Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing building; redevelopment to provide business (Class E(g)(iii)) use at the ground, first and second floors, residential (Class C3) use on the upper floors, within a building of six storeys plus basement, provision of 7 car parking spaces and refuse storage.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered the application for the demolition of existing building; redevelopment to provide business (Class E(g)(iii)) use at the ground, first and second floors, residential (Class C3) use on the upper floors, within a building of six storeys plus basement, provision of 7 car parking spaces and refuse storage.

 

At 8pm, Cllr Brennan arrived but, as the item had already begun, she joined the public gallery and did not participate in the discussion or voting for this item.

 

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

·         The Planning Officer confirmed that, as set out in the addendum, the majority of the units were dual aspect and the units that were single aspect were either east or west facing. It was noted that no single aspect units were north facing.

·         It was noted that Council Policy DM13 stated that sites with the capacity to deliver more than 10 dwellings would need to provide affordable housing and some members suggested that the site could have this capacity. The Head of Development Management noted that the site did appear to have capacity but highlighted that the site allocation and employment policies were also considerations. It was noted that the scheme would re-provide the existing employment space and that, on balance, officers considered that the proposal was acceptable. It was noted that, if a tenth unit was provided, it was unlikely that it would be viable to provide affordable housing on the site and it was likely that there would be a payment in lieu to provide affordable housing elsewhere.

·         The Chair noted that large commercial units and workspaces were needed in the borough. It was stated that additional residential provision would reduce the amount of commercial space and that it was necessary to consider the balance of these two uses. The Planning Officer commented that the existing tenants of the site intended to occupy the new development.

·         Some members noted that there was a section 106 obligation which would secure affordable housing if the employment space was converted to residential. Concerns were expressed that this only applied to the commercial space and did not cover a situation where any residential units were divided and the overall provision exceeded 10 dwellings. The Head of Development Management agreed that this wording resulted in unintended ambiguity and that the obligation should arise where there were more than 10 dwellings; it was suggested that this wording be clarified for the avoidance of doubt.

·         Some members expressed concerns about the quality of the application in terms of the presence of single aspect units, the fact that density had not been maximised, the low light levels in the commercial space, and the lack of play space or green space. The Principal Urban Design Officer explained that the scheme was not large enough to meet the threshold that required play space but would still provide private, external amenity space for residents and was located near to parks. It was noted that it was important for commercial units to be retained and the development was considered to be well rounded and high quality overall. The Principal Urban Design Officer believed that the units would have good aspect overall as there would only be three flats per floor and the kitchen windows would provide some additional light through use of a lightwell. It was noted that all of the units would have external balconies and it was considered that there would be good levels of daylight and sunlight as well as good living conditions.

·         In response to a query about whether the proposal could have been taller, the Principal Urban Design Officer commented that there were a number of locally listed buildings in the area and it was considered appropriate that the scheme would match the heights of neighbouring developments. It was noted that the applicant had restricted the building to six storeys and had demonstrated that the proposal would not appear in any key, local views.

·         In relation to family units, the Planning Officer confirmed that two family units were proposed and both would be 3-bed units. It was clarified that the family units would have dual aspect. 

 

Karen Holtge spoke in objection to the application. She stated that she lived opposite the site in Smithfield Square and was concerned about issues of overlooking. It was commented that there was some space above the existing building but that the proposed building would have six storeys and would have an increased impact on daylight and sunlight for residential properties and the street level. Concerns were expressed that the proposal would result in a sense of enclosure and it was asked whether the building could be set back slightly to reduce the impact; it was suggested that this could create a more interesting side road rather than a dark and windy side street. It was stated that the Juliet balconies were missing on the second floor from some of the windows but that, if these were to go all the way across, there might be some more privacy.

 

It was stated that there was a successful recording studio on site where operations often ceased at 2am; it was stated that this had resulted in some noise issues from people leaving the premises and talking on the external stairs area and so the removal of this element was welcomed. However, concerns were expressed that the external terrace and car park would result in noise issues which would be directly opposite a number of bedrooms in Smithfield Square. It was commented that the proposal to plant trees was welcomed and it was suggested that additional planting could be undertaken if the building was set back further. Alternatively, if it was not possible to set the building back, it was suggested that moving the parapet up higher could help to reduce noise issues.

 

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. Paul Osborne, Agent and Architect (GML Architects), stated that the key features of the application had been covered by the Planning Officer. It was noted that the Design and Access Statement set out the aspect of all units and the applicant team considered that all units were dual aspect; even if a second window was small, it was stated that it would provide some cross ventilation. In relation to the height and massing of the proposal, the applicant team noted that there was a clearly defined building line which was set by other, surrounding planning applications. It was commented that the proposal would be three metres set back compared to the existing building and would provide additional trees and landscaping which would be a tangible improvement to the street scene.

 

It was noted that the proposal would logically follow the line of the streetscape. It was explained that the building line was a slightly different height on either side and the proposal would transition between the two sides. In relation to amenity space, it was commented that the site was quite restricted but that there were local green spaces in the area that could be used by residents. In relation to the quantity of commercial floor space, it was noted that there was demand for this and the existing commercial tenant was expected to continue operations within the new building. It was added that the site allocation identified the site for employment-led development.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a query about affordable housing, the applicant team stated that the Council’s policy requirement to provide affordable housing applied to developments with 10 or more units; as the proposal was for nine units, the threshold had not been reached within this application. It was explained that the employment space proposed would re-provide the existing amount on the site and that some additional residential units would be introduced.

·         Some members enquired how the applicant team proposed to address noise concerns, particularly on the external terrace. The applicant team suggested that it would be possible to include a restriction on the hours of use for the commercial unit in relation to the terrace. It was commented that noise issues in the area would also impact the residential units in the scheme and the applicant would want to avoid this.

·         In relation to further queries about the impact on residents, the applicant team commented that a condition on hours of use for the terrace would be beneficial for all parties. Members felt that it would be appropriate to condition the external amenity space on the commercial units so that it could not be used after 10pm or 11pm, whatever time was standard in the circumstances. The Head of Development Management noted that it was considered acceptable to include a condition relating to limiting hours.

·         In relation to a query about overlooking, the applicant team stated that overlooking was an inevitable result on the site, even if the building was moved slightly.

·         If the existing tenants did not use the building, the applicant team explained that the site could have Class E(g)(iii) light industrial use, such as a fashion studio, which was designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential area. It was added that some potential layouts were included in the addendum.

·         It was confirmed that the change to the recommendation in the addendum related to the section 106 completion date; this had originally been stated as 06/03/2023 but should have been stated as 06/05/2023.

·         Some members noted that concerns had been raised about noise, particularly during the night, and it was enquired what provisions could be put in place to mitigate the impact on residents. The applicant team noted that it was possible to condition the employment hours for the light industrial use but that it would not be possible to control any noise emanating from residential units through planning conditions. The Head of Development Management commented that noise could be considered as part of a management plan.

 

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 the obligations so that affordable housing contributions would be required if 10 or more dwellings were provided in any circumstances, rather than just where the commercial unit was converted into a dwelling(s).

·         To include an additional condition to require that the external terrace for the commercial space was not used after 10pm in order to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties and to ensure clarity.

·         To include a Condition to require a Noise Management Plan in order to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties.

 

Following a vote with 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against, and 1 abstention, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to an agreement providing for 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 measures 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 agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 06/05/2023 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in 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.

 

Summary Lists of Conditions, Informatives and Heads of Terms

 

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 (residential)

9)    Secure by design certification

10)Secure by design accreditation (commercial)

11)Land Contamination

12)Unexpected Contamination

13)NRMM

14)Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plan

15)Public highway condition survey

16)Cycle parking

17)Delivery and Servicing Plan

18)Car Parking Design and Management Plan

19)Land Affected by Contamination

20)Verification report

21)Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for Groundwater

22)Unidentified Contamination

23)Borehole Management

24)Piling/Foundation works Risk Assessment with Respect to Groundwater Resources

25)Infiltration of Surface Water onto the Ground

26)Satellite antenna

27)Restriction to telecommunications apparatus

28)Piling Method Statement

29)Architect retention

30)Energy strategy

31)Be Seen

32)Overheating (Residential)

33)Overheating (Non-Residential)

34)Living roofs

35)Biodiversity

36)BREEAM Certificate

37)Method of monitoring adjacent properties for potential movement during the build

38)Construction Management plan

39)Wheelchair accessible dwellings

40)Restriction to use class

41)Basement Impact Assessment

42)Sound insulation

43)Limit on hours of use for the external terrace

44)Noise Management Plan

 

Informatives

 

1)    Co-operation

2)    CIL liable

3)    Hours of construction

4)    Party Wall Act

5)    Street Numbering

6)    Sprinklers

7)    Water pressure

8)    Asbestos

9)    Secure by design

10) Thames Water Groundwater Risk Management Permit

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

 

1.    Affordable housing payment where 10 or moreunits are provided by future change of use.

 

2.    Section 278 Highway Agreement

 

·      The additional highway works necessary to accommodate the proposed Cross House development (including the proposed access to the basement car park, as well as relining and resigning works)

 

3.    Sustainable Transport Initiatives

 

·         Monitoring of commercial travel plan contribution of £3,000

·         £4,000 towards amendment of the local Traffic Management Order (also covering the cost of amending any existing yellow line restrictions, see further details under S.278 highway works agreement

·         Car Club - a credit of £50 per annum for a period of two years and an enhanced car club membership for the residents of the family-sized units (3+ bedrooms) including 3 years’ free membership and £100 (one hundred pounds in credit) per year for the first 3 years

·         £6000 towards CPZ contributions to the extension of existing Controlled Parking Zones

 

4.    Carbon Mitigation

 

·      Be Seen commitment to uploading energy data

·      Energy Plan and Sustainability Review

·      Estimated carbon offset contribution (and associated obligations) of £36,480 plus a 10% management fee

 

5.    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;

·         20% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey residents;

·         5% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey resident trainees;

·         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.

 

6.    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.    In the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above not 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 the provision of financial contributions towards off-site affordable housing in the event that 10 or more dwellings were providedin any circumstances the commercial unit(s) is converted in to a dwelling(s), the proposals would fail to secure affordable housing and meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents. As such, the proposals would be contrary to London Plan Policies H4 and H5, Strategic Policy SP2, and DM DPD Policies DM 11 and DM 13.

 

2. The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing 1) Section 278 Highway Agreement for the additional highway works necessary to accommodate the proposed Cross House development (including the proposed access to the basement car park, as well as relining and resigning works 2) A contribution towardsCPZ contributions to the extension of existing Controlled Parking Zones 3) A contribution towards Monitoring of commercial travel plan 4) A contribution towards amendment of the local Traffic Management Order (also covering the cost of amending any existing yellow line restrictions, see further details under S.278 highway works agreement 5) Two years free car club membership and £50 driving credit and enhanced car club membership and £100 (one hundred pounds in credit) per year for the first 3 years would fail to adequately mitigate highways and transport impacts  As such, the proposal is contrary to London Plan policies T1, Development Management DPD Policies DM31, DM32 and DM48

 

3. 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.

 

4.    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.

 

6.    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (5) 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.

 

Cllr Brennan did not vote on this item.