Agenda item

Proposal – Planning Permission (HGY/2022/0823): Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and erection of new mixed-use buildings including residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Class E) and local community and learning (Class F) floorspace; energy centre (sui generis); together with landscaped public realm and amenity spaces; public realm and highways works; car-parking; cycle parking; refuse and recycling facilities; and other associated works. Site comprising: Tangmere and Northolt Blocks (including Stapleford North Wing): Energy Centre; Medical Centre: Enterprise Centre: and former Moselle school site, at Broadwater Farm Estate.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

 

Proposal – Listed Building Consent (HGY/2022/2816): Listed building consent for the removal of Grade II listed mosaic mural to facilitate its re-erection in a new location.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Cllr Bartlett left the room at 7.05pm.

 

The Committee considered an application for Planning Permission (HGY/2022/0823): Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and erection of new mixed-use buildings including residential (Use Class C3), commercial, business and service (Class E) and local community and learning (Class F) floorspace; energy centre (sui generis); together with landscaped public realm and amenity spaces; public realm and highways works; car-parking; cycle parking; refuse and recycling facilities; and other associated works. Site comprising: Tangmere and Northolt Blocks (including Stapleford North Wing): Energy Centre; Medical Centre: Enterprise Centre: and former Moselle school site, at Broadwater Farm Estate.

 

The Committee also considered an application for Listed Building Consent (HGY/2022/2816):Listed building consent for the removal of Grade II listed mosaic mural to facilitate its re-erection in a new location.

 

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

·         In relation to a query about ensuring that there were no mould and damp issues, the Planning Officer noted that the units would have dual or triple aspect, which would maximise natural ventilation, and would be built to a high standard. The Climate Change Manager added that there would be mechanical ventilation and that there was external amenity space which residents could use to dry clothes.

·         It was enquired why it was necessary to move the mural. The Planning Officer explained that the building with the mural needed to be demolished because of its structural condition. It was noted that the mural would be stored whilst a restoration plan was developed and there were conditions relating to this that had been recommended by the Conservation Officer and Historic England. The Head of Development Management added that there was a heritage benefit in moving and displaying the mural in a more appropriate location.

·         It was noted that there would be a £30,000 contribution towards reinstating a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The Planning Officer believed that there was an existing CPZ in the area but that it had lapsed. It was stated that there was an ambition to reinstate the CPZ and the payment would include a consultation process.

·         In relation to parking, it was commented that the area had poor connectivity to public transport. The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that a parking survey had been conducted and had determined that 93% of the units across the wider estate, including the new units, would have access to a car parking space; it was considered that there was sufficient parking.

·         The Planning Officer clarified that a scoping request had been undertaken to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. There had been consultation with various environmental bodies and it was considered that the area was quite a dense, urban environment; as such, the development was not inconsistent with the area and an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.

·         In relation to the housing mix of the scheme, some members noted that a large number of 1-bed units was proposed; it was acknowledged that there wider mixes across the estate but it was enquired why additional 1-bed units were planned in this area. The Planning Officer noted this point and explained that policies could be applied flexibly where there was over 75% affordable housing. It was added that there would also be a significant increase in family homes on the estate with an additional 40 3-bed and 4-bed homes, which was a 62.5% increase. It was considered, on balance, that this was a significant benefit which could justify the number of 1-bed units.

·         Some members commented that the Greater London Authority (GLA) felt that the scheme proposed too much parking and it was asked whether the level of parking could be reduced. The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the reprovision of parking would be 0.3% per unit which amounted to an overall reduction. It was explained that this level had been considered as part of the wider area as it would not be possible to exclude residents from applying for a parking permit in the estate.

·         It was noted that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had expressed some fire safety concerns in relation to single staircases. The Planning Officer noted that this was considered to be a minor issue; the Building Control Team believed that this could be resolved at a later stage and that the scheme was suitable to proceed. It was highlighted that there were conditions which covered fire safety, that the GLA would further review the arrangements, and that there were additional layers of assessment before the build commenced; this would include the ability to make changes if required. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability explained that a single staircase could be safe but that a key requirement was to have a detailed fire engineering analysis.

·         In relation to some concerns that were raised about the entrance lobbies, the Planning Officer noted that the proposed lobbies would be spacious and would have a high quality design. It was added that the materials would be subject to approval, as set out in the conditions. The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that the entrances would be well-designed and located in prominent locations; there would be large windows so that the lobbies would be visible from the street and there would be a double entrance to ensure security and to avoid tailgating.

·         It was noted that the proposed nine storey block would have two lifts and it was enquired whether there would be two staircases. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability explained that there was new legislation and policy and, in particular, a new government circular which stated that the key requirement for very tall buildings would be a detailed fire engineering analysis; it was commented that there was not necessarily a requirement for two staircases. It was confirmed that the scheme would have a staircase and a number of fire safety measures that would be considered in the fire engineering analysis and this would be reviewed by Building Control.

·         The Planning Officer understood that the scheme would be seeking at least silver certification for Designing Out Crime.

·         The Transport Planning Team Manager confirmed that the walking and cycling improvements contribution of £100,000 would enable the site to be linked with Cycle Superhighway 1 and Lordship Lane. It was noted that the contribution was aimed to cover the design feasibility costs and that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and other funds would be sought to implement a road extension into the site.

 

The Chair noted that there had been two objectors but that, as one objector was unwell and unable to attend the meeting, there would be up to six minutes to speak in objection; the same amount of time would be given to those speaking in support.

 

Jacob Secker, Broadwater Farm Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. He explained that he objected to the demolition of the health centre; although the presentation had stated that it needed refurbishment, he noted that it had been built in 1996 and he was not aware that works were required. He stated that the demolition would breach site allocation 61 of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2017 as the replacement, which would be 266sqm and would have one consulting room, would not match the capacity of existing facilities, which was 370sqm with four consulting rooms and a midwife’s room. It was believed that the proposal to have a wellbeing hub with one room, as shown in the images, was different to the information that had been presented as part of the consultation.

 

It was noted that the proposal would have 35% 3-bed and 4-bed units for family housing but Jacob Secker believed that this should be 55% based on the Housing Strategy. He stated that the Planning Statement to the GLA in April 2022 was misleading as it stated that the number of 3-bed and 4-bed units had been reduced to 35% as a result of local housing need; he said that larger units were required. He suggested that the plans included more 1-bed units as they were cheaper to build. He believed that the units needed to better reflect the estate and that more 3-bed and 4-bed units were required as overcrowding was a serious problem in the area. It was suggested that including additional 3-bed and 4-bed units would not necessarily cause delays as the housing mix could be changed in later plans.

 

In relation to parking, there were concerns that a CPZ would be introduced in the area. Jacob Secker stated that it was misleading to say that residents had discussed a CPZ as part of the ballot; they believed that parking was free and more residents would have voted against the plans if they had known that there would be parking charges. He added that there had been a previous petition in 2017 against having a CPZ in the area. It was commented that residents wanted a free estate parking scheme.

 

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

·         In relation to a query about the health provision, the Head of Development Management commented that the site allocation guidelines referred to capacity rather than floorspace specifically. It was noted that the applicant had undertaken significant engagement on this and that the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) was in strong support and considered that the provision would meet local need.

·         The Transport Planning Team Manager clarified that there were two parking elements in the area; there were adopted roads in the estate, which were public highways and would require a parking scheme, and there were other roads which belonged to the Housing Team, which had their own housing parking schemes.

·         In relation to a query about the reduction in 3-bed and 4-bed units, the Head of Development Management stated that the site allocation had a requirement to engage with existing residents to meet housing needs. It was explained that, where homes were being demolished and replaced, there was a requirement to re-provide homes for the existing residents and it was noted that, in this case, the number of family units would be increasing significantly. The Planning Officer clarified that the current provision on site was 70% 1-bed, 3% 2-bed, 25% 3-bed, and 1% 4-bed. In the proposals, there was a slight reduction in 3-bed units from 25% to 20% but a significant increase in larger family accommodation from 1% to 15% 4-bed units.

 

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. David Sherrington, Programme Director for Broadwater Farm, stated that responses to the issues raised by the objector were included in the application and the agenda pack but that further responses could be provided if required. He said that residents had played a central role in the design of the scheme, as set out in the Community Design Statement, and would continue to be a part of the co-design process. It was noted that this scheme was part of a wider programme of estate regeneration which would provide better links to the surrounding area and opportunities for jobs, skills, and training; it was noted that all proposals for the area would be presented to the Committee in due course.

 

Maureen Duncan, Headteacher at The Brook, stated that she was speaking on behalf of local Headteachers and residents with school children. She said that she supported the scheme and felt that it would be significant for the estate which had lived with an undeserved reputation for a number of years. She commented that the design group for the project discussed the future vision for the estate and gave stakeholders opportunities to present ideas. It was noted that overcrowding was an issue in the estate and that the proposal would provide 294 homes with a significant number of 3-bed and 4-bed homes. It was stated that the scheme would help residents to feel safer with the improved pavements and roads and would provide more leisure and play space which would help to give young people a sense of belonging. It was believed that the project would improve the area by providing space for small businesses, a wellbeing centre, and a shop. It was felt that the proposals were ambitious and forward thinking and the estate transformation was welcomed for the vibrant and inclusive community in the Broadwater Estate.

 

Cllr Ruth Gordon spoke in support of the application. She stated that this was a key moment for the scheme in Broadwater Farm which had been developed over a long period of time after consulting and engaging with residents. She highlighted that the scheme would provide 100% council homes and had turned the discovery of health and safety issues in Tangmere Block into an opportunity to rejuvenate the area. Cllr Gordon stated that she believed this was the reason why 85% of residents had voted for the estate regeneration. It was noted that the homes would be high quality and spacious, would have dual or triple aspect, and that every unit would have a balcony, garden, or veranda. It was added that there would be improvements to the wider area, with new streets and facilities, and it was considered a good example for how to deliver placemaking.

 

Cllr Sarah Williams spoke in support of the application. She stated that she was happy to commend the scheme. She noted support for the detailed engagement process which had resulted in flexibility for residents, including a choice between open plan or combined kitchen and living areas.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to ventilation, the applicant team explained that the scheme was designed to be ventilated mechanically and there would be full extraction units for all kitchens and bathrooms. It was added that the dual aspect homes also had the option of cross-ventilation for drying clothes and overheating issues.

·         It was confirmed that the applicant team had met with the Metropolitan Police Secured By Design officers three times throughout the design process and this had resulted in amendments to aspects of the scheme such as public spaces and the interface with the car parking undercrofts. The applicant had also worked with residents to understand the locations on the estate that currently felt unsafe.

·         It was noted that the non-residential uses proposed could create up to 25 jobs; the applicant team explained that this had been calculated using the employment density guide and the proposed uses as set out in the application.

·         It was clarified that the current health centre would not be demolished until the new, alternative provision was in place. The applicant team explained that the new Wellbeing Hub was designed to be a flexible space and could be expanded if required. It was noted that there was additional GP provision to the north of the estate, approximately 10 minutes’ walk away, and it was stated that the area was reasonably well served in terms of medical facilities.

·         The applicant team noted that it was proposed to introduce a Traffic Management Order (TMO) onto the housing land on the estate which would include a free parking permit for residents but with a cost for every permit beyond this. It was commented that this was different to the arrangements for a CPZ.

·         Some concerns were expressed about the existing Enterprise Centre in the area and it was queried whether the new proposals would be effective. The applicant team acknowledged these concerns and explained that the new plans would involve close working with the Economic Development Team to agree a new lease with social value outcomes that would be monitored. It was added that the existing units suffered from design, deterioration, and anti-social behaviour issues and it was believed that the outcomes would be improved with better design and management.

·         In relation to courtyard access, the applicant team explained that it was important to have a balance between accessibility and security. It was anticipated that the gates would be open during the day and locked at night but it was clarified that residents would have key fobs and would be able to access the areas at all times.

·         Some members raised concerns that bike storage rooms were not used by residents due to security concerns. The applicant team explained that a certain number of cycle parking spaces needed to be provided under the planning requirements but that there was some additional storage space within each home which could accommodate a bike or buggy. It was added that this aimed to reduce the impact of storage on the ground floor and provide some flexibility for residents.

·         Some members noted that the quantity of play space had been queried at the pre-application stage and expressed concerns about the proposed level of hardstanding. The applicant team noted that the courtyard for each block would have doorstep play for those under four years of age and that these areas would include as much planting as possible. It was noted that the central park had more areas of hardstanding which were intended to be used by residents for flexible purposes, including some waterplay for younger children. For older children and young people, it was noted that Lordship Recreation Ground was located nearby. The Programme Director for Broadwater Farm added that there would be further work with residents in relation to the existing courtyards and whether these should be further developed into play space or other uses.

 

It was highlighted that the Committee was asked to consider two applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent. It was confirmed that the recommendation in both cases was to grant planning permission, as set out in the report and the addendum.

 

Following a vote with 9 votes in favour, 0 vote against, and 0 abstentions, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the measures 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 (planning permission) 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 measures referred to in resolution (1) above are to be completed no later than 23^rd December 2022 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

 

4.    That, following receipt of written confirmation from the Director of Placemaking and Housing regarding the measures 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.

 

Listed Building Consent – HGY/2022/2816

 

5.    To GRANT listed building consent and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability is authorised to issue the listed building consent and impose conditions and informatives.

 

6.    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 conditions (listed building consent) 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.

 

Summary of Conditions and Planning Measures

 

Planning Permission – HGY/2022/0823

 

Conditions

 

1)    Three years to commence works

2)    Drawing numbers

3)    Use class restrictions

4)    Permitted development restrictions

5)    Finishing materials

6)    Wheelchair user dwellings

7)    Aerial restrictions

8)    Secured by design residential

9)    Secured by design commercial

10) External lighting

11) Ecological appraisal

12) Landscaping

13) Plant noise limitations

14) Cycle parking

15) Delivery and servicing

16) Council rented homes

17) Highway works

18) Electric vehicle charging

19) Architect retention

20) Contamination remediation

21) Unexpected contamination

22) Considerate constructor scheme

23) Construction environmental management plan

24) Surface water drainage scheme

25) Drainage management and maintenance plan

26) Construction phase fire strategy

27) Occupation phase fire strategy statement

28) Evacuation lifts details

29) Updated air quality assessment

30) Road safety audits

31) Car parking management strategy

32) Piling method statement

33) Water network upgrades

34) Play space details

35) Balcony screens

36) Digital connectivity infrastructure

37) Arboricultural method statement

38) Highway condition survey

39) Courtyard access controls

40) Moselle culvert maintenance and improvements

41) Moselle culvert survey

42) Boundary treatments and access controls

43) Energy statement

44) Energy assessment

45) Revised carbon offset calculation

46) Future design of the energy centre

47) Energy monitoring

48) Residential overheating report

49) Non-residential overheating report

50) Building user guide

51) BREEAM new construction

52) Living roofs

53) Circular economy monitoring

54) Whole life carbon assessment

55) Ecological enhancement measures

56) Pre-demolition audit

57) Climate change mitigation measures

58) Scheme for energy monitoring

 

Informatives

 

1)    Proactive statement

2)    CIL

3)    Signage

4)    Naming and numbering

5)    Asbestos survey

6)    Water pressure

7)    Designing out crime

8)    Environmental permits

9)    Groundwater protection

 

7.    The Council cannot impose conditions on planning permissions requiring the payment of monies and so the Director of Placemaking and Housing has confirmed in writing that the payment of the contributions and for the matters set out below will be made to the relevant departments/provided before the proposed development is implemented/occupied.

 

8.    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.

 

9.    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.

 

10.The Council cannot impose conditions on planning permissions requiring the payment of monies and so the Director of Placemaking and Housing 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.

 

11. Summary of the planning obligations for the development is provided below:

 

·         Affordable housing – provision of all new homes at Council rents

·         Affordable workspace

·         Parking permit restrictions

·         CPZ re-instatement, review and expansion contribution (£30,000)

·         Amendments to traffic management order (£5,000)

·         Residential and commercial travel plans

·         Travel plan monitoring (£10,000)

·         Highway works agreement (in consultation with TfL)

·         Stopping up works agreement

·         Walking and cycling improvements contributions (£100,000)

·         Accident reduction strategy for local road junctions (£150,000)

·         Future connection to district heating network

·         Carbon offsetting contribution if no connection to energy network

·         Management and maintenance of public realm

·         Delivery of social value measures secured through procurement process

·         Obligations monitoring contribution

 

Listed Building Consent – HGY/2022/2816

 

Conditions

 

1)    Three years to commence works

2)    Drawing numbers

3)    Notification of each phase of work

4)    Information prior to detachment of mural

5)    Information prior to storage of mural

6)    Information prior to restoration works

7)    Information prior to completion of restoration

8)    Information prior to re-erection of mural

9)    Inspection, maintenance plan and photographic record

 

 

Cllr Bartlett did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item and re-entered the room at the end of the item at 8.25pm.

 

 

At 8.25pm, the Committee agreed a brief adjournment. The meeting resumed at 8.30pm.