Agenda item

Proposal: Change of use from former educational facility (D1 use class now replaced by new class F1) to short term emergency accommodation (sui generis use class). Proposal also includes erection of roof extension to the building with erection of two new single storey buildings to the rear. Provision of a new commercial use on part of the ground floor level. 

 

Kwaku Bossman-Gymera, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report for change of use from former educational facility (D1 use class now replaced by new class F1) to short term Page 4 supported emergency accommodation (sui generis use class). The proposal also includes erection of roof extension to the building with erection of two new single storey buildings to the rear; and provision of a new commercial use on part of the ground floor level.

 

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

 

· There was a homeless day centre close but that was not an accommodation service. It's a day centre for people that were rough sleeping and would be of benefit to this proposed development that the services were very closely located. There was also a supported housing service above Marbury Junction that was commissioned. The accommodation would be staffed 24/7. Officers were confident with the risk management measures that had been proposed.

 

· . There would be people with needs living in this accommodation, this wasn’t a static cohort of people.

 

· Officers wouldn't be referring anybody to this property who's under the age of 18.

 

· The management plan in place was to ensure that this would be a secure building.

 

· There were 44 single adults in commercial hotels in total across the Temporary Accommodation (TA) cohort and 700 adults in temporary accommodation. Each month officers were approached by between 350-500 people seeking housing. Everything indicated that this was likely to increase, and the Council did not have the supply currently to meet the demand for homelessness accommodation.

 

· In terms of waste management officers were satisfied with the measures that had been put in place. A condition had been imposed to ensure that this plan was reviewed.

 

· A specialist landscape architect was appointed to consider how the landscaping of the courtyard could create a series of pleasant outdoor spaces and sitting areas. It was an early stage but that would be subject to condition.

 

Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement summarised a late representation:

 

The objection, in summary, was concerned about adding pressure to local benefit and employment support systems, undermining active community programmes which benefited residents, increasing the potential for antisocial incidents and the need to support employment.

 

Cllr Makbule Gunes, Ward Councillor for South Tottenham attended the committee to speak in objection:

 

All ward councillors had strong concerns regarding the application, including about an increase of anti-social behaviour. She did not believe residents had been consulted with properly and there was no guarantee this property would house Haringey residents.

 

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

 

The applicant had engaged with the local planning authority and with the housing authority. They had held a pre application briefing for Members of the Planning Sub-Committee, and invited members down to their other, similar, development in Newham. The following was noted in response to questions to the applicant:

 

· The building was currently being used on an adhoc basis.

 

· There would be two staff working 24/7 and security cameras throughout the building. There would also be managers, caseworkers and support workers on site during the day. The applicant was well versed with providing this sort of facility.

 

 · In the past, they had other properties where there were couples mixing with singles. This was where antisocial behaviour was far greater because there was an unbalanced mix of who's in the building. · Open space and communal rooms within the development would assist in reducing residents’ loneliness

 

· The rates would be agreed with the Council; this could be anywhere between £45 to £55 a night per person. The larger spaces had a premium rent over the slightly smaller ones. The rates were similar to emergency accommodation rates.

 

· There was a proposed separate refuse and cycling store on the southern boundary that would be enclosed, and the applicant had provided the number of euro bins required and requested by the refuse department.

 

· By way of comparison, the Council were currently paying between £75 and £85 a night per person for hotel accommodation.

 

· There would be possibility, within the leasing of the café, to include a caveat that there should be some form of apprenticeship or link with the homeless facility, the applicants would be happy to include this in the legal agreement.

 

· In terms of the cost the applicant would bear all the additional costs.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement to sum up the recommendation as set out in the report. During discussions, two additional section 106 obligations had been identified that the applicant had agreed to. Firstly, that residents of the property would be involved in the planting of the landscaped areas. Secondly there would be a connection between the supported accommodation and work experience in the cafe.

 

The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following 6 in favour and 2 objections and one abstention

 

RESOLVED

 

2.1 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 6/11/2025 or 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. Page 6 Conditions/Informative Summary - Planning Application HGY/2024/3386 (the full text of recommended conditions/informative is contained in Appendix 1of the report.

 

Conditions

 

1. Three years

2. Drawings

3. Detailed Drawings and External Materials

4. Management Plan

5. Restricted Use

6. Hard and Soft Landscaping

7. Secure by Design Accreditation

8. Contaminated Land

9. Unexpected Contamination

10.Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) 11.Management and Control of Dust

12.Considerate Constructor Scheme

13.Delivery and Servicing Plan and Waste Management Plan

14.Cycle Parking

15.Electric Vehicle Charging

16.Entry Access Gate Arrangements

17.Accessible Parking Bays

18.Energy Strategy

19.Overheating Report

20.Living roofs

21.BREEAM Certificate

22.Archaeology

23.Commercial Unit – Noise Attenuation

24.Commercial Unit - Hours of operation

25.Accessible Accommodation

26.Refuse, Waste & Recycling Details

27.Extract flues/Fan

28.Fire Safety

29.CCTV (Pre Commencement)

30. Restriction to Telecommunication Apparatus