Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a new care home (Class C2 - Residential Institution), together with a well-being and physiotherapy centre. The proposed care home includes up to 70 bedrooms, with ancillary hydrotherapy pool, steam room, sauna, gym, treatment/medical rooms, hairdressing and beauty salon, restaurant, cafe, lounge, bar, well-being shop, general shop, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage, mechanical and electrical plant, landscaping and associated works.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered a full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a new care home (Class C2 - Residential Institution), together with a well-being and physiotherapy centre. The proposed care home includes up to 70 bedrooms, with ancillary hydrotherapy pool, steam room, sauna, gym, treatment/medical rooms, hairdressing and beauty salon, restaurant, cafe, lounge, bar, well-being shop, general shop, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage, mechanical and electrical plant, landscaping and associated works.

 

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

·         The proposal provided traditional long term senior care and met the requirement of Council Policy DM15 to provide an adequate replacement for the existing care home – 70 bedrooms proposed with 43 bedrooms being replaced.

·         The wellbeing and physiotherapy centre - 39% of the 70 bedrooms proposed met the requirement of Council Policy DM15 meeting an established local need and providing a standard of housing and facilities suitable for the intended occupiers.

·         The proposal also met the requirements set out in the current Housing strategy as it would provide a more modern senior care home which was needs-based.

·         The proposed basement plan accommodates 17 car parking spaces, cycle storage.

·         The basement also accommodated the physiotherapy centre and other ancillary and servicing facilities.

·         Each bedroom had its own en-suite bathroom with views to the rear or front garden.

·         The resident facilities also had views onto the landscaped area.

·         The primary access to the care home would be from View Road.

·         The North Hill frontage would provide pedestrian access to the wellbeing and physiotherapy centre.

·         The entrance to the wellbeing and physiotherapy centre was from North Hill and the entrance for servicing was from View Road.

·         The first floor would be dedicated to older people’s care. The second floor would be dedicated to dementia care. Both floors would include dayspace. The third floor was dedicated to the wellbeing centre only and provided convalescent stay accommodation.

·         The quality and layout of the proposed accommodation was considered to be suitable for the intended occupiers in line with the requirements of Council Policy DM15.

·         The proposed tree plan included the planting of 8 new trees which would replace the 7 trees that are of low quality.

·         The set back distance plan highlighted the existing building outlined in red.

·         The site itself and many of its neighbours were densely landscaped with existing trees to be retained and additional trees which also helped to reduce loss of privacy and overlooking.

·         The proposal broadly followed the form and footprint of the existing building, with the proposed building line pulled away from boundaries to neighbouring gardens.

·         The proposal also meets BRE daylight and sunlight guidance.

·         The proposal was a high quality design of an appropriate scale to its context.

·         It respected the visual amenity of the streetscape and locality generally and was supported by Conservation Team.

·         It was confirmed that View Road would be the main access to the site for cars.

·         It was enquired whether there had been an assessment of the need for specialist housing and whether this accorded with Council Policy DM15. The Planning Officer explained that the applicant had commissioned experts to assess demand and that, although there was good provision of traditional care homes in the area, they had identified strong demand for a nursing and convalescent home for recovery.

·         The Planning Officer clarified that the application was classed as a care home with a small element of recovery use.

·         It was noted that the design for the North Hill frontage had been amended and the applicant proposed to use yellow, buff brick.

·         Some members noted that the images of the proposed yellow buff brick appeared to be quite bright and it was requested that matched the existing, Georgian houses in the area as much as possible. The Head of Development Management explained that the exact material would be secured by condition but that it would be possible to include an Informative. This was agreed by the Committee.

·         It was clarified that the Tree Plan explained the constraints relating to the trees on site. It was noted that the Council’s Tree Officer had assessed the scheme and was satisfied that the seven trees due to be removed were of low quality and would be replaced with eight new trees.

 

AurellTaussig spoke in objection to the application and explained that his house was part of the Grade II Listed, Georgian terrace. He stated that the tall, North Hill block would run alongside his garden and would increase the sense of enclosure and would reduce sunlight in his garden by more than 50%. He stated that this would be a significant breach of the guidelines on sunlight which stated that a new development could take away no more than 20% of a neighbour’s sunlight. He noted that only one fifth of his garden would have sunlight and that the windows would have reduced levels of light; the high wall would also result in reduced views of the sky. Aurell Taussig explained that the report stated that his garden was currently overshadowed by buildings and trees but that the guidance and policy advised that trees should be ignored. He had asked for his points to be addressed in the addendum to the report but did not consider that this had been done. It was noted that high brick walls with additional windows, that would overlook residential properties, were proposed and that this would have an overbearing and dominant presence. The houses on Yeatman Road would also lose sunlight to the extent that there would be a breach of the guidelines. It was added that the large basement would require excavation works which would cause cracking and would risk damage to properties. Aurell Taussig commented that his structural engineer had advised that the applicant had not dug the correct type or number of boreholes and had not tested the site in wet conditions which could put his property at risk of flooding. It was stated that the proposal was out of scale with its neighbours, breached conservation area policies, would negatively impact amenity, and would cause structural damage. It was also considered that the proposal would cause harm to the Listed building and that the application should be refused.

 

David Richmond spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the Highgate Society and the Highgate Conservation Advisory Committee. He showed a photo of the previous objector’s garden which included a red outline of the proposal. It was noted that there would be a four storey extension along the whole garden, that the site was in the conservation area, that the impacted property was Grade II Listed and should be protected. It was also considered that there would be a negative impact on the nearby housing estate and that there would be little public benefit. It was requested that a small percentage of the building was removed so that the scheme would be more acceptable. Specifically, it was requested that the North Hill Block was slightly lower to reduce the impact on the area and that there was no basement which presented a risk to the Listed, terraced houses.

 

David Sheinman spoke in objection to the proposal. He showed photos of the proposal. He stated that he would support a new, proportionate scheme that protected his privacy and amenity. He noted that two of the key recommendations in the report were that there would be no adverse impacts on the highway network and that the impact on amenity would be acceptable; he considered that there was no evidence to support these statements. It was stated that the proposal would render parts of View Road single file as parking bays on both sides of the road would be needed to accommodate the development; it was considered that this would lead to traffic on North Hill and would be dangerous for schoolchildren. It was suggested that the application should be rejected on this point alone. In relation to amenity and privacy, he noted that the Council’s policy required developments to ensure high standards of privacy and amenity for neighbours and he did not believe that his amenity or the issue of overlooking had been properly considered in the report. There would be 10 new bedrooms and bedroom windows and eight of these were shown in the picture provided. It was noted that a number of councils had minimum distances between windows of habitable rooms in blocks; this was generally always 21 metres but the proposal was due to be 12.5 metres from the objector’s main living area and 13.5 metres from the dining room. It was added that the proposal would be considered to be more acceptable if it was reduced to provide approximately 55 units.

 

Cllr Scott Emery spoke in objection to the application on behalf of local residents. He stated that there were a number of objections to the proposal which was not considered to preserve the character of the area. It was noted that residents had raised concerns about the size of the development, imposing nature, and loss of light. It was commented that there were guidelines in place and that these should not be disregarded. There were concerns that a Basement Impact Assessment was not originally included with the application and about whether there was sufficient consideration of boreholes. It was considered that the proposal felt rushed and that it would have an unacceptable impact on local residents.

 

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

·         The site was located in a conservation area.

·         In relation to daylight and sunlight, Aurell Taussig explained that the Daylight and Sunlight Report showed that three of the 12 properties tested failed a Sun-on-Ground Test and, for his property, this was by a large margin.

·         In relation to the suggestion that properties would be affected by cracking, Aurell Taussig stated that his comments were based on the Basement Impact Assessment. He commented that he had obtained advice from a structural engineer who had noted that the property would experience unacceptable cracking. It was added that the building that was due to be demolished was not a Grade II Listed building but adjoined Grade II Listed buildings which had been built in 1811 and did not have any foundations. He stated that Council Policy DM9 needed to be upheld.

·         The Conservation Officer noted that there had been extensive pre-application discussions which had considered all heritage assets in the vicinity of the site. It was stated that the height of the building had been reduced and set back further from the Listed terraces. The proposals and the scale had not changed significantly but had been readjusted. In relation to conservation, it was considered that the North Hill elevation improved the townscape. It was added that the issues relating to basement development and amenity were part of the holistic assessment of the application and not necessarily specific to conservation. The Conservation Officer said that the proposal improved the landscape as the highest point of the proposal property was further back from the terrace than the highest point currently.

·         The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability noted that there were two conditions proposed in relation to basement development and that this was addressed in the report. It was added that the Committee could consider some elements of basement development but that some issues were covered in other legislation, such as the Building Regulations. It was also noted that Building Control had been consulted and had no objections at this stage, although any works would be subject to the provision of additional details.

·         The Planning Officer clarified that the windows facing the rear garden on North Hill were hallway windows. The windows facing 1A View Road were first floor bedroom windows. At second floor level, there were no windows as there would be a flat roof and no additional floor was proposed here as there was an enclosed terrace. David Sheinman stated that there would be five new windows opposite 1A View Road and that it was not possible to use obscured glass in habitable rooms.

·         In relation to a query about the retention of the existing block, the Planning Officer noted that the applicant had considered this but that it could not be appropriately adapted to provide a modern care facility.

·         It was clarified that the proposed basement excavation works would be subject to further approval, including approval from Building Control. The Head of Development Management commented that Condition 26 related to the monitoring of construction work and that this could be enhanced to request the submission of the design of the basement, including groundwater. The Committee agreed that this would be beneficial.

 

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. Mitesh Dhanak (Highgate Care) stated that he had worked in the care sector for over 25 years around the UK and in Haringey since 2008. It was regrettable that the previous care home had been lost but it was noted that there had been financial issues and that the current proposal would support 90 new jobs, would retain a care home, and would modernise the rooms available. It was noted that, based on the demand demonstrated during the consultation process, the application had accommodated long term care home use and an additional 27 rooms for convalescent care. Mitesh Dhanak stated that he did not accept the objections that there were unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties given the comments from the Council, the Quality Review Panel (QRP), and Historic England.

 

Neeraj Dixit (ND Planning) stated that the proposals had a high quality design and had undergone two years’ of pre-application discussions to ensure that a number of planning requirements were met, particularly to be in keeping with the context and there was no objection from Historic England. It was explained that the proposal broadly followed the previous building footprint and would be set back from sensitive boundaries. Neeraj Dixit stated that the scheme would replace Truscott House, which was identified as a negative feature in the conservation area. He added that the design approach was considered to be sensitive and well-founded, would have a high quality landscaping approach with a net increase in trees, and was designed to reduce impacts on neighbouring properties. In relation to daylight and sunlight, the proposal achieved a 98% pass rate against Vertical Skyline Component (VSC) guidelines and 99% against No Skyline guidelines and it was commented that this was considered to be good for London. It was stated that, in addition to a Basement Impact Assessment and ground conditions, there would be ongoing assessments to ensure that the works were safe.

 

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

·         Some members enquired whether the proposal would include work experience opportunities. Neeraj Dixit (ND Planning) noted that the applicant has expressed willingness to include work experience opportunities and was happy to include this within the section 106 agreement. The Head of Development Management recommended that the intention could be achieved through an amendment to Head of Term 4, bullet points two, three, and four, to clarify that this should be done ‘during and following construction’. This was agreed by the Committee.

·         It was enquired whether the percentage of the workforce that would be Haringey residents could be increased. Neeraj Dixit (ND Planning) noted that the recommendation was to delegate the exact wording of conditions to officers and he stated that the applicant was happy to discuss this.

·         In relation to the impact of the proposal on the residential properties that had been mentioned, the Principal Urban Design Officer stated that 109 North Hill was the only property with significant loss of sunlight. This primarily impacted the garden which was already not compliant with Building Research Establishment (BRE) standards. It was added that the overlooking windows would serve corridors and would be obscured glass. It was noted that no properties would have any significant loss of daylight and there were a small number of properties on Yeatman Road with an impact on daylight and sunlight. No properties had a significant loss of daylight and it was only 109 North Hill that would lose significant sunlight. This sunlight would be lost in the garden and not in the rooms. The garden of this property was not well sunlit at present and was already below the guidance. It was suggested that there would not be an adverse impact on privacy as the windows were from corridors and would have obscured glass. The applicant added that the issue was that there would be additional shadowing in the rear garden of 109 North Hill.

·         In relation to 1A View Road, the Planning Officer explained that the proposal would increase the height of the building by one storey but would be further set back from the existing building line. The Head of Development Management noted that the general guidance for overlooking was a distance of 18 metres. However, it was highlighted that there was already overlooking and therefore an assessment must be mindful of the privacy the garden enjoyed at the moment and the Committee must judge whether the additional overlooking was any worse. He noted that the separation distances would increase but would still not meet the guidelines, although the current arrangement also did not meet these guidelines. It was added that the 18 metre guideline was based on suburban locations, whereas this was a more dense area with close relationships. With this in mind, officers did not consider the overlooking to be significant enough to refuse on this basis.

·         Some members enquired about the sunlight and daylight impact of the proposal, particularly in relation to the points raised in the objections. The Head of Development Management explained that there were a number of different tests, standards, and comparisons. It was noted that the proposal passed some tests and failed some tests but that the proposal had to be assessed in the round.

·         In relation to the design and heritage impact, the Principal Urban Design Officer stated that the proposal had an intelligent design and it was considered that the North Hill and View Road frontages adapted to and responded well to the surroundings.

 

The Head of Development Management confirmed that there had been some amendments:

·         In relation to the Committee’s request to include enhanced monitoring of construction works of the proposed basement, the Head of Development Management proposed the inclusion of an additional condition, Condition 38, to include groundwater, end flows, and impacts measured on the Burland scale. It was asked that the final wording of Condition 38 was delegated to the Head of Development Management, after consultation with the Chair.

·         The amendment of Head of Term 4, bullet points two, three, and four, to clarify that this should be done ‘during and after construction’:

-       Notify the Council of any on-site vacancies during and following construction;

-       20% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey residents during and following construction;

-       5% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey resident trainees during and following construction.

·         To include an Informative in relation to Condition 3 to request that, as much as possible, the proposed yellow buff brick matched the existing, Georgian houses in the area.

 

It was noted that the recommendation was to grant planning permission as set out in the report and the addendum and subject to the changes noted above.

 

Following a vote with 8 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention, and subject to the amendments above, 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 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 & 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 (2.1) above is to be completed no later than 06/08/22 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; 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.

 

As set out in the report and above.

 

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

 

6.    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 1) Section 278 Highway Agreement for reinstatement of redundant crossover in North Hill at the former access and meet all of the Council’s costs. 3) A contribution towards parking management measures. 4) A contribution towards permit free with respect to the issue of Business Permits for the CPZ. 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, Development Management DPD Policies DM31, DM32, DM48 and Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Policies TR3 and TR4.
2. 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.
3. 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.

 

7.    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.