Planning Officer Zara Zeelig introduced the report. This was planning application for Phases 2a and 3 of the Down
Lane Park Improvement Programme: demolition of former Park Pavilion
and Park Depot Buildings (and associated structures), and
basketball court to allow for construction of a new Community Hub
Building and Community Garden, new basketball and netball courts,
new children’s play area, access routes, entrances and
associated soft and hard landscaping.
The following was noted in response to questions
from the committee:
- Officers
sought to retain and reuse as much of the existing external
railings as possible. There would be additional planting along the
railings so that if necessary in the future they could potentially
be removed; railings could only be removed where planting was well
established and would have sufficient boundary cover.
- Regarding the
removal of the Welbourne site, there
was no reprovision for use. The
community facility would be flexible and various uses could be
accommodated.
- Harris
Academy was subject to a community use plan. This plan was to
provide their facilities for discounted rates for community groups.
It has come to light that this hasn’t come to fruition,
colleagues were pursuing this and would follow up to see what had
happened since.
- The scheme
was reviewed twice, one of the reviews was by the Urban Design
London panel which was a condition of the funding that came from
GLA. One member of the Haringey QRP was included in that panel
meeting. After all of the amendments
requested by that panel had been implemented, it was reviewed by
the QRP and in that second review, the panel supported the proposal
for improvements. The project team was to be commended for the
extensive design process and the amount of work completed since the
Urban Design London review supported the masterplan
approach.
- The current
mounds are in the Southern end of the park outside of the red line
boundary. This part of the park is in the Blue Line area of works
being carried out through permitted
development, which did not require planning permission. The
intention was to broadly level that area to make it more accessible
and make it more connected to the surrounding residential areas.
There would be new mounds in the Northern part of the park where
it's currently flattened and featureless.
- In terms of
the objections, points of concern raised were the separation of the
two playgrounds, additional exits and entrances, removal of the
nursery, removal of the railings and the impact on women's safety.
Some residents felt the boundary hedging should be in addition to
the railings which should remain, concerns were also raised about
how the planting would be pruned and managed and there not being
adequate replacement for trees any removed. The Met Police support
this proposal and felt it was an improvement in terms of safety and
there had been a lot of community engagement that had gone into the
design in terms of the layout and the play parks.
- 42 new trees
would be provided which would provide a net gain of 39
trees.
- At the time
the design was shown to the QRP, the idea was that the pergola
might be extendable. Following on from this, officers agreed a
slender pergola was needed. The design consisted of 3 parallel
pitched roofs, the front pitched roof over the main community space
would be open to the room below. The second roof and the chimneys
would form part of the plan for the overall proposal. Effectively
that was part of the sustainability process, the chimneys would be
functioning as flues, with the air source heat pump located beside
the bin store just to try to reduce noise.
- The Moselle
was not part of the red line site plan.
- The proposal
to include disabled parking would be an addition to the current
arrangement . Cycle parking would not be segregated, this would be
for all park users.
- The majority
of SUDS and drainage was taking place within the two other parts of
the site. There would be aspiration to push for more SUDS features
within the whole park. The current drainage arrangement was a
concrete area that meant water flowed into the drains (unattenuated) and the new area which was part of
this application would be permeable.
- The overall
aspiration was to build up the boundaries with a denser vegetation.
The initial plan would be to potentially remove the Ashley Road
boundary and in front of the depot site.
The following was noted in response to questions to
the applicant:
- There would
be works done to improve the lighting in the park. There had been a
clear steer from the council to have an active frontage onto Park
View Road from the hub. Various entrances and exits would be opened
to improve accessibility. The scheme would bring forward the MUGA
areas directly opposite the new community hub and new connections
coming in from Ashley Road.
- The existing
lighting within the park extended through the North field and along
Moselle walk. Those were the only two areas in the park that had
permanent lighting. There had been some been some temporary
lighting installed between Park View Rd South and the existing
former Park Pavilion building. There would be a significant uplift
in the infrastructure in the park, specifically to the lighting in
the North part of the park which cuts East, West and traverses the
route from Park View Rd to Harris Academy. This would reflect a new
pathway that would be introduced, following engagement with Harris
Academy.
- 2 blue badge
parking spaces were proposed as part of the scheme, the capacity
for the scheme was varied dependent on the activities. There was
proposed active travel as part of the scheme and there would be
extra parking capacity on adjacent roads. The celebration space had
a maximum capacity of 200 people, this could overspill into the
garden and pergola to provide cover. Day to day usage of the
building would be for yoga classes, art classes, after school clubs
and resident’s associations. It had the capacity for larger
events which was integral to the viability of the building for the
operator. Over a certain capacity would likely be subject to having
an appropriate license.
- Further
onsite parking would eat into the park space, there were accessible
transport links available.
The Chair asked Robbie McNaugher, Head of Development Management and
Enforcement
Planning to sum up the recommendations as set out in
the report. The Chair moved that the recommendation be granted
following a vote with 7 for, 0 against and 0
abstentions.
RESOLVED
- 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
informatives set out below satisfactory
to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of
Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability.
- 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.
Conditions
1. Three years
2. Approved Plans
3. Details and Materials
4. Landscaping
5. Arboricultural Method
Statement incl Tree Protection
Plans
6. Lighting
7. Secure by design accreditation and
certification
8. Land Contamination and Unexpected
Contamination
9. Construction Logistics Plan
10. Car Parking Management Plan
11. Delivery and Servicing Plan/Waste management
plan
12. Demolition/Construction Environmental Management
Plans
13. Cycle parking
14. Event Management Plan
15. Noise Management Plans
16. Energy Strategy
17. Overheating
18. Sustainability and Biodiversity
Measures
19. Water Butts
20. Passivhaus
21. Fire Safety Solutions
22. Surface Water Drainage Scheme
23. Detailed Management Plan
Informatives
1) CIL liable
2) Hours of construction
3) Thames Water Groundwater Risk Management
Permit
4) Asbestos