Agenda item

Proposal: Full planning application for (i) the demolition of existing buildings and structures,site clearanceand theredevelopment ofthe sitefor aresidential-led, mixed- use development comprising residential units (C3); flexible commercial, business, community, retail and service uses (Class E); hard and soft landscaping; associated parking; and associated works. (ii) Change of use of No. 52 White Hart Lane from residential (C3) to a flexible retail (Class E) (iii) Change of use of No. 867-869 High Road to residential (C3) use.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

James Dawe, Planning Officer, introduced the report for: Full planning application for (i) the demolition of existing buildings and structures, site clearance and the redevelopment of the site for a residential-led, mixed- use development comprising residential units (C3); flexible commercial, business, community, retail and service uses (Class E); hard and soft landscaping; associated parking; and associated works. (ii) Change of use of No. 52 White Hart Lane from residential (C3) to a flexible retail (Class E) (iii) Change of use of No. 867-869 High Road to residential (C3) use.

The following was noted in response to questions from the Committee:

• The submission had been accompanied by a basement impact assessment that looked at the ground stability of the site and the surroundings. This assessment confirmed that there was appropriate basement and excavation design solutions. These would enable the basement to be excavated and constructed without having impacts on the neighbouring buildings. There would be a survey taken beforehand which would check the condition of the building and monitor conditions during and after construction. If there was any damage, this would be addressed through the party wall agreement.
• Regarding impacts to Brook House primary school, they would benefit from the additional open space. It had always been anticipated that there would be construction on this site, however the long-term impacts were likely to be very positive to the school. There would be some short-term disruption and several conditions and mitigations have been included that would control that as much as possible.
•  The wider High Road West planning application covered the whole site allocation and included the Love Lane Estate, The Planning Officer cited they had an obligation to deliver an area to decant residents from these properties. For this application residents with tenancies at Love Lane Estate that were moving directly into this building would likely pay council rent. However, this would be a housing decision as opposed to a planning decision.
• Planning Officers always considered the quality of the design and ensured that the density delivered was to the best design possible. Planning Officers were satisfied that the quality of provision for the high-density scheme would be acceptable.
• Parking would have to be covered by the parking management plan. The new requirements from the London Plan stated that parking spaces are to be leased not sold. Planning Officers would be looking at how best this could be managed, whilst ensuring they could deliver 10% wheelchair accessible parking. Planning Officers advised they would prioritise the social rented units as part of this plan.
• The start date was set out as five years in the report, but in the detailed conditions the recommendation was 3 years. Previously, Planning Officers had allowed for up to a five-year delay to start working on the development due to uncertainty the recommendation is now for 3 years.
•  A majority of the new dwellings would have good levels of internal light provision, this being 50% of the room. The lower levels of the building would have more restricted light because they were more subject to shadow and light reduction due to proximity to other buildings.
• The number of single/dual aspect homes was the same in this report as at the appeal. The inspector did not support anything in terms of the reason for refusal and the quality. Planning Officer stated this level of dual aspect was acceptable.
• The change in appearance that had been made since the scheme was approved on appeal was lightening the entrance core and related to the crown cladding. It was now a light creamy grey rather than a mid-grey. Officers advised that this was a better material as it would provide more contrast between the middle and the entrance of the building. Planning officer advised this would create a more appealing composition.
• This development would not accommodate all residents from the Love Lane Estate  
• It is not certain that this housing would be used by the Council to house Love Lane residents. This would depend on a number of factors but if the Council took up this option, the requirement is to provide social rent.
• There would be no proposals to deculvert the River Moselle as part of this proposal.
• To ensure that floor space was not lost and to give businesses opportunities to relocate, there was a quantum of floor space that would be provided. This was secured in detail in the legal agreement and the appeal scheme.

There were no objectors to speak against the proposal. The Chair invited the Applicant Team – James Benyon – to respond to questions from the Committee. NOTED:

·         On the Carbery Enterprise Park there was 1125 square metres of light industrial uses. As set out in the report, there was provision of just over 2000 square metres of general class E floor space. As part of these proposals, there was mechanisms to safeguard a minimum of 400 square metres for the reprovision of those uses, alongside support to help businesses relocate. The approach was entirely consistent with what had been agreed for the appeal scheme previously. The only difference being that the Applicant would provide slightly more commercial floor space as part of the scheme by 200 square metres.

·          The exact figure for dual aspect within the building was 59.6%. The reason for the number of single aspect units was predominantly driven by the tall buildings. A majority of single aspect units reside in taller buildings. They were at a higher elevation and therefore benefited from greater levels of daylight.

·         A larger proportion of the affordable housing were family size units. The benefit of these larger units was that they were all dual/triple aspect due to their size. These units would sit in low rise blocks but were also in tall buildings. As a result of this, there was a blend of single aspect units across all the tenures.

 

The Chair asked Robbie McNaugher, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning, to sum up the recommendations as set out in the report, the condition was for a three-year permission, not the five-year permission included in the summary of conditions. There was an amended condition as seen in the presentation and the amendments and additional informative in addendum. The Chair moved that the recommendation be granted and following a vote with 10 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention,

RESOLVED

1.          To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to referral to the Mayor of London for his consideration at Stage 2 and signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below and a section 278 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below.

2.          That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 11th September 2023 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director shall in her/his sole discretion allow. 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 is granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

3.          That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director 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. Conditions Summary – (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 11 of this report).

1) Time Limit – 5 years

2) Approved Plans and Documents

3) Phases – approval of Phasing Plan (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

4) Minimum amount of Business Floorspace - At least 400sqm of Business floorspace (Use Class E(g) (i) (ii) or (iii).

5) Accessible Housing – ‘Wheelchair user dwellings’ and ‘Accessible and adaptable dwellings’

6) Commercial Units - Ventilation/Extraction

7) Commercia Units - Café/restaurant Opening Hours - 07.00 to 23.00 (Monday

to Saturday) and 08.00 to 23.00 (Sundays and Public Holidays).

8) Commercial Units – BREEAM ‘Very Good’(PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

9) Commercial Units – Noise Attenuation

10) Noise Attenuation - Dwellings

11) Depot Block G – Wind Mitigation

12)Detailed Fire Statement – development to be carried out in accordance with.

13) Landscape Details

14) Trees & Planting – 5-year Replacement

15) Temporary Landscaping/Use (Depot part of site)

16) Tree Protection Measures (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

17) Biodiversity enhancement measures

18) External Materials and Details

19) Living roofs

20) Ground Floor Rear Boundary Details – Depot Block D

21) Energy Strategy

22) Overheating (Non-residential)

23) Future overheating (Dwellings)

24) Circular Economy

25) Whole Life Carbon

26) Energy Monitoring

27) PV Arrays

28) Brook House Yard Management Plan

29) Secured by Design

Planning Sub-Committee Report

30)Stage I Written Scheme of Investigation of Archaeology (PRECOMMENCEMENT)

31) Stage II Written Scheme of Investigation of Archaeology

32) Foundation Design – Archaeology (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

33) Water Supply Infrastructure (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

34) Land Contamination – Part 1 (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

35) Land Contamination – Part 2

36) Unexpected Contamination

37) Basement Vehicular Access Control Arrangements

38) Road Safety Audit – White Hart Lane (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

39) Road Safety Audit – Embankment Lane (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

40)Car Parking Design & Management Plan

41)Cycle Parking Details (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

42) Delivery and Servicing Plan

43) Detailed Construction Logistics Plan (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

44) Public Highway Condition (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

45) Railway Infrastructure Protection Plan

46)Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plans (PRECOMMENCEMENT)

47) Management and Control of Dust (PRE-COMMENCEMENT)

3 Business and Community Liaison Construction Group (PRECOMMENCEMENT)

50) Telecommunications

51) Façade treatment

52) Brook House Yard boundary treatment

53) District energy network

Informatives Summary – (the full text of Informatives is contained in Appendix 11 to this report).

1) Working with the applicant

2) Working with the applicant.

3) Community Infrastructure Levy.

4) Hours of Construction Work.

5) Party Wall Act.

6) Numbering New Development.

7) Asbestos Survey prior to demolition.

8) Dust.

9) Written Scheme of Investigation – Suitably Qualified Person.

10) Deemed Discharge Precluded.

11) Composition of Written Scheme of Investigation.

12) Disposal of Commercial Waste.

13) Piling Method Statement Contact Details.

14) Minimum Water Pressure.

15) Paid Garden Waste Collection Services.

16) Sprinkler Installation.

17) Designing out Crime Officer Services.

18) Land Ownership.

19) Network Rail Asset Protection.

20) Site Preparation Works.

21) Listed Building Consent – (Nos. 867-869 High Road)

22) s106 Agreement and s278 Agreement.

Section 106 Heads of Terms:

Implementation & Business relocation

1) Partial implementation – preventing inappropriate ‘mixing and matching’ of the extant Depot scheme and the proposed scheme.

2) Business Relocation Strategy – to assist existing business on the Carbery Enterprise Park re-locate within the development or, failing that, within the borough.

Affordable Housing

3) Affordable Housing:

·         Minimum of 35.9% by habitable room

·         Minimum of 40% by habitable room if sufficient grant available.

·         Tenure mix – 60% Intermediate (Shared Ownership) housing & 40% Low Cost Rent housing by habitable room.

·         LB Haringey to be offered first right to purchase up to 77 of the Low Cost

·         Rented homes at an agreed price per square foot (Index Linked)

·         Low Cost Rent homes to be London Affordable Rent – or where LB

·         Haringey purchases Low Cost Rent homes, the first 61 at Social Rent and

·         any additional homes at London Affordable Rent

·         Quality standards & triggers for provision (no more than 25% of Market

·         Units occupied until 50% of Affordable Units delivered, no more than 50%

·         of Market until 100% of Affordable Units delivered)

·         Location of different tenures (by Block).

·         Affordable housing residents to have access to the same communal amenity and play space as Market housing (where Blocks have a mix of tenures).

4) Affordability:

·         Weekly London Affordable Rent levels to be in accordance with the Mayor

·         of London’s Affordable Homes Programme (2016-2023) as follows (all

·         Index Linked): 1-bed - £161.71, 2-bed - £171.20, 3-bed - £180.72 and 4-

·         bed - £190.23).

·         Intermediate homes to be Shared Ownership – sold at the minimum 25%

·         share of equity and rental on the unsold equity up to 2.75%.

·         Approve plan for marketing Shared Ownership homes to households living or working in: Haringey - with max. annual income of £40,0000 (Index Linked) for 1 & 2-bed homes and £60,000 for 3-bed homes – for 3-months prior to and 3-months post completion of each Phase.

·         London – with max. annual income of £90,000 (Index Linked) not until after 6 months of completion of each Phase.

·         Provided that annual housing costs for each home do not exceed 28% of the above relevant annual gross income levels.

5) Viability Review Mechanism:

·         Early Stage Review (if not implemented within 24-months).

·         Break Review (if construction suspended for 30-months or more).

Open Space Management

6) Publicly Accessible Open Space Access & Management Plan – ensuring public access and future management & maintenance (in accordance with the Public London Charter) (October 2021).

7) Future Use of ‘Pickford Yard Gardens’ Amenity Space – use by residents of proposed buildings immediately to the south, in the wider NT5 Site Allocation (subject to use of reasonable endeavours).

Transportation

8) Future Connectivity & Access Plan – setting out how the development shall be constructed to allow for potential future pedestrian, cycling and vehicular access across the proposed development and adjoining land.

9) Car-Capping:

·         Prohibiting residents (other than Blue Badge holders) from obtaining a

·         permit to park in the CPZ

·         £4,000 for revising the associated Traffic Management Order.

·         10)Enfield CPZ Contribution – Baseline car parking survey, monitoring and if

·         monitoring shows overspill car parking to be a significant problem, a financial

·         contribution of up to £20,000 towards consultation/implementation of a CPZ.

·         11) Residential & Commercial Travel Plans:

·         Appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator (to also be responsible for

·         monitoring Delivery Servicing Plan).

·         Provision of welcome induction packs containing public transport and

·         cycling/walking information, map and timetables to every new household.

·         £3,000 for monitoring of Travel Plan initiatives.

12) Car Club:

·         Establishment or operation of a Car Club Scheme.

·         Minimum of 4 x Car Club spaces (with actual number tbc following

·         discussions with prospective operators).

·         2 years’ free membership for all households and £50 per year credit for

·         the first 2 years.

Employment & Training

13) Local Employment & Training:

·         Employment & Skills Plan – including Construction Apprenticeships

·         Support Contribution & Skills Contribution (to be calculated in accordance

·         with the Planning Obligations SPD).

·         Commitment to being part of the borough’s Construction Programme.

Planning Sub-Committee Report

Carbon Management & Sustainability

14) Future connection to District Energy Network:

·         Submission of Energy Plan for approval by LPA

·         Connect the whole development (including Station Master’s House and

·         Listed Buildings at Nos. 867-869 High Road) to a site-wide energy centre.

·         Ensure the scheme is designed to take heat supply from the proposed DEN (including submission of DEN Feasibility Study)

·         Design of secondary and (on-site) primary DHN in accordance with LBH

·         Generic Specification and approval of details at design, construction and

·         commissioning stages.

·         Use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate a supply and connection agreement with the proposed DEN within a 10-year window from the date.

of a permission.

·         Collaborate with the LPA to deliver a future connection point from the site to the south to allow for the onward development of an energy network.

·         Carbon offsetting: Payment of an agreed carbon offset amount (residential & non-residential) plus 10% management fee on commencement;

Telecommunications

16) Ultrafast broadband infrastructure and connections to be provided.

Construction

17) Commitment to Considerate Constructors Scheme.

Monitoring

18)Monitoring costs – based on 5% of the financial contribution total & £500 per non-financial contribution.

Section 278 Highways Agreement Heads of Terms:

1) Works to tie in with the High Road and White Hart Lane.

3.1 In the event that members choose to make a resolution contrary to officers’ recommendation, members will need to state their reasons.

3.2 That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution (2.2) above, the planning application be refused for the following reasons:

i. In the absence of a legal agreement preventing the partial implementation of the Goods Yard extant consent (HGY/2018/0187) or the partial implementation of the Depot extant consent (HGY/2019/2929), the partial implementation of the proposed scheme and either of these extant schemes could result in an unacceptable form of development, contrary to good planning and Tottenham Area Action Plan Policies AAP1 and NT5.

ii. In the absence of a legal agreement securing the implementation of an approved Business Relocation Strategy, the proposed scheme would result in the unacceptable loss of industrial land, contrary to London Plan Policy E4, Strategic Policies SP8 and SP9 and DMD Policy DM40.

iii. In the absence of a legal agreement securing (1) the proposed provision of on-site affordable housing; (2) Early Stage and Development Break Viability Reviews; (3) and the first right of the Council to purchase up to 61 of the proposed Low Cost Rent homes, the proposed scheme would fail to foster a mixed and balanced neighbourhood where people choose to live, and which meet the housing aspirations of Haringey’s residents or assist in estate regeneration. As such, the proposals would be contrary to London Plan Policies H4 and H8, Strategic Policy SP2, and DM DPD Policies DM 11 and DM 13, Policy TH12 and Policy NT5.

iv. In the absence of the legal agreement securing an Open Space Management and Access Plan and obligations relating to the future use of and access to the proposed Pickford Yard Gardens, the proposed scheme would fail to secure well-maintained open space and fail to safeguard the comprehensive development of Site Allocation NT5. As such, the proposals would be contrary to Strategic Policy SP12, Tottenham Area Action Plan Policies AAP1, AAP11 and NT5 and DM DPD Policy DM20.

v. In the absence of a legal agreement securing financial contributions towards social infrastructure provision (community space, library and publicly accessible open space), the proposed scheme would (1) fail to meet the requirements for a Fast Track application as set out in London Plan Policy H5 and would require a Financial Viability Appraisal to justify the proposed amount and type of affordable housing; and (2) fail to make a proportionate contribution towards the costs of providing the infrastructure needed to support the comprehensive development of Site Allocation NT5. As such, the proposals are contrary to London Plan Policy DF1, Strategic Policies SP16 and SP17, Tottenham Area Action Plan Policies AAP1, AAP11 and NT5 and DM DPD Policy DM48.

vi. In the absence of a legal agreement securing the public benefits of the scheme (including affordable housing, potential contribution to Love Lane Estate regeneration, financial contributions towards social infrastructure provision, reduction to carbon dioxide emissions and local employment and training), the proposed scheme would lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to heritage assets that would not be outweighed by public benefits, contrary to NPPF paragraph 196, London Plan Policy HC1, Strategic Policy SP12, Policy AAP5, AAP Site Allocation NT5 and DPD Policy DM9.

vii. In the absence of a legal agreement securing (1) a Future Connectivity & Access Plan; (2) Car Capped Agreement and financial contributions to amend the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO) to change existing on-street car parking control measures; (3) a financial contribution towards a survey, consultation and potential implementation of an Enfield CPZ; (4) Travel Plans and financial contributions toward travel plan monitoring; and (5) Car Club provision, the proposals would have an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the highway network, give rise to overspill parking impacts and unsustainable modes of travel. As such, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies T1, T2, T6, T6.1 and T7, Spatial Policy SP7, Tottenham Area Action Plan Policy NT5 and DM DPD Policy DM31.

viii. In the absence of a legal agreement securing the implementation of (1) any necessary temporary heating solutions; (2) an energy strategy, including connection to a DEN; and (3) carbon offset payments, the proposals would fail to mitigate the impacts of climate change. As such, the proposal would be unsustainable and contrary to London Plan Policies SI2 and SI3 and Strategic Policy SP4, and DM DPD Policies DM 21, DM22 and SA48.

ix. In the absence of a legal agreement securing an Employment and Skills Plan the proposals would fail to ensure that Haringey residents benefit from growth and regeneration. As such, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policy E11 and DMD Policy DM40.

x. In the absence of a legal agreement requiring broadband connectivity designed into the development, the proposed scheme would fail to provide.

sufficient digital connectivity for future residents and businesses, contrary to London Plan Policy SI6 and DMD Policy DM54.

3.3 In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out above, the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director (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 2.1 above to secure the obligations specified therein.