Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of 66 new affordable homes across two new buildings of six storeys each; 13 x 1 bed 2 person flats, 1 x 2 bed 3 person maisonette, 27 x 2 bed 4 person flats, 1 x 3 bed 5 person maisonette and 24 x 3 bed 5 person flats.

 

Gareth Prosser, Planning Officer introduced the report for the construction of 66 new affordable homes across two new buildings of six storeys each; 13 x 1 bed 2 person flats, 1 x 2 bed 3 person maisonette, 27 x 2 bed 4 person flats, 1 x 3 bed 5 person maisonette and 24 x 3 bed 5 person flats.

 

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

 

• The Council’s constitution and the planning protocol set out clear measures to make sure that all Council applications come to planning committee so that there is the appropriate scrutiny. In terms of this planning proposal, the fact that the Council were the applicants would not make any difference, this would be dealt with in the same way with the same processes to ensure the scheme was of a high quality.

 

• A scheme to provide housing had been the subject of pre application discussion several times, there were previous schemes presented with higher densities on the site. However, in terms of maximising the value of the site and what could actually be delivered, this was the scheme that that the applicant settled on.

 

• Solar panels would be used for the landlord’s supply.

 

• The applicants had submitted a noise report, and all current building standards would have to be met in terms of the busiest road, which was Seven Sisters Rd.

 

• Officers had included conditions suggested by the Metropolitan Police.

 

• The development site had a good public transport accessibility level,  with numerous bus links to Seven Sisters, Manor House underground station and South Tottenham rail station being within walking distance. The application is not proposing to remove any parking as part of the development proposal. There would be a reallocation of 6/7 car parking spaces for wheelchair accessible homes. This development proposal followed the Council's policies and the London Plan policy, there was also a parking management plan attached to this development proposal to ensure that officers assigned those car parking spaces to residents who need it, prioritising residents with a disability and then  larger family homes .

 

• The construction industry would not have capacity to provide specific bricks for committee members to view. However, there were quite detailed photographs in the reports and officers would visit the site and condition materials.

 

• Individual air source heat pumps would be installed, which would be  fairly compact units located internally within the flats. The applicant proposed to integrate several units within one, so that would include the ventilation of the units, the space heating and the hot water as well for the dwellings. Officers had seen pumps such as these on various schemes and believed that the team was trained up to be able to deal with these in use for residents.

 

• Members noted if letters received by the Metropolitan Police could be made available with the agenda.

 

• In terms of the playgrounds, there were not any at the moment. This proposal offered the opportunity to look at the open space and to make more secure and well-designed open space. In terms of urban design terms, often the safest open spaces were those that were surrounded by an active edge of buildings. Officers advised that this scheme would almost create an urban square, so in terms of antisocial behaviour, it would be less likely in these spaces due to the openness of the area, it would also be much better lit.

 

• There would be conditions proposed in terms of the hours of operation of building the development. The applicant would have to submit a construction management plan and that would outline all the different aspects of the construction.

 

Cllr Williams attended the committee and spoke in support of the application. She declared a prejudicial interest as the Cabinet Member for Housing. She explained that by this time next year, 3,000 council homes would be on site and delivered; this particular site would be an exemplary contribution to this. All 66 homes would be social rent delivering for families in desperate need. These were highly sustainable and airtight homes, which would pose a reduction to bills and improve the carbon footprint. Residents would be taught how to look after the heat pumps.

 

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

 

• This build would create more biodiversity and a better environment for a busy intersection.

 

• There is no  specific site allocation for the site, even though it was a green area it was not Greenbelt land. Policy DM20 speaks about enhancing spaces to address identified deficiencies in the quality and accessibility of an open space; this would help achieve and secure a viable future for the space. Even though there would be a reduction in the amount of open space, it would be of a higher quality.

 

• The applicant had done a lot of engagement on their redevelopment proposals,  and parking did not come up as much of an issue by residents. However, the estate's parking management schemes are due to start soon to help address haphazard parking.

 

• The contractor would have a responsibility to maintain and, where necessary, replace any landscaping  for a further period of three years. Beyond that, the repairs and aftercare team that now sat within the housing delivery team would also take responsibility for making sure that landscaping was maintained and where necessary renewed for a period of at least five years beyond the completion of the development.

 

• In a different regulatory landscape, the applicant may have made the development a few storeys higher. However, as it stands, to deliver homes above 6 storeys and ensure viability, a scheme  would need to be delivering above 12 storeys.

 

• The trades button was unfortunately an open invitation to anti-social behaviour on many estates across London. The method devised with the Postal Service is that the local sorting office and the postman would have what's described as an engineer’s code. This was a specific code to the post office that enabled them to get through the front door into a secure lobby area in which the post boxes would be located

 

• With regard to fences, details of enclosures    would be submitted  and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The police now also recommended particular locking mechanisms to gates.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendations as set out in the report. Following a unanimous vote for this application was approved.

 

RESOLVED

 

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 the signing of an agreement providing for the obligations set out

in the Heads of Terms below.

 

2.2 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 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.

 

2.3 That the agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above is to be completed no later than

4th June 2025 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or

the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in her/his sole

discretion allow; and

 

2.4 That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (2.1) within the

time period provided for in resolution (2.3) above, planning permission be granted in

accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

2.5 Planning obligations are usually secured through a S106 legal agreement. In this

instance the Council is the landowner of the site and is also the local planning authority

and so cannot legally provide enforceable planning obligations to itself.

 

2.6 There will also be a Directors’ agreement signed between the parties (applicant as the

Housing Department and PBSS as the Local Planning Authority) to secure obligations

that would otherwise ordinarily be set out in a S106 document.

 

2.7 It is recognised that the Council cannot enforce against itself in respect of breaches of

planning conditions, and so prior to issuing any planning permission measures will be

agreed between the Council’s Housing service and the Planning service, including the

resolution of non-compliance with planning conditions by the Chief Executive and the

reporting of breaches to portfolio holders, to ensure compliance with any conditions

imposed on the planning permission for the proposed development.

2.8 The Council cannot impose conditions on a planning permission requiring the payment

of monies and so the Director of Placemaking and Housing has confirmed in writing that

the payment of contributions for the matters set out below will be made to the relevant

departments before the proposed development is implemented.

 

2.9 A summary of the planning obligations/S106 Heads of Terms for the development is

provided below:

1. Carbon offset contribution

- Estimated carbon offset contribution (and associated obligations) of £20,235

(indicative), plus a 10% management fee; carbon offset contribution to be recalculated

at £2,850 per tCO2 at the Energy Plan and Sustainability stages.

- ‘Be Seen’ commitment to upload energy performance data.

2. Car-Capped Agreement including a £4,000 contribution to amend the Traffic

Management Order

3. Car Club Provision and Membership

4. Parking Management Contribution - £10,000 towards a review of current parking

management measures within the Tottenham Event Day CPZ

5. Enter into an agreement with the Highways Authority under S278 and S38 with regard

to necessary highways works

6. Travel Plan contribution: £3,000 (three thousand pounds) per year per travel plan for a

period of five years

7. Travel Plan Monitoring Contribution

8. Construction Logistics contribution: £15,000 to help administer and oversee

construction impacts

9. Off-site highways and Landscaping working

10. Affordable Homes for Rent

11. Local Employment

12. Employment and Skills Plan

13. Skills Contribution

14, Energy Plan

15. Sustainability Review

16. Monitoring Costs

 

Summary of Conditions

 

Conditions

1) Development begun no later than three years from date of decision

2) In accordance with approved plans

3) Materials and detailed design

4) Energy Strategy

5) Overheating Strategy

6) Living Roofs and Walls

7) Biodiversity Net Gain

8) Urban Greening Factor

9) Whole Life Carbon

10) Delivery and Servicing Plan and Waste Management

11) Cycle Parking

12) Electric Vehicle Charging

13) Wheelchair Accessible Car Parking

14) Car Parking Management Plan

15) Construction Management Plan (CMP)

16) Land Contamination

17) Unexpected Contamination

18) Air Quality Assessment

19) Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM)

20) Management and Control of Dust

21) Considerate Constructors Scheme

22) Construction Logistics and Management Plan

23) Piling

24) Infiltration Drainage

25) Investigative Boreholes

26) Waste

27) Secured by Design Accreditation

28) Secured by Design Certification

29) Trees

30) Landscaping

31) Wheelchair Accessible Homes

32) C3 Use Class

33) Water Efficiency

34) Water Main

35) Transport for London Infrastructure

36) BREEAM

37) Piling