Agenda item

Proposal: Alterations and extension to existing building (Class E) and erection of residential building (Class C3- Dwellinghouses) including ground floor commercial (Class E - Commercial, Business and Service), cycle and car parking, hard and soft landscaping, and all other associated works.

Gareth Prosser, Deputy Team Leader,  introduced the report. This scheme sought planning permission foralterations and extension to existing building (Class E) and erection of residential building (Class C3- Dwellinghouses) including ground floor commercial (Class E - Commercial, Business and Service), cycle and car parking, hard and soft landscaping, and all other associated works.

 

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

 

• There would be green roofs within the development. In addition, the scheme would provide ten additional trees. Most of the green spaces would be at roof and podium level,  and on the top of the commercial element as well. There would be over a 400% biodiversity net gain, because there is virtually no greenery on the site at the minute.

 

• The proposal to provide an additional floor to the roof of the commercial unit was discussed at the Quality Review Panl meeting, and the design of the original proposal was set back.In terms of the BRE assessment  - overshadowing and lighting conditions to rear gardens and to rear windows, the impact was considered acceptable.

 

Matt Lawrenson, a local resident, attended the committee and spoke in objection of the proposal:

 

This development would take place metres away from his home. The intense noise, dust and disruption from the construction over two or three years would not only affect his ability to work but would also affect his mental health and well-being. Further, he felt the daylight report included in the application did not consider the personal experiences of the residents and the true impact on their homes, as no consultation was carried out by the applicant  with them.

 

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

 

• Since the deadline the objector had spoken to neighbours who did not know this development was taking place, in his view more people would have objected if they knew about the plans.

 

• Officers explained that they had notified over 800 people about the site by way of letter, and that site notices were also put up on Lawrence Rd and Collingwood Road. The council held a Development Management Forum inviting the local community to consider and feed back on the proposals. There had been numerous opportunities to engage with both the officers and with the developers.

 

• To clarify, it would be mainly deck access at the back of the residential scheme and this would be access to the new homes. The homes would be orientated towards Lawrence Rd at the back of the building, which would face Collingwood Rd but also there would be a substantial distance from the new residential properties to Collingwood Rd.

 

• There would be a visual impact to residents as they would be able to see the extension and the residential building, but that would be set back a substantial distance. In terms of the studies that officers received and considered the scheme complied with BRE guidelines.

 

• It would be standard to apply limitations on the hours of work, officers had recommended a condition on limiting the hours of operation. There would be a construction management plan which would be assessed and would look at the ways materials, for example, wouldbe brought to the site.

 

The applicant, Sam Hein, addressed the committee in support of the proposal:

 

• This proposal would rejuvenate the site and provide modern flexible commercial floor space that met local small business needs. It would deliver 56 quality homes, both affordable and private. The final design had benefited from three rounds of examination by the Quality Review Panel. They have also been conscious of neighbours and undertaken direct public consultation events, including two public exhibitions and a Development Forum. Many of the closest neighbours were actually supportive of the regeneration proposals because it removed the existing operator that generated a lot of noise and odour. The design was climate conscious and would help meet aspirations to go green. This included air source heat pumps, solar panels and rainwater harvesting, and would deliver carbon savings to help go above standards and help keep bills down, the scheme would also be car free.

 

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

 

• The applicant actively engaged with registered providers. They have a company called DS2 whose job was to place affordable housing with registered providers. The applicant had made sure by talking to those organisations that they would take on affordable housing and they had been to see the Council's property department as well. The Council sometimes took affordable homes as well and they had come to the same conclusion as them, which is that the number of affordable homes would be too low. But there was a prospect for the shared ownership, and that was probably the best solution for everybody.

 

• An alternative would be three social rented homesand one shared ownership. But the point is that it was not possible to deliver.

 

• Through the construction management plan, it was demonstrated how this development could be built with minimum disturbance to neighbours. The main bulk of the building that would take place would be some distance  away from the objector’s and neighbouring property, therefore there should not be so much disruption.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement to sum up the recommendations as set out in the report. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a unanimous decision.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Committee authorise the Head of Development Management & Planning

Enforcement or the  Director of Planning & Building Standards  to

GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out below

and the completion of anagreement satisfactory to the Head of Development

Management & Planning Enforcement or the Assistant Director of Planning & Building

Standards  that secures the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms

below.

 

2.2 That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management & Planning Enforcement or the Director Planning & Building Standards 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.

 

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

31st May 2025 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management &

Planning Enforcement or the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Standards 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.

 

2.9 Summary of the planning obligations for the development is provided below:

1. Carbon offset contribution:

- Estimated carbon offset contribution of £36,480 (indicative), plus a 10%

management fee; carbon offset contribution to be re-calculated at £2,850 per

tCO2 at the Energy Plan and Sustainability stages;

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

- Energy Plan; and

- Sustainability Review.

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

Management Order.

3. Car Club Membership Subsidies at £100 (one hundred pounds in credit) per

year/per unit for the first 2 years.

4. Commercial Travel Plan including £2,000 per year per Travel Plan for monitoring

of the travel plan for a period of 5 years.

5. Residential Travel Plans including a £15,000 to monitoring of the travel plan

initiatives.

6. Highway Improvements

7. Employment Initiatives - participation and financial contribution towards Local

training and Employment Plan.

- Apprenticeship support fees of £1,500;

- Provide a support fee of £1,500 per apprenticeship towards recruitment

costs;

- 5% of the on-site workforce to be Haringey resident trainees;

- Submission of an employment and skills plan;

- No less than 20% of local labour. Residents shall be employed for a minimum

of 26 weeks; and

- One full time apprenticeship per £3mill of development cost (up to max. 10%

of total construction workforce.

 8. Monitoring Contribution

- 5% of total value contribution (not including monitoring);

- £500 per non-financial contribution; and

- Total monitoring contribution to not exceed £50,000.

9. Construction Management Travel Plan obligation for £15,000.

10. Retention of Architect