Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the Site to provide circa 70 nursing home beds, 10 nursing studios for homelessness end of life and 20 sheltered housing flats (Extra Care Flats). Proposals will also include a Day Centre for use of the residents and the wider community as part of a facility to promote ageing wellness.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the Site to provide circa 70 nursing home beds, 10 nursing studios for homelessness end of life and 20 sheltered housing flats (Extra Care Flats). Proposals will also include a Day Centre for use of the residents and the wider community as part of a facility to promote ageing wellness.

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

·         The applicant team noted that there was an existing health centre on site which was delivered by an external provider and was commissioned across five boroughs in North Central London. It was explained that they were looking for an alternative site in Haringey but that the services could be provided across the wider area if required. Emily Snelling, Supported Accommodation Development Lead, stated that keeping the services had been considered but it was highlighted that the site did not provide some key features that had been identified as part of the codesign process, such as connections to amenities and the local community.

·         In relation to trees, it was proposed to remove two mature sycamore trees and a maple tree. It was stated that the sycamore trees were in bad condition and were located across this site and the neighbouring site. In order to provide secure boundary fencing and improve the site, it was proposed to remove the trees and have planting in more appropriate positions. The applicant team explained that the maple tree located at the front of the building was damaging the foundations and external wall. It was noted that moving the entrance had been considered in order to keep the tree but that this would require pushing back the building by 5 metres and including another recess; it was considered that this would negatively impact the street frontage and the relationship with the neighbouring terraced housing. It had been agreed with the Tree Officer that the best course of action would be to plant semi-mature trees around the site and in better locations which would also assist with screening and general appearance.

·         The applicant team stated that off-site construction would be undertaken for the proposal and this was aimed to reduce noise, vibrations, dust, waste, and material storage on site which were often issues with construction, particularly on a small site such as this one.

·         In response to a question about whether the development would be fully car free, the applicant team confirmed that there would be four, blue badge parking spaces. It was explained that the development was not designed to use regular parking but that there may be instances where these spaces were required at short notice; the proposal was designed to be a practical balance.

·         The Committee heard that 8-12 beds per household was considered to be the premium number and the proposal would provide 10 beds per household. It was noted that the communal facilities would be sited at the centre of households, only 8 metres away from the central area; this would encourage independence and movement and the layout would also provide improved lines of sight for nursing staff.

·         In relation to the design of the building compared to the surrounding area, the applicant team noted that the proposed building line was located on what was thought to be the historic building line and was only 2 metres forward of the neighbouring terraces. It was explained that the design had been carefully considered with the Conservation Officer to provide the best quality design that was not pastiche but complimented the surrounding area. The applicant team considered that the proposed proportions matched the rhythm of the street.

·         It was acknowledged that the building was designed to facilitate residential, short term stays but it was explained that a number of key features in the building were not appropriate, such as the provision of en suite toilets rather than full bathrooms. It was noted that additional detail was included in the report to the Council’s Cabinet in 2019.

·         It was noted that the facility would have a mix of residents and that it was aimed to create an innovative unit which would provide nursing care but would be designed to reflect the needs of individuals and provide appropriate placements. It was explained that there were often shortages of placements for those with specific Dementias, those with Learning Difficulties, and Homeless households who often had complex issues.

·         It was added that the outside spaces would be open to all residents, with the exception of those in the homelessness unit who would have their own space and would be more likely to go outside the facility. It was noted that there would be a mixture of areas, including quiet spaces and some spaces with exercise functions.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.