Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a new care home (Class C2 - Residential Institution), together with a well-being and physiotherapy centre. The proposed care home includes up to 70 bedrooms, hydrotherapy pool, steam room, sauna, gym, treatment/medical rooms, hairdressing and beauty salon, restaurant, café, lounge, bar, well-being shop general shop, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage, mechanical and electrical plant, landscaping and associated works.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a new care home (Class C2 - Residential Institution), together with a well-being and physiotherapy centre. The proposed care home includes up to 70 bedrooms, hydrotherapy pool, steam room, sauna, gym, treatment/medical rooms, hairdressing and beauty salon, restaurant, café, lounge, bar, wellbeing shop general shop, car and cycle parking, refuse/recycling storage, mechanical and electrical plant, landscaping and associated works.

 

Valerie Okeiyi, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The Planning Officer highlighted that a late representation had been received from 1A View Road which had been summarised in the addendum. For information, the text of the representation was displayed for those present to read in full.

·         In response to a query, it was corrected that the Committee had considered an application for this site and approved planning permission in October 2022, rather than October 2021.

 

AurellTaussig spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he lived next to the site and had spoken in objection to the application previously. He believed that the developer should be required to adjust the design of the scheme to reduce the loss of light for his garden and windows. It was stated that the proposal would be taller, bulkier, and wider than the existing building. In relation to sunlight, Aurell Taussig commented that he would experience a loss of more than 50%; he believed that this was not permitted as it would be in excess of the maximum permitted loss of 20% as set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines.

 

It was highlighted that the report commented that, as the neighbouring garden was overshadowed by the existing building and by trees, that there was no entitlement to additional protection. Aurell Taussig stated that the assessment did not make sense, was contrary to the Council’s policy on daylight and sunlight, and wrongly focused on the existing situation rather than the impact of the new development. He noted that his dining room would experience a high reduction in winter light, which would be in breach of the BRE guidelines, and he felt that his comments had been ignored. He believed that the development would lead to a sense of enclosure in his garden and would result in a loss of amenity and privacy; it was stated that planning permission had been refused on these grounds in previous cases on Yeatman Road and Southwood Lawn Road and it was felt that decisions should be consistent. It was requested that planning policy was applied and that the design for the proposal was changed to lessen the impact on surrounding properties.

 

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. Mitesh Dhanak, Applicant (Highgate Care Ltd), stated that he had worked in the care sector for 25 years, had operated a number of successful and award winning care homes, and had been operating in Haringey since 2008 at Priscilla Wakefield House. It was stated that the scheme would support 90 jobs, would retain care use on the site, and would provide a spacious and modern, purpose-built facility. It was commented that the applicant team did not accept the suggestions relating to the design and the unacceptable impact of the proposal. It was stated that officers and the Quality Review Panel (QRP) had demonstrated strong support for the proposals, following rigorous testing. There had been detailed discussions at the previous Committee meeting and the applicant team believed that the scheme would provide a much-needed facility for the local community.

 

Neeraj Dixit, Agent (ND Planning), noted that the current proposal was the same as the application that had been approved unanimously by the Committee in June 2022. It was stated that there had been no material change in the planning circumstances. It was believed that the scheme had a high quality design, was an appropriate scale in its context, and would result in less than substantial harm to the Highgate Conservation Area which would be outweighed by the proposed benefits. It was noted that Historic England and the QRP had no objections. The height of the proposal was considered to be modest and appropriate; officers had found that nearby residential properties would not be materially impacted by loss of outlook or privacy. In relation to sunlight and daylight, it was stated that the proposal performed well against the BRE guidelines in this urban location; it was added that this was guidance rather than policy. It was hoped that the Committee would support the scheme.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to a query about the light levels in the basement, the applicant team explained that there would be no accommodation in the basement. Following comments from officers and the QRP, staff accommodation and dining areas had been moved to higher parts of the building which would have better levels of light. It was added that there would be some lightwells to provide additional light to the basement.

·         Some members asked for clarification on the suggestion that the proposal would result in a 50% loss in sunlight and how this related to the BRE guidelines. Neeraj Dixit, Agent (ND Planning), noted that he was not a daylight and sunlight expert; he believed that the comments made by the objector were correct but that this would only apply to a limited number of windows. It was stated that the applicant’s Daylight and Sunlight Consultant had seen the objections and confirmed that, although there was an impact on a small number of windows, the overall light in the property and the location was still very good. The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that there would be a window to one habitable room at 109 North Hill, reported to be a dining room, which would lose a noticeable amount of winter sunlight. It was commented that, overall, there would still be plentiful daylight and annual sunlight under the BRE guidelines but that the winter sunlight standard would not be met. It was added that the garden at 109 North Hill would experience a fairly significant loss of ‘sun on ground’ but it was noted that it did not currently meet BRE standards in this respect.

 

It was confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission, as set out in the report and the addendum.

 

Following a vote with 10 votes in favour, 0 vote against, and 0 abstentions, 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 informatives subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation 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 & 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.

 

3.    That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 14/03/23 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

 

4.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to 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.

 

Conditions

 

1)    Three years

2)    Drawings

3)    Materials

4)    Boundary treatment and access control

5)    Landscaping

6)    Lighting

7)    Site levels

8)    Secure by design accreditation

9)    Secure by design certification

10) Land Contamination

11) Unexpected Contamination

12) NRMM

13) Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plan

14) Combustion and Energy Plant

15) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Facility

16) Construction ecological Management Plan

17) Landscape Ecological Management and Maintenance Plan

18) Tree Protection Plan

19) Arboricutural method Statements

20) Landscape Plan and aftercare programme

21) Energy strategy

22) Gas boilers

23) Overheating

24) Living roof

25) BREEAM Certification

26) Movement monitoring  (Basement development)

27) Construction Management Plan (Basement development)

28) Cycle Parking

29) Construction Logistics Plan

30) Gym restriction

31) Outpatients facility

32) Satellite antenna

33) Kitchen Extract

34) Restriction to use class

35) Restriction to telecommunications apparatus

36) Fire safety

37) Plant noise

38) Legacy of Mary Feilding

39) Detailed Constriction Management Plan (Basement development)

40) Piling Method Statement

41) Surface Water Drainage Condition

42) Secured by Design Accreditation (final fitting stage)

 

Informatives

 

1)    Co-operation

2)    CIL liable

3)    Hours of construction

4)    Party Wall Act

5)    Street Numbering

6)    Sprinklers

7)    Asbestos

8)    Secure by design

9)    Thames Water underground assets

10) Water pressure

11) Ramps

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

 

1.    Section 278 Highway Agreement

 

·         Reinstatement of redundant crossover in North Hill at the former access, and meet all of the Council’s costs

 

2.    Sustainable Transport Initiatives

 

·         Monitoring of travel plan contribution of £2,000 per year for a period of 5 years

·         £20,000 towards parking management measures

·         £4,000 towards permit free with respect to the issue of Business Permits for the CPZ

 

3.    Carbon Mitigation

 

·         Be Seen commitment to uploading energy data

·         Energy Plan and Sustainability Review

·         Estimated carbon offset contribution (and associated obligations) of £404,700 plus a 10% management fee

 

4.    Employment Initiative – participation and financial contribution towards Local Training and Employment Plan

 

·         Provision of a named Employment Initiatives Co-Ordinator;

·         Notify the Council of any on-site vacancies during and following construction;

·         20% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey residents during and following construction;

·         5% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey resident trainees during and following construction;

·         Provide apprenticeships at one per £3m development cost (max. 10% of total staff);

·         Provide a support fee of £1,500 per apprenticeship towards recruitment costs.

 

5.    Monitoring Contribution

 

·         5% of total value of contributions (not including monitoring);

·         £500 per non-financial contribution;

·         Total monitoring contribution to not exceed £50,000

 

5.    The above obligations are considered to meet the requirements of Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

 

6.    That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution (3) above, the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing 1) Section 278 Highway Agreement for reinstatement of redundant crossover in North Hill at the former access and meet all of the Council’s costs. 3) A contribution towards parking management measures. 4) A contribution towards permit free with respect to the issue of Business Permits for the CPZ. 5) Implementation of a travel plan and monitoring freewould have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the highway network, and give rise to overspill parking impacts and unsustainable modes of travel. As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan policies T1, Development Management DPD Policies DM31, DM32, DM48 and Highgate Neighbourhood Plan Policies TR3 and TR4.

 

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

 

3.    The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing sufficient energy efficiency measures and financial contribution towards carbon offsetting, would result in an unacceptable level of carbon dioxide emissions. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SI 2 of the London Plan 2021, Local Plan 2017 Policy SP4 and Policy DM21 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

 

7.    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (6) above, the Head of Development Management (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 (1) above to secure the obligations specified therein.