Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment of the land to the west of Willoughby Lane / Dysons Road for the erection of modern employment premises to provide flexible employment space across use classes E (light industrial), B2 and B8 (with ancillary offices), car parking, service yard areas, landscaping and associated works.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment of the land to the west of Willoughby Lane / Dysons Road for the erection of modern employment premises to provide flexible employment space across use classes E (light industrial), B2 and B8 (with ancillary offices), car parking, service yard areas, landscaping and associated works.

 

Sarah Madondo, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to a query about the reduction of light to neighbouring gardens, the Principal Urban Design Officer explained that the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines stated that a garden should get two hours of sun on at least 50% of the garden area on a typical day across the year; this was known as the ‘sun on ground’ test. It was noted that the assessment had found that the majority of neighbouring gardens would have plentiful sun both before and after the development. In addition, there was one property on Malham Terrace which was currently non-compliant with the ‘sun on ground’ standard and this would also be non-compliant as a result of the development; this was not considered to be a serious loss. There was also one property on Middleham Road which would fall from 50% to 48% as a result of the development. It was explained that the numbers provided by the consultants had focused on the amount of loss rather than the total amount of sun on ground. In summary, it was noted that the majority of properties would still meet the sun on ground test, one property would marginally fail (where it was not failing currently), and one property would significantly fail (where it was also significantly failing currently).

·         It was enquired whether there was an opportunity to improve the public alleyway adjacent to the site as part of the section 278 highways agreement. The Transport Officer noted that the alleyway was not in the scope of the application as the site would be accessed from Dyson’s Road. It was commented that the section 278 highways agreement would facilitate works in relation to access and parking. It was added that there would also be a section 106 contribution towards pedestrian crossings and cycling improvements.

·         Some members noted that the fence on site was proposed to be 2.5 metres high but enquired whether railings could be used, rather than a solid fence, and whether it could be lower. The Planning Officer explained that the materials for the fence would be conditioned. It was noted that this question would be further addressed by the applicant.

·         Some members acknowledged that there were road safety and speeding issues on Willoughby Lane and that the applicant would be making a pedestrian crossing contribution; it was asked whether there was a timetable for the improvements. The Transport Officer explained that it was difficult to provide an exact timetable but it was noted that there would be design works, a safety audit, and consultations and that it would be aimed to complete any works by the time the development came into use. It was highlighted that the applicant had submitted an Active Travel Zones Survey which had identified pedestrian crossings, the roundabout, and Brantwood Road as priorities.

·         It was suggested by some members that it would be beneficial for any proposed brick to match the colour of other brick buildings in the immediate area. The Head of Development Management noted that the applicant had indicated that they would seek to use a buff brick but that officers’ preference would be red brick. It was noted that materials would be conditioned but it was suggested that an Informative could be included to note that the proposed brick should reflect the surrounding area and that there was a preference for red brick.

·         It was confirmed that the trees which comprised the boundary treatment would be located on the applicant’s site and that maintenance would be the responsibility of the applicant. It was noted that this would be conditioned but that the condition could be enhanced with a requirement to submit a Management Plan to demonstrate how the area would be maintained. It was added that some trees would be provided on the footway; the Council would have responsibility for the maintenance of these trees but they would be funded by the developer.

·         Some members noted that, in the digital copy of the papers, some of the stakeholder comments had been cut short as a result of formatting issues and it was requested that this was checked in future.

·         It was noted that the application proposed to relocate the existing access approximately 15 metres to the north of its current position which would require some changes to existing on-street parking arrangements, for which a Traffic Regulation Order would be required. It was stated that the highway works would be carried out under a section 278 highway agreement and an amendment to the Traffic Management Order would be required to reflect changes to the on-street parking layout. The report noted, at paragraph 6.4.4, that this would be a requirement of the section 106 agreement but members noted that this was not included in the section 106. The Transport Officer confirmed that this would need to be included in the section 106 Heads of Terms.

·         In relation to the proposed cycle corridor contribution, the Transport Officer noted that there would be a contribution towards feasibility and design but that any potential improvements would depend on the results of the initial work and it was too early to say what might be delivered. It was commented that cycling improvements were aspirational and the contribution, in conjunction with the crossing improvements, was considered to be a positive part of the application.

·         It was confirmed that Condition 15, which related to the Urban Greening Factor (UGF), had been removed as set out in the addendum.

·         In relation to trees, the Head of Development Management noted that the application would provide a financial contribution of £9,000 towards the installation of street trees. It was added that the landscape architect had estimated that six trees would be provided but that, as the contribution was a set financial amount, there could be options to provide additional trees.

·         It was commented that there was a requirement for no less than 20% of the peak construction workforce to be Haringey residents and it was enquired whether this could also apply to the site after the construction period. The Head of Development Management explained that such a requirement was only applied where there was a specific end user in mind. As the developer did not have an end user in mind, this sort of obligation could be restrictive and could have a negative impact on employment. Instead, a contribution of £60,542.72 to support local people into jobs was recommended as part of the planning obligations.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         Matthew Thomas, Architect (Michael Sparks Associates), noted that the proposed fence and walkway were a requirement set out by the Metropolitan Police Secured by Design Officer; this would ensure that occupiers had a safe environment. It was noted that the applicant would be seeking transparent fencing as much as possible and it was currently proposed to use a weld mesh fence. It was added that the height of the fence would be primarily based on the advice from the Secured by Design Officer but it was highlighted that there were conditions relating to the boundary treatment which would require submission to and approval by the Local Planning Authority.

·         In relation to the UGF, some members enquired why the scheme had not proposed living roofs and greening on site. Matthew Thomas, Architect (Michael Sparks Associates), stated that the roof would have solar panels and would need to meet the necessary daylight requirements which meant that there was limited room for other things. It was explained that the internal space was designed to be flexible and this required breaking columns; a green roof would involve additional weight and would present difficulties. It was stated that the development was reasonably small and that, although options for green and brown roofs had been investigated, they were not considered to be feasible.

 

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

·         To include an Informative to note that the proposed brick should reflect the surrounding area and that there was a preference for red brick.

·         To amend Condition 20 to include an additional requirement to submit a Management and Maintenance Plan be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate how the area would be maintained.

·         To include an additional Head of Term in the section 106 agreement relating to section 278 (highway works) agreement.

 

Following a vote with 10 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 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 6^th March 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 this 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) Future Den Connection

16) Be Seen

17) Overheating

18) BREEAM Certificate

19) Living Roofs

20) Circular Economy

21) GLA whole life carbon assessment

22) External lighting

23) Boundary Treatment

24) Noise

25) Servicing and delivery plan

26) Section 278 (Highway Works) Agreement

27) GLA whole life carbon assessment

 

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)Materials

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

 

1)           Energy Statement

 

a.    An amended energy plan to be provided prior to above ground floor construction and Sustainability Review is to be provided on first occupation of the development.

 

b.    Estimated carbon offset contribution (and associated obligations) of plus a 10% management fee to be recalculated using Part L2013 software, based on £2,850 per tonne of carbon emissions if it does not meet the zero carbon target.

 

2)           Green Lease

 

a.    For the developer to enter into a green lease with future occupiers that requires the future occupiers to engage with Energetik on a future DEN connection.

 

3)           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 £3,000 per annum for five years towards monitoring of the travel plan.

 

4)           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 £ £60,542.72 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)           Pedestrian crossing facilities at the Dysons Road/Leeside Road/Willoughby Lane

 

a.    Provision of financial contribution of £120,000

 

6)           Highways

 

a.    Feasibility and design of the Brantwood Road Highways Works £50,000

 

b.    Not to implement until a Section 278 (Highway Works) Agreement has been entered into

 

7)           Urban Greening Factor

 

a.    Provision of financial contribution of £9000 towards the installation of street trees.

 

8)           Section 106 Monitoring contribution £9103.027

 

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.

 

4.    The proposed development, in the absence of a S.278 agreement securing Brantwood Road Highways Works, would have an unacceptable impact on the highway network. 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.

 

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 (6) above to secure the obligations specified therein.