocks including 2 wheelchair user dwellings. The proposals includes 2. on-site wheelchair parking bays, amenity and play space, landscaping, cycle and refuse/recycling storage.

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

·         Some members enquired why the proposals on Lomond Close were not more in keeping with the existing units which had distinctive slatted wood on the upper level. The Planning Officer explained that there was design variation on Lomond Close and that the new developments would be of a high quality design with durable materials. The Principal Urban Design Officer added that there were a wide variety of appearances in the area and that the proposal aimed to be simple, clean, and well-proportioned.

·         It was noted that that the two houses on Lomond Close had been listed as 3 bed and 4 bed properties but that they were both 4 bed properties. In relation to the differing heights of the existing and proposed houses, it was explained that the existing houses in Lomond Close had shallow, pitched roofs and that the proposed houses would have flat roofs with a 1.1 metre high parapet to allow solar panels to be located on the roof without affecting the skyline.

·         In relation to air source heat pumps, it was enquired whether internal units were proposed, as suggested in the report. The Head of Development Management and Enforcement noted that air source heat pumps would require an external source of air but that this would not necessarily lead to noise issues; it was added the applicant may be able to confirm the arrangements.

·         Some members expressed concern about the loss of the community hall. The Planning Officer noted that the council intended to make funding available for residents and local groups to use at West Green Methodist Church for up to five years. It was explained that this venue was 12 minutes’ walk from the previous hall and that it could be used up to four times per year in accordance with the tenants’ constitution. Some members considered that additional meetings should be available and that the offer should be in place for more than five years. It was accepted that the planning policy requirements were met but that it might be possible to support community groups through other council services.

·         In response to a question about the number of replacement trees in this proposal compared to a previous proposal at Ramsey Court (HGY/2021/3522), the Principal Tree and Nature Conservation Manager explained that the tree canopy in this location was less substantial. It was noted that the proposals included high quality landscaping, more appropriate trees, and improved location of trees.

·         It was noted that the affordable housing uplift proposed satisfied the council’s policies.

·         It was clarified that there was a typographical error on page 217 which stated that the front area of the development would ‘exclude 2 blue badge parking bays’. It was highlighted that this should say ‘include 2 blue badge parking bays’.

Lucia Durcatova spoke in objection to the application. She commented that the proposal would result in a loss of light and a loss of privacy due to the proximity of the building. It was noted that the community hall had already been knocked down because of anti-social behaviour problems. It was added that, during the demolition works on the community hall, there had been parking issues as four parking bays had been blocked off and no alternative parking was provided. It was stated that residents had only been given notice of the application two weeks’ in advance which had not provided much time to respond to the proposal. It was explained that Seaford Road would be losing seven parking spaces and that there had been no time to address this problem.

VivekSunnassee spoke in objection to the application. He noted that he had submitted a petition with 28 grounds of objection and that 105 names had been collected in 24 hours. At the meeting, Vivek Sunnassee explained that he would focus on one ground of objection. He stated that the planning notification had been pre-dated by two weeks; he believed that this was done to give residents less time to respond. It was suggested that alternatives to development should have been considered, such as rebuilding the 11 bungalows with bricks to make them durable and to save on draining and infrastructure costs. Vivek Sunnassee believed that the Council had not been properly informed about the cost of the development. He stated that the most likely cost was between £2 million and £100 million, which was £51 million, and that this had not been compared to the cost of renovating the existing bungalows. He believed that the cost of each additional unit would be £9.4 million. He also stated that the road had been demolished without planning permission.

Cllr Ruth Gordon, Cabinet Member for House Building, Place-Making, and Development, spoke in support of the application and stated that this scheme was part of an ambitious housebuilding programme and would deliver 18 new homes at council rent. It was added that there was significant demand for family homes and that a third of the homes provided would have three beds or more. It was stated that there would be two fully accessible and adaptable homes within the scheme. It was noted that the scheme would have solar panels, green roofs, low running costs, and high quality homes and that it would be built sympathetically to the surrounding area. The Cabinet Member commented that she did not recognise the figures that had been referenced by the objector.

Jack Goulde, Housing Project Manager; Jordan Perlman, Architect; Joe Todd, Landscape architect; Martin Cowie, Haringey Planning Advisor; and Robbie Erbmann, Assistant Director of Housing; addressed the Committee. Jack Goulde, Housing Project Manager, noted that the community hall previously located on the site had been out of use for some time and that the applicant had consulted with the former Chair of the Tenants’ Association at length. It was explained that the hall had been demolished because of issues with asbestos, damp, and structural problems. Jordan Perlman, Architect, stated that the site presented an opportunity to provide homes that were needed. It was suggested that issues of access and anti-social behaviour had been addressed in the application and had been well received by the Quality Review Panel (QRP) and planning officers. It was added that the scheme aimed to provide high quality homes for those who needed them and that the homes would last for a long time.

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

·         It was clarified that housing would be offered first to those who qualified for the Neighbourhood Moves Scheme and that those in temporary accommodation would be housed in accordance with the Temporary Accommodation Policy.

·         In response to a question about co-production, Jack Goulde, Housing Project Manager, stated that there had been extensive discussions about design and landscaping with any residents who had expressed an interest.

·         Some members expressed concerns about the design, the design response to the QRP’s comments, and the general quality of Council schemes. Jordan Perlman, Architect, noted that design was subjective and that the design of this scheme was intended to be simple with the impression of quality and resilience, including deep brick reveals to windows, masonry surrounds, and balconies to provide visual interest. It was noted that the brick had been chosen to reflect the context of the site and that the scale and massing was considered to be in harmony with surrounding buildings. In addition, the balcony rails were angled to provide some screening and there was additional storage in the larger units.

At 9.58pm, the Committee considered whether it was minded to invoke Standing Order 63 to suspend Standing Order 18 so that the meeting could continue after 10pm; this was not agreed by the Committee. The Chair noted that the discussion of the specific item or case in hand at 10pm would continue at her discretion but that any remaining business would be deferred to a future meeting.

·         Cllr Blake acknowledged the comments made by the applicant team about consultation and other matters but asked whether she could be provided with some additional information and clarification outside of the meeting. She asked for figures relating to consultation, why residents were saying that they had received letters two weeks’ before the deadline, and information about car parking being obstructed. The Housing Project Manager noted that additional information could be provided. It was confirmed that there had been a number of consultation events where views had been recorded. In relation to the suspension of parking bays, it was believed that the contractor had applied for permission to use the spaces for the asbestos removal works.

Following a vote with 9 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 13/04/2022 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 resolution (2) 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/details submitted for approval

4)    Energy strategy

5)    Overheating

6)    Living roofs

7)    Biodiversity

8)    Land contamination

9)    Unexpected land contamination

10) Demolition management Plan (DMP)/ Construction Management Plan (CMP) incl. NRMM

11) Drainage/ SuDS

12) Drainage/ SuDS – Maintenance

13) Telecommunications apparatus/ S Dishes

14) Secure by design

15) Cycle storage

16) Refuse storage

17) Hard and soft landscaping including tree replacement

18) Electric vehicle charging points (EVCP)

19) Servicing and Delivery Plan

20) Obscure glazing

21) Piling/ Thames Water

22) Noise attenuation to ASHP and boundary with substation

23) Part M(2)

Informatives

1)    Secure by design

2)    Asbestos removal

3)    CIL liable

4)    Hours of construction

5)    Street Numbering

6)    Fire safety and sprinklers

7)    Thames Water

8)    Thames Water 2

9)    Thames Water Piling

10) Building Control

Planning Obligations:

1.    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.

2.    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.

3.    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.

4.    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. Amending TMO for Car Free Development

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

2. Employment skills provision

-       Provision of employment skills and support payment.

3. Social Rent

4. Car Club membership

5. Residential Travel Plan

6. Employment and skills plan

7. Considerate Contractors

8. Architect retention

9.    S278 Highway work