Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of existing car-wash site to provide 16 new homes for Council rent comprising a part three, part four-storey apartment building fronting Archway Road, and two houses fronting Baker’s Lane with associated refuse/recycling and cycle stores, amenity space and landscaping. Provision of one on-street wheelchair accessible parking space and service lay-by on Archway Road.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the redevelopment of existing car-wash site to provide 16 new homes for Council rent comprising a part three, part four-storey apartment building fronting Archway Road, and two houses fronting Baker’s Lane with associated refuse/recycling and cycle stores, amenity space and landscaping. Provision of one on-street wheelchair accessible parking space and service lay-by on Archway Road.

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

·         Some members asked about accessibility; it was noted that the site was located on the gyratory, that there would only be one blue badge parking space, and that the nearby crossing points were not zebra crossings or traffic lights. The applicant team noted that an accessibility consultant had been involved in the scheme and it was considered to be fully accessible. It was added that a detailed report would be available in the application documentation.

·         It was explained that an existing layby on the road would be a dedicated blue badge parking space. Transport for London (TfL) did not generally permit dedicated spaces in these situations but had acknowledged the importance in this case.

·         Some members suggested that the bicycle lane on the gyratory should be protected and it was enquired whether the applicant or officers could further discuss this with TfL. The applicant team explained that this would be pursued but was unlikely to be successful. It was noted that the proposals for the site should not prevent future changes if they were agreed by TfL.

·         Some members noted that the proposal would be for 16 new homes at council rent and it was enquired what this meant in planning terms and what sort of weight the Committee should give to this. The applicant team noted that the financial appraisals had been undertaken for social rent, also known as target rent, and that no other form of rent was being considered; the Head of Development Management explained that the Section 106 legal agreement would be drawn up on this basis. In terms of the weight in decision making, the Head of Development Management noted that this was a matter of discretion but that council rent was classified as a type of affordable rent and that it would be reasonable for the Committee to take affordability into account as part of its decision making. It was noted that there was no specific guidance that this should be given more or less weight. It was confirmed that council rent meant formula rent in this case.

·         It was clarified that there would be no change to the adjacent red route and that the loading bay and parking bay would be monitored by TfL Closed Circuit Television (CCTV).

·         The applicant team clarified that a landscape architect was designing a play area for under fives on the site. The amenity space was being designed to comply with the required standards and would be provided at ground floor level; full details would be included as part of the application.

·         Some members drew attention to the other buildings that had been used as inspiration and queried whether the proposal should include some more detail, such as pitched or mansard roofing. It was suggested that it would be beneficial for the design of the proposal to be more distinct to reflect its context as a prominent entrance point to Haringey. The applicant team explained that they had undertaken a lot of design and conservation work in designing the scheme. Further work would continue before the application was submitted and it was hoped that the Committee would find the design acceptable. It was highlighted that flat roofs were sometimes required in order to meet Passivhaus low energy design standards.

·         Some members provided comments that the units would benefit from avoiding letterboxes on external walls, good design of the lobbies which allowed easier maintenance, and reversible windows that could be cleaned from the inside. It was also requested that the application set out whether the units would have open plan kitchens or separate kitchens and how many units would be single aspect.

·         The applicant team commented that they would be securing a minimum of ‘Good’ for designing out crime and would be aiming for ‘Outstanding’.

·         In relation to the impact of noise and pollution for residents of the site, the applicant team noted that detailed scientific research had been undertaken and that the results would be included with the application. It was explained that there would be mechanical ventilation on site and the levels of pollution were predicted to be similar to other, urban schemes. It was added that the principal rooms for the units would face inwards, to the garden area, rather than to the road.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.

At 8.30pm, the Committee agreed a brief adjournment. The meeting resumed at 8.35pm.