Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide a self-storage facility (Use Class B8) with associated car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and other associated works ancillary to the development.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a self-storage facility (Use Class B8) with associated car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and other associated works ancillary to the development.

 

KwakuBossman-Gyamera, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a query about the scale of the development, the Planning Officer noted that permission had been approved for two buildings to the south of site which were similar in scale, that there was a power station adjacent to the site, and that there was a significant development underway to the north of the site; it was considered that the proposed scheme would not detract from the area given the emerging context.

·         It was commented that there was an issue with Japanese Knotweed in the area and it was enquired whether this would be addressed in any conditions or informatives. The Planning Officer noted that a statement in relation to Japanese Knotweed had been submitted by the applicant and that the requirements would be included in an informative to make sure that they were communicated to the applicant.

·         It was enquired whether the s278 highway works agreement would include a requirement to improve the pavement in the area. The Head of Development Management acknowledged that it would be appropriate to clarify that works would include pavement improvements as this would be an acceptable mitigation in response to the development bringing additional footfall to the area. Some members noted that the s278 agreement and subsequent funding was not referenced in the conditions. The Head of Development Management explained that this had been discussed with the applicant but that there had not been sufficient time to include this information in the addendum; it was confirmed that officers would be seeking to include details as part of the s278 highway works agreement, as set out in Condition 24.

·         In relation to the proposed fencing, the Planning Officer explained that this would be largely landscaping rather than a physical fence. The Head of Development Management added that, under Condition 3, the details of the fencing would be subject to agreement with the Local Planning Authority.

·         It was confirmed that the materials of the building would also be controlled by condition to ensure high quality.

·         It was noted that the proposed use class was not subject to the Urban Greening Factor target of 0.3 but that the development would still be expected to set out the measures taken to achieve urban greening on-site. The Climate Change Manager explained that, although this was not a requirement, it was useful to set out the target in the conditions; this was set out in Condition 19.

·         In response to a question about whether the development should be larger in scale, the Planning Officer noted that there were some designated areas in the borough where tall buildings would be encouraged but highlighted that the site was not located in such an area. It was confirmed that, taking into account the emerging context of the area, the proposal was considered to be acceptable.

·         It was noted that the application proposed six car parking spaces. The Transport Planning Team Manager stated that there would be some parking for employees but that, for a development of this nature, there were low levels of staff and the parking was considered to be acceptable for staff and customers. It was added that the applicant might be able to provide further information.

·         Some members commented that larger lorries could become stuck on Garman Road and it was enquired whether this could become a one-way street. The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that there was a turning area at the end of the road which required a two-way street. It was added that any changes to this road would need to be part of a larger scheme, including consultation, and could not be achieved through this planning application.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to parking, Richard Byatt, Shurgard UK Ltd, noted that there would be limited vehicular activity with approximately three or four vehicle movements per hour in and out of the site. It was added that staff were encouraged to use public transport where possible and approximately one parking space would be used by staff at any time; it was considered that there was ample parking on site.

 

It was confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission as set out in the report and the addendum and with the following amendments:

·         To amend Condition 24 to ensure that the s278 (Highway Works) Agreement included pavement improvements as this would be an acceptable mitigation for the development bringing additional footfall to the area.

·         To include an additional Informative to highlight the applicant’s obligations in relation to Japanese Knotweed.

 

Following a vote with 9 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 0 abstentions, 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 informative subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

 

2.    That the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 24^th February 2023 or within such extended time as the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability/Head of Development Management shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

 

3.    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.

 

4.    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 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 Lists of Conditions, Informative and Heads of Terms

 

Summary Conditions (a full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 1 of the report)

 

1)    Development begun no later than three years from date of decision

2)    In accordance with approved plans

3)    Materials submitted for approval

4)    Land contamination

5)    Unexpected contamination

6)    NRMM

7)    Waste and recycling

8)    Restrictive in use classes

9)    CMP

10) Cycle parking Design and Layout

11) Surface Water Drainage

12) Management and Maintenance

13) Secure by design

14) Energy Strategy

15) Be Seen

16) Overheating

17) BREEAM Certificate

18) Living Roofs

19) Urban Greening Factor

20) External lighting

21) Boundary Treatment

22) Noise

23) Servicing and delivery plan

24)Section 278 (Highway Works) Agreement

 

Informatives

 

1)    Co-operation

2)    CIL liable

3)    Hours of construction

4)    Party Wall Act

5)    Hours of construction

6)    Fire Brigade

7)    Thames Water

8)    Signage

9)    Asbestos

10)Japanese Knotweed

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

 

1)    Energy Statement

 

a.    An amended energy plan and Sustainability Review is to be provided on first occupation of the development.

 

b.    Estimated carbon offset contribution (and associated obligation) of £11,685 plus a 10% management fee to be recalculated using Part L2013 software, based on £2,850 per tonne of carbon emissions.

 

2)    Site – Wide Travel Plan

 

a.    To include details of welcome packs that will be provided to all new residents (to include information on public transport and cycling/walking connections).

 

b.    To appoint a travel plan co-ordinator to work in collaboration with the Estate Management Team, to monitor the travel plan initiatives for a minimum of five years.

 

c.    Provision of a contribution of £1,000 per annum for five years towards monitoring of the travel plan.

 

3)    Employment and Skills

 

a.    Submission of an employment and skills plan

 

b.    No less than 20% of the peak construction workforce to be Haringey residents

 

c.    Provision of financial contribution £150,096.00 at which will be used by the council to provide and procure the support necessary for local people who have been out employment and / or do not have the skills set required for the jobs created.

 

5.    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 sufficient energy efficiency measures and/or financial contribution towards carbon offsetting, would result in an unacceptable level of carbon dioxide emissions. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SI2 and SI 4 of the London Plan 2021, Local Plan 2017 Policy SP4 and Policy DM21 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

 

2.    The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing sustainable transport measures, would have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the highway network, give rise to unsustainable modes of travel. As such, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies T1, T2, T6, T6.1 and T7, Local Plan Policy SP7 and Policy DM31 of the Development Management DPD.

 

3.    The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to work with the Council’s Employment and Skills team to provide 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.

 

6.    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (5) above, the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability (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 (5) above to secure the obligations specified therein.