Agenda item

Construction of a sustainable urban drainage and associated play features and biodiversity enhancements.

The Chair explained that she had asked officers for advice on the procedure for making a motion regarding deferral of an item. She explained that the Planning Protocol said that normally the Committee will hear representations on both / all sides before they decide to defer for any reasons. So the normal procedure would be followed and then any decisions can be made, including on any motions.

Planning Officer Sarah Madondo introduced the report. This report was for construction of a sustainable urban drainage and associated play features and biodiversity enhancements.

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

• It was clarified that this application had 29 objections.

Amit Kamal, Chair of the Residents Garden Association attended the committee and spoke in objection to the proposal, outlining the following:

-       The Friends of Chestnuts Park had diligently cared for this park on behalf of the community for the past two decades. The hard work had transformed this vital community asset in an area severely lacking in green space.

-       If this was a listed park and garden characterised by its openness. Removing one third of the playing field would fundamentally change its nature and reduce both heritage and amenity value.

-       Moving forward with the current proposal would contradict the principles of the Haringey deal, which promised to involve residents in key decisions and community infrastructure design.

-       The Friends of the park were passionately supportive of urban drainage and that's why they were clear that this scheme should be withdrawn so that a better solution that meets the objective for park users, as well as the wider area could be found

-       Over 1000 residents had signed a petition against this scheme in just three days.

Ceri Williams, local resident, attended the committee and spoke in objection to the proposal, outlining:

-       That the project should not be sought for decision in its current form. It was viewed to be in the wrong location and at the wrong timing.

-       This proposal would compromise the one wide space in the area.

-       Chestnuts Park was too small for this scheme; no other local authority had imposed such a risky project. 

Councillor Tammy Hymas attended the committee and spoke in objection to the proposal outlining:

-       That the park had been a solace to people in the area because of the work done by the friends of park. It was a concern that the project could be moving forward as most of the residents did not support this, which exemplified a failure of the process. There  was a strong opposition from people who had engaged in the project for a long time and had concluded that it was not right for the park. All residents wanted good flood mitigation; this had not been found. The failures of this scheme were not through a lack of engagement; the timing was wrong, and the scheme would not work in proportion. There was already huge pressure on green spaces in Haringey,

-       Councillor Hymas was not sure why the scheme  was proposed for  approval when there were already high local concerns about the smell and the impact it would have on the usability of the park and contended that there was a need to restart the  process

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee to the objectors:

• There were various delays in starting this project due to Covid, the project team were formed late but began works quickly. There were monthly meetings with the friends of the park and this proposal was discussed, but this was not the proposal the friends of the park were expecting. They recorded their concerns in discussions.   The friends of the park visited Albany Park as that was a park with the most similar project. This raised further concerns as they thought this park was in poor condition – citing a drought and diseased trees. Despite these concerns the project continued to move forward, hence the need for the friends of the park to formally oppose the project.  
• Friends of the park had been involved in conversations with the Environment Agency, Thames Water, and the Council's flood officer. Chestnuts Park was not a high-risk flood area. In relation to original ideas, friends of the park looked at having swales across the north side of the park, on the margin of the park and at the edge of the park. However, there were also still hopes to raise the Stonebridge brook, which hadn’t been found. There was a considerable interest in raising the original brook that ran from Crouch End to Markfield.
• Compared to flood risks in the borough, the valley of what would have been the route of the Stonebridge Brook was not one of the major flood risks.

Simon Farrow, Head of Parks and Leisure attended the committee and spoke in support of the application:

Haringey had experienced flash floods on a scale previously unheard of, particularly in the areas that surrounded Chestnut Park. As a high flood risk area, the Council Parks and Green Spaces Strategy was developed through extensive co-design and approved by the Cabinet on the 11th of July. Public consultation undertaken in the summer saw 77% of residents in support of the proposal. Through this process, varying views had been heard and it was considered that stakeholder concerns had been addressed. The initial bid submission by the stakeholders was over 5000 square metres in size across two locations within the park. This application was now under half that size, with only half being a permanent water feature and the other half usable recreational space, providing additional flood attenuation during high flood events. Officers had been unable to find the route of the Stonebridge Brook, perhaps because of its depths. As such, it was no longer a viable option. Council officers have met with other councils to share lessons learned and best practice and this was fed into the design development. The proposal would improve biodiversity of this area of the park by 38% and between 29,000 and 43,000 litres of water per day would be cleaned.

The following was noted in response to questions from the committee to the Applicant.

• In terms of Thames Water misconnections, they would have to investigate where they identified connections, then there would be a process of corresponding with the residents. If that did not work, there would be enforcement. This could take up to a year to 18 months.
• There had always been a clear understanding of what documentation and supporting reports were required to validate the planning application. One of those was the flood risk assessment, this looked at a catchment wide scenario in terms of surface water and flooding. Within that report there was clarity regarding the flood modelling that was undertaken and the identification of the properties which would benefit to the north of the park.
• Gully cleaning could help to a certain extent. In extreme weather where the water would be flowing rapidly; gullies would not work effectively.
• When officers started to look at the project and the feasibility stage design, there was an option to look at a swale running along La Rose Lane. This was in a conservation area, due to this there would be heritage setting issues that would need to be looked at. The scheme at present had responded to a detailed arboricultural impact assessment, which sets out where developments should take place. Officers removed any excavations and the development had been moved away from the trees that had been identified as moderate value. The scheme had been informed by an ecological survey outside of the mature trees and the less intensive grass and habitat around the edge. The rest of the amenity grass was considered of poor condition ecologically as a modified grassland. Officers looked to balance and replace that within the footprint of the scheme. Through the introduction of additional hedge planting around the edge of the scheme, still mindful of intervisibility and public surveillance whilst also providing that increase in biodiversity.
• In the initial stages, there was a desire by the friends of the park to see the daylighting of the Stonebridge Brook. That is why this was further up the list than other locations might have been in the borough.
• The Flood Risk Assessment submitted as part of the planning application looked at the flood modelling identified properties around Clarence Road and to the North of the park as the likely flow path for that flood inundation. In terms of the location, the original bid had two water features, one was up in the concreted area where the old warehouses were and the other one was identified in this location.
• Officers met regularly and had workshops with the architect, thus were aware of the wider aspirations of the park. The final location, the shape, and the balance of amenity space and wetland had been influenced by the existing site conditions. Officers also considered the wider stakeholders and engagement through the planning application.
• As part of the construction work, officers would also procure the landscapers to undertake the first three years of maintenance. Going forward the maintenance plan had been shared with the friends of the park. The proposal had been designed for minimal maintenance, understanding that resources are limited in terms of the Council.
• It was explained that the scheme would provide additional attenuation and additional space features to overall improve the drainage within the residual amenity grass and the area which was again mentioned by the friends as an issue. Officers also noted they were looking at smaller scale ditches or seasonal swales to accommodate this. It was about striking a balance of trying to come up with features that were not too extensive, mindful of the environmental sensitivity and not requiring a lot of maintenance.
• In regard to the Thames Water misconnections, the intention would be for that to be picked up in condition 4 of the management and maintenance plan. Officers noted they would be happy to include that to enhancements to make it clear that the connection should not be operational until the misconnections of have been satisfactorily addressed.
• Where there were lower areas, officers would use some of the soil dug out to regrade the rest of the grassed area so that it would minimise the amounts of ponding along the rest of the grassed area.
• It was a clear principle in the work with friends that their work, in any park across the borough is additional to the core maintenance responsibilities of the Park Service.

The Chair asked Robbie McNaugher, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendations as set out in the report. There had been an enhancement to condition 4 that the connection from the northern drainage shall not connect until the misconnections had been addressed. The Chair moved that the recommendation be granted and following a chair’s casting vote due to 5 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

1.          That the Committee authorise the Head of Development Management or the

Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability to GRANT

planning permission subject to the conditions and informative.

2.          That the delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the 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

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) Cycle Parking;

4) Management and Maintenance Plan;

5) Construction Management Plan;

6) Tree Protection Plan;

7) Arboricultural Method Statement;

8) Tree Survey and

9) Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan

Informative

1) Hours of construction

3.          2) Thames Water