Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of site to provide 41 new homes (Use Class C3) within 3 buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, with associated vehicular access from Woodside Avenue, wheelchair parking, landscaping, refuse/recycling and cycle storage facilities. New stepped access to Parkland Walk from Woodside Avenue.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing building and redevelopment of site to provide 41 new homes (Use Class C3) within 3 buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, with associated vehicular access from Woodside Avenue, wheelchair parking, landscaping, refuse/recycling and cycle storage facilities. New stepped access to Parkland Walk from Woodside Avenue.

 

Christopher Smith, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was confirmed that Passivhaus standards aimed to ensure energy efficiency in buildings.

 

David Staples spoke in objection to the application and noted that he was speaking on behalf of Woodside Square. He explained that, although there was support for the redevelopment of the site for mixed tenure housing, there were objections to the current and height and scale of the proposals. It was felt that the design would negatively contribute to the area and that the proposal to have a six storey building, where the majority of buildings in the area were three or four storeys, would fail to meet Council Policy DM1b which asked that developments related positively to the locality in terms of height, scale, and massing. David Staples stated that the design was not high quality and that it would include open corridors which was considered to be an outdated design concept with safety issues. It was felt that Building A would have a heavy mansard roof with excessive scale that would not replicate the small, articulated rooflines in the area. It was added that the proposal should be set back from the road, similar to other buildings in the area, to avoid an overpowering impact. David Staples stated that 93 of the 244 responses to the consultation objected to the proposal and that these comments had not been incorporated. It was requested that the development was sent back to the developer with a reduced brief so that the design could be addressed.

 

Mark Simons spoke in objection to the application and stated that a key issue with the application related to parking. It was noted that this was a car free development and that there should be basement parking, similar to Woodside Square, that there should be a central parking zone to prevent encroaching on surrounding roads, and that there should be an equal split of parking for local residents. It was added that the parking survey referenced in the report only related to evening parking but that there were issues during the day. It was felt that a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) should be agreed with local residents in this case as there was no on site parking. Mark Simons stated that there had been a number of objections to applications on this site and that the current application did not address the issues raised. It was stated that the application should not be granted for reasons of overdevelopment and parking. If the application was granted planning permission, the Committee was asked to include a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

Cllr Cathy Brennan spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the majority of residents were in favour of more social housing and social rents but that there were objections in relation to size, massing, and the appearance which was considered out of character with the local area. She noted that it was important to coproduce with residents and felt that the Council should listen to residents. She explained that residents felt that the proposal should fit with the surrounding architecture, should incorporate different coloured brickwork into the façade, and should have additional greening to echo Highgate Wood. It was noted that the Friends of Parkland Walk consultation response raised concerns about Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) compliance and asked that there was an acoustic hoarding for construction as well as temporary drainage during construction to protect Parkland Walk. Cllr Cathy Brennan stated that the Quality Review Panel (QRP) had advised on massing and density and had recommended that the views of Highgate Wood were protected. She commented that the style of Building A would be out of place in the local area and felt that the proposal would benefit from reduced massing and additional lightening.

 

Cllr Scott Emery spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Cllr Pippa Connor, ward councillor. It was noted that social housing was of vital importance and that it was good to see this provided on the site and it was stated that mixed tenure blocks should be provided as standard in proposals. It was noted that the main objection to the application was that there had been no changes in response to the consultation. It was stated that the design was not in keeping with the Edwardian design of the area and that the height and bulk of Block B was considered to be overly dominant in the conservation area. It was noted that, under Council Policy DM1, all developments must achieve high standard of design and contribute to the amenity and character of the area. It was argued that Block A contravened DM1 as it had a materially different height, bulk, and design to the area. In addition, it was commented that the proposal would result in 20 felled trees, risks from raised walkways, increased traffic in an area with several schools, and a lack of parking. It was also suggested that a more sympathetic design would be welcomed.

 

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

·         Some members of the Committee enquired about the changes that had been made to the proposal. The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that the height of the proposal was considered to be compatible with some of the local context, particularly the rows of shops on Muswell Hill Road which were an established context for this height. It was explained that the site was outside of the conservation area and that the design aimed to reinterpret features of the neighbourhood which the applicant might be able to expand upon. It was added that the Local Planning Authority did not seek to impose strict design guidelines on developers but that the QRP agreed that the proposals had a good quality of design.

·         In relation to the request for additional greening, Cllr Cathy Brennan clarified that she believed that the greening of the wall facing Parkland Walk would enhance the proposal and reduce the visual impact of the block.

·         It was noted that the proposals had been considered by the QRP three times and that there had also been a physical site visit. It was explained that this was not unknown but that there had been a thorough series of reviews and that this had included changes and improvements.

·         In relation to the colours of the proposal, Cllr Cathy Brennan clarified that she understood that the building would be red but believed that more white elements would better reflect other designs in the Muswell Hill area.

·         The Transport Planning Officer noted that the development was not eligible to be car free as the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) was 2. It was added that the site was not in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) so it was not possible to restrict street parking.

 

Cllr Ruth Gordon, Cabinet Member for Council House Building, Place-Making, and Development, spoke in support of the application and stated that it was a Council development which would respond to significant housing need. It was noted that this site provided an opportunity to deliver council housing in the west of the borough. The Cabinet Member stated that the development would provide high quality homes, would be close to net zero carbon, and would be Passivhaus certified which was important for energy efficiency. The Committee was asked to support the proposal.

 

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. Jo McCafferty, Architect, stated that the proposals would provide high quality new homes in a key location. It was highlighted that the design would be mixed tenure and that the social rent homes would be fully Passivhaus certified. It was noted that the proposal had a strong landscape focus and that 830sqm, which was 21% of the site, would provide a new, green space. It was added that there would be a Parkland Walk access route with improved safety measures, including new lighting. The proposal would also include SUDS, parking for wheelchair users, and secure cycle parking.

 

It was stated that the scale of the buildings had been substantially reduced since the first QRP and that there had also been changes to materials and adjustments for the conservation area. It was explained that all units would have dual aspect and that, although gallery access was required, this had been carefully designed so that each gallery served a small number of homes. It was also noted that overlooking and privacy had been carefully considered with the Secure by Design officer. In relation to overlooking of schools, it was explained that the furniture had been built in away from the windows and that the glazing was set back.

 

Simon Keating, Transport Consultant, explained that there had been a Healthy Streets Transport Assessment to consider the suitability of the site to access local transport and amenities, such as the town centre, schools, and green spaces, and this aimed to support 15 minute neighbourhood. It was noted that the proposals included four disabled parking spaces and loading facilities and turning facilities on site. There was also a Sustainable Transport Plan, including plans to ensure access to local car pools.

 

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

·         Some members enquired about the changes that had been made to the proposal in response to consultation. Jo McCafferty, Architect, explained that, during the pre-application process, the height of the buildings had been reduced. Following meetings with residents and the Friends of Parkland Walk, there had been refinements to the Landscape Strategy, to balcony design, and to include the integration of paler materials. There had also been engagement with the local school to discuss the design of Building B and to discuss additional tree planting.

·         In relation to the design of the frontages, the applicant team explained that providing larger front gardens would reduce the shared amenity space. It was also noted that the proposals aimed to work with the topography of the site to reduce the spoil and soil that would need to be removed from the site.

·         Regarding the proximity of the school, some members noted that the built-in furniture could prevent overlooking but it was commented that this could be altered. The applicant team explained that most spaces overlooking the school were not primary, habitable rooms and would have high windowsills.

·         The applicant team confirmed that refuse arrangements had been agreed with the Council’s waste team and the operator, Veolia. The units would be served from Woodside Avenue and double lines on the road had been extended to ensure that there was sufficient room for refuse collection vehicles.

·         In relation to parking, it was noted that the eight dwellings to the rear had no allocated parking. There were six marked bays for on plot parking which were informal and had been associated with the previous care home use. The applicant team noted that there had been a parking survey in October 2020. It was explained that the survey results indicated that there were likely to be approximately 34 spaces available during the early morning, when most residents were expected to be at home, and approximately 23 spaces during the day. It was stated that, based on these results, it was considered that it was suitable for the development to be low car or car free.

·         It was clarified by the applicant team that residents had no rights to use the six marked parking bays but that the parking survey aimed to consider the impact of the development on parking, based on the 2011 parking census and availability in the area.

·         It was confirmed that there was a designated Fire Consultant and a Fire Strategy for the development. It was added that the applicant had met with the Fire Brigade and with Building Control who had no objections to the arrangements.

·         The Assistant Director for Housing clarified that a post-occupancy survey was standard for all developments and that the applicant would be happy to commit to this. The Head of Development Management suggested that this could be incorporated into Condition 20(c) to add the following wording: ‘including a residents’ survey to evidence this training and engagement’. The last sentence of Condition 20 would then read: ‘This should include energy use data for the first year and a brief statement of occupant involvement, including a residents’ survey, to evidence this training and engagement’. This was supported by the Committee.

·         Some members raised concerns that, if the private homes were sold as freeholds, there would be no contributions to the area in terms of maintenance and other matters. The Assistant Director for Housing explained that efforts would be made to get the maximum possible contribution to amenity spaces but legislative restrictions were expected to be introduced shortly and so it would only be possible to confirm based on the legislative landscape when the houses were sold.

·         It was noted that the scheme would result in a 90% reduction in carbon, rather than being carbon zero and that a financial offset would be applicable. The applicant team explained that there were challenges in designing a Passivhaus scheme in a sensitive site was complex. For example, it was noted that flat roofs were better for Passivhaus but would not be particularly suitable for the context of the site. It was stated that the proposals aimed to achieve a balance.

·         It was noted that the London Plan stated that major developments should be zero carbon. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability explained that there was a preference for developments to be zero carbon on site but that, where this could not be achieved, there could be a financial payment which went into the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) fund.

·         It was noted that there were some references to further development. The Head of Development Management explained the further development related to some requirements of the masterplan. Any proposal in part of an allocated site was required to demonstrate that the delivery of the site allocation and the wider objectives would not be compromised and the proposal was considered adequate in this regard.

 

Cllr Cawley-Harrison moved to defer the application. He stated that the addendum, which had been received shortly before the meeting, raised a number of significant questions. He also noted that there was a live police report, a court case, and an internal investigation in relation to the site and he did not think that it was appropriate to determine the case before the other investigations had concluded. It was added that a Local Government Ombudsman report had been published earlier in 2022 and that there was no confirmation that the Council had resolved all the points raised in this report. As it was not seconded, the motion was not passed.

 

The Legal Advisor commented that the Local Government Ombudsman case had been resolved and closed and it was considered that there had been a satisfactory response. The Legal Advisor was not aware of any court action in relation to the site.

 

Cllr Bevan noted that the addendum included a comment from an anonymous person and he did not believe that it was possible to accept anonymous comments. The Legal Advisor acknowledged that anonymous comments were not ordinarily accepted but that there were exceptional circumstances in this case where anonymity was considered to be justified.

 

It was confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission, as set out in the report and the addendum, and subject to the amendment of Condition 20(c) to include a residents’ survey.

 

Following a vote with 8 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the commitment to provide the measures set out in para 2.10 of the report.

 

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 measures 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 commitments in resolution (1) above are to be confirmed in writing no later than 31st July 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; and

 

4.    That, following the written confirmation referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (3) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

To Note

 

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.    As this is a council scheme, it is not possible for planning obligations to be secured at this stage. In order to ensure so far as practicable that any requirements that would normally be secured through a s106 agreement are provided, it is proposed that appropriate planning conditions be imposed on the planning permission including a condition that will enable the LPA to secure any required planning obligations in the event that part or all the land is transferred to a third party.

 

7.    It is recognised that the Council cannot commence to enforce against itself in respect of breaches of planning conditions and so prior to issuing any 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 permission 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.

 

9.    Agreed measures:

·         Affordable housing/Social rented housing

·         Employment and Skills contribution and associated obligations

·         Highways works

·         TMO

·         Travel Plan

·         Travel Plan Monitoring Contribution - £3,000

·         Car Club - a credit of £50 per annum for a period of three years from the Occupation Date in respect of each Residential Unit to the Occupiers of each Residential Unit up to a maximum of two

·         Obligations monitoring fee