Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new mixed-use development up to five storeys high with commercial uses (Use Class E) at ground level, 12 no. self-contained flats (Use Class C3) to upper levels and plant room at basement level. Provision of cycle parking, refuse, recycling and storage. Lift overrun, plant enclosure and photovoltaic (PV) panels at roof level

Valerie Okeiyi, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the item for demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new mixed use development up to five storeys high with commercial uses (Use Class E) at ground level, 12 no. self-contained flats (Use Class C3) to upper levels and plant room at basement level. Provision of cycle parking, refuse, recycling and storage. Lift overrun, plant enclosure and photovoltaic (PV) panels at roof level.

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

• Condition 22 regarding the living roof related to the green roof and the green wall, there was also condition 5 which related to landscaping, so these crossed over.
• The applicants had produced a revised daylight and sunlight impact, at Officer’s request.  The impact arising from the development on neighbours’ amenity was justifiable in the circumstances.
• Every traffic management order prepared, in connection with events at Alexandra Palace, would need to take into consideration access for future residents to their property. This would be the same for the existing garage who need access to their MOT service and their customers. If there was any mass crowd movement for safety and anti-terrorism reasons, officers may not allow any access at all, but in preparing a demolition/construction management plan which is a condition attached to this application, the developer would have to take into consideration any known road closures that were proposed at Alexandra Palace.
• The affordable housing the scheme could viably deliver is 3 shared ownership homes, which equated to 25% affordable housing. However, a further appraisal was carried out to see whether any social rented homes could be delivered. In this instance it was concluded that the scheme would generate a deficit, meaning there would be no social rented homes.
• The policy is to provide affordable housing on site in the first instance. The viability work had started off on that basis. The policy also says that where there were legitimate viability issues and circumstances that there could instead be a payment in lieu, and that was the case here. It had not been possible to secure a registered provider on site. The Council itself was not interested in purchasing the affordable homes for its own use.
• An existing kerb into the site would be removed and the footway reinstated, with single yellow lines to allow for temporary collection of rubbish.  The management company would bring bins to the kerb on the day of collection. The rubbish truck would stop for 5-10 minutes and load them in. This is a small redevelopment, which officers did not envisage would cause any traffic problems.
• The QRP agreed that this was an appropriate height and scale of development for this site. There would be an increase of height of one storey compared to the existing neighbour and the further retail parades along Bedford Rd.
• Regarding the affordable housing payment in lieu (PIL) to be secured in the section 106 legal agreement, this could be spent on affordable housing, including social rent. Officers were working in partnership with the Council’s housing delivery programme to ensure the PIL is spent appropriately, including within the new build Council housing proposals.
• How CIL income is spent is not a formal decision for this committee. This is ultimately decided through cabinet powers, but the types of things CIL can be spent on are projects such as delivery of green and open space, play space, transport infrastructure and highways and road infrastructure.
• The applicant revised their affordable housing viability statement providing further evidence, and discussions had since taken place between the applicant and the independent assessor, which is BNPP, and with that in mind, it was found that 3 shared ownership homes could be delivered, which equated to 25% affordable housing. Alternatively, less than one social rent home could be delivered on site.
• Profit margins that were built into the viability appraisal by the developer were considered by BNPP and agreed. They were looking at a profit that was within a reasonable amount.
• The viability appraisal is to negate the effect of any inflated land value. It looked at existing use value.
• In terms of the premium, the applicant’s viability assessors assumed a 20% premium. To incentivise the landowner to bring the site forward for development when the viability review went to BNPP, they took a 10% landowner premium as a reasonable amount. Early and late-stage reviews of the scheme would take place, so that the Council can secure additional value that might arise.
• Marc Simon, a local resident attended the committee to speak in objection of the proposal. He was glad to see that there was a fire statement that appeared satisfactory to building control, but disappointed that a landscape architect had not been involved in the scheme. They questioned how the green wall would survive.
• Ruth Cowan, a local resident attended the committee to speak in objection of the proposal. Whilst she was in favour of the creation of more housing in the borough, especially affordable housing, she had concerns around the consideration of the light and privacy impacts to Palace Mansions and Forest Lodge; concerns that the style and height of the building doesn't relate to other homes on Bedford Rd or Alexandra Park Rd; and concerns about the pressure on car parking provision in the local area.

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

• Neither of the residents had further discussions with the applicant.
• Cars would be moved to park on the roads further down, creating pressure.
• It was important that this would be a wheelchair accessible property.
• In terms of the fire safety concerns and the fire statement, this was submitted and reviewed by building control officers and planning officers who were satisfied that the policy requirement had been sufficiently addressed. A formal detailed assessment would be undertaken for fire safety at the formal building control stage.
• It was also worth noting this building is not a high-risk building in terms of the definition of building safety, so it did not meet the criteria of needing to be considered by the National Building Safety regulator.

The applicant attended the committee and spoke in support of the application:

• For many years, this site had operated as a petrol station and a car repair garage, but currently the site was outdated, underutilised and no longer aligned with Haringey's vision for regeneration, sustainability or good design. Its current use contributed very little to the neighbourhood, generating noise emissions and formed a long-standing eyesore within the local environment. The proposed scheme had been designed to contribute meaningfully to the local area, bringing forward much needed new homes, active commercial frontage and significant environmental improvements. The application was a result of extended extensive collaboration with council officers and stakeholders. The applicant had participated in three formal pre application meetings, a full design review panel process, a signed planning performance agreement and detailed technical dialogue around design, servicing and amenity.
• They had also engaged with residents early in the process, listening carefully to feedback and responding constructively. The scheme evolved as a result, with reductions in height and massing, improved materials, enhanced refuge, refuse arrangements and open space provision. Finally, the wider economic benefit the proposal represents is over £4 million worth of private investment.   It will generate approximately £40,000 annually in Council tax and business rates helping local services for years to come.

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

• Officers submitted a basement impact assessment which took into consideration the excavations and all the hydrology of the immediate area. As previously mentioned, this development had been seen by building control, and detailed structural analysis would be undertaken.
• All flats would be dual aspect and triple aspect.
• There was the possibility of some street tree planting, however, there was a recent set back in that an initial survey indicates that services may be located under the pavement which may not allow tree planting. The S106   requires exploration of services below the pavement and if there was a possibility of planting.
• As the architect noted, there would be a feasibility study to see if trees in front of the site could be planted. If trees could not be planted due to utilities / services on the street outside the site, a payment in lieu would be made towards greening in the local area.
• The maintenance of the building would be down to the management company of the block.
• There are fuel tanks in the ground, so the site would need to be de-contaminated.
• There was an internal lift to the building which would provide adequate suitable access to all the flats. All flats would be part M2 compliant, so they were accessible; with one flat suitable for use by a wheelchair user.

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendation as set out in the report. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a vote 6 for, 1 in abstention.

That the Committee authorise the Head of Development Management or the Director of Planning and Building Standards to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out below and the completion of an agreement satisfactory to the Head of Development Management or the Director of Planning and 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 or the Director of Planning and 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 21/08/2025 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Director of Planning & Building Standards shall in their 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. Conditions/Informative Summary - Planning Application HGY/2023/2584 (the full text of recommended conditions/informative is contained in Appendix 2 of the report.

Conditions

1. Three years

2. Drawings

3. Detailed Drawings and External Materials

4. Boundary Treatment

5. Hard and Soft Landscaping

6. Site levels

7. External Lighting

8. Secure by Design Accreditation

9. Secure by Design Certification

10.Contaminated Land

11.Unexpected Contamination

12.Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM)

13.Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plan

14.Arboricultural Impact Assessment

15.Delivery and Servicing Plan and waste Management Plan

16.Cycle Parking

17.Car parking Management Plan

18.Energy Strategy

19.Overheating Report

20.Sustainability Strategy

21.Living roofs and walls

22.Biodiversity Measures

23.BREEAM

24.Detailed Basement Impact Assessment

25.Piling (Thames Water)

26.Piling and Deep Foundations (Environment Agency)

27.Underground Strategic Water Main (Thames Water)

28.Surface Water Drainage (LBH Flood and Water Management Lead) 29.Management/Maintenance (Flood and Water Management Lead )

30.Remediation Strategy and Verification Plan (Environment Agency)

31.Verification Report (Environment Agency)

32.Satellite dish/television antenna

33.Extract flues/fans

34.Telecommunications infrastructure

35.Fire safety

36.Noise from Plant/Equipment

37.Commercial Units – Noise Attenuation

38.Commercial units - Hours of operation

39.Restriction to Use Class

40.Commercial Shopfront

41.Shopfront Advertising Signs

42.Air Quality Neutral

43.Architect Retention

44.Wheelchair Accessible Dwellings

Informatives

1) Positive and Proactive

2) Permission subject to a 106 legal agreement

3) CIL

4) Hours of Construction

5) Party Wall Act

6) Naming and Numbering

7) Fire Brigade

8) Asbestos

9) Metropolitan Police Service Designing Out Crime

10) Thames Water - Groundwater Risk Management Permit

11) Thames Water - Water Pressure

12) Water Consumption