Agenda item

Proposal: Full planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a replacement building of up four storeys to include purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.

Phillip Elliot, planning officer introduced the report forFull planning application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a replacement building of up four storeys to include purpose built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and flexible commercial, business and service uses (Class E), hard and soft landscaping, and associated works.

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

• There was no policy reason as to why the dentist would have been required, this idea was proposed by the applicant.
• The intention was to provide onsite affordable housing or affordable housing within the neighbouring depot site.

• The London Plan H15 student policy essentially talks about having the option of the accommodation being used outside the academic year for certain groups to improve viability of the accommodation. In that particular part of the policy it refers to delegates, interns on university placements and students on short term education courses.
• The potential of a change to multiple occupancy would be a change of use application that officers would have control over. There is a nominations agreement in the section 10 and evidence to show there was a demand for student accommodation. Furthermore, there is a letter of support from university institutions which detailed that they supported the scheme and would like to take up the accommodation.
• On affordable housing, the applicant had other land holdings within the same site allocation. Therefore, there was potential to provide conventional affordable housing within a site close by. Whilst it was London plan policy compliant to provide affordable student accommodation within it, there was also the other option where it could potentially provide for Haringey residents.
• In terms of archaeology, comments were made previously under the last application and two conditions were settled on. The archaeological advisors from Greater London Archaeological service have said that if you members were to grant planning permission again, then these conditions needed to be reapplied.
• Condition 27 required the parking space to have an electric vehicle charging point. It also required details of the allocation and management of the disabled parking space. In terms of sufficient space on Percival Court, the applicants had sought to make as much space possible.
• In terms of the affordable aspect outside of term time. Officers had largely looked at this based on the supporting text in policy H15 and the London plan. There could be difficulties of viability, being able to keep this open at a time where there might be groups of people leaving would give officers a buffer for the running of the building to have that additional income. There was not any policy requirement or text that says that should be retained at a level akin to the actual student accommodation in terms of a percentage being affordable
• In terms of demand for student accommodation, the London plan displayed a lot of evidence behind this and shows that there was growing demand for purpose built student accommodation in London. A few years ago an evidence based document called the Strategic Housing Market Assessment looked at the housing service and the need for housing and accommodation across the borough for different types of people and communities – this included student accommodation. The number of private households which comprised of only students had nearly doubled since 2011. There was very significant growth in the number of students occupying private sector dwellings.

The following was noted in response to questions to the applicant:

• On the previous application, the applicant was in negotiations with the Dentist practice which occupied 802 High Road. It wasn’t clear whether they were going to relocate them into this scheme or whether the practice was going to relocate elsewhere.
• The change in affordable housing arose from a negotiation that was currently going on between the club, the Council and Lend Lease. This looked at the increase of affordable within the goods yard depot from the current percentage of 35% up to potentially 41%, which would allow the accelerated decants of the Love Lane estate and the acceleration of the High Road West scheme overall.
• On the concierge, some of this would come down to the PBSA operator that would be appointed. There was currently a short list of two, but the understanding was that they would try and operate this as a satellite to the main Print Works scheme; extending to security and having concierge's 24 hours day.
• The plan was to attract universities to Haringey, this was not just about accommodation. The applicant would like students to be studying and living in the borough at the same time.
• The library service had been one of the biggest beneficiaries of Community Infrastructure Levy. There was no reason to suggest that this would not continue in future decisions.
• Cllr Collett noted that there was wonder if there was going to be so much student accommodation, whether actually as part of the social infrastructure, members should be thinking about returning care leavers.
• By providing both cycle parking and the accessible parking space on Percival Court, it removed the ability to service waste and refuse. From an operational management and safety point of view, this would have to be via the established route previously for the residential. This had been accepted by officers and there were conditions imposed on the consent to have a waste management plan secured and agreed.
• There was a condition which would require a car parking management plan to be worked up and agreed with officers detailing how that space would function and how it would be allocated to on-site users.
• There was a delivery and service plan condition that would require consideration of all aspects of safe and legal loading deliveries. There was a loading bay on the High Road which was found to be sufficient enough to service the site.
• In regard to dockless E bikes, this would be looked at within planning policies to build this in the future. The provision of cycle parking for both the student and commercial accommodation was viewed to be sufficient.
• There was no agreed fall-back time on where it would default to the payment in lieu if the offsite allocation was agreed but then doesn't come forward. Officers felt five years was appropriate to give time to get some sort of agreement in place on that.

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 10 for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

RESOLVED

1. That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission, impose conditions and informatives, and sign a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below.

That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution 2.1 above is to be completed no later than 15 August 2024 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement (Head of DM) or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability (AD Planning) shall in their sole discretion allow.

That, following completion of the agreement referred to in resolution 2.) within the time period provided for in resolution 2.2 above, planning permission is granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

That delegated authority be granted to the Head of DM or AD Planning to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions and informatives 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 Planning Sub Committee.

Conditions Summary – (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 2 of this report).

1) 3-year time limit

2) Development to be in accordance with approved plans.

3) Contract for replacement building (Blocks A and B) before demolition of

existing building

4) Accessible Accommodation

5) BREEAM Accreditation

6) Block A – Noise Attenuation 1

7) Blocks A & B – Noise Attenuation 2

8) Mechanical Plant Noise

9) Tree retention

10)Landscape Details

11)Building User Guide

12)Drainage - Design Implementation, Maintenance, and Management

13)External Materials and Details

14)No Plumbing on outside of buildings

15)No grills on outside of Block A

16)Secured by Design

17)Fire Statement

18)Energy Strategy

19)Overheating

20)MVHR

21)Land Contamination – Part 1

22)Land Contamination – Part 2

23)Unexpected Contamination

24)Archaeology 1

25)Archaeology 2

26)Cycle Parking Provision

27)Car Parking Provision

28)Delivery and Service Plan

29)Student and Commercial Waste Management Plans

30)Construction Logistics Plan

31)Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plans

32)Impact Piling Method Statement

33)Business and Community Liaison

34)Telecommunications

35)Water Efficiency Condition