Agenda item

HGY/2022/4319

 

Full planning application for the demolition of existing laundry building and 1970s infill building; alterations and extensions to 44 existing almshouses to create 8 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed homes; alterations to existing Gatehouse to provide 1 x 2 bed homes; construction of 1 x new build 3 bed home to replace 1970s infill building; construction of a new apartment building comprising 7 x studio homes and 9 x 1 bed homes; construction of 4 x new build 2 bed homes within two new pavilions (2 homes  in each pavilion, 4 homes in total); with landscaping; improvements to access; car parking; and ancillary development thereto.

 

HGY/2022/4320

Listed building consent for the demolition of existing laundry building and 1970s infill building; alterations and extensions to 44 existing almshouses to create 8 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed homes; alterations to existing Gatehouse to provide 1 x 2 bed home; construction of 1 x new build 3 bed home to replace 1970s infill building; construction of a new apartment building comprising 7 x studio homes and 9 x 1 bed homes; construction of 4 x new build 2 bed homes within two new pavilions (2 homes in each pavilion, 4 homes in total); with landscaping; improvements to access; car parking; and ancillary development thereto.

 

 

Gareth Prosser, Deputy Team Manager, introduced the item.

 

Proposal: Full planning application and listed building consent application seeking consent for the demolition of existing laundry building and 1970s infill building; alterations and extensions to 44 existing almshouses to create 8 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed homes; alterations to existing Gatehouse to provide 1 x 2 bed homes; construction of 1 x new build 3 bed home to replace 1970s infill building; construction of a new apartment building comprising 7 x studio homes and 9 x 1 bed homes; construction of 4 x new build 2 bed homes within two new pavilions (2 homes in each pavilion, 4 homes in total); with landscaping; improvements to access; provision of five Blue Badge car parking spaces; and ancillary development thereto.

 

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

 

-          Questions were raised about where future tenants would come from and whether the Council might seek to house residents on waiting lists within this development.  One suggestion had been that, if affordable housing became possible, it should be provided as a financial contribution elsewhere in the borough to avoid overdevelopment of the site. Officers were congratulated for removing the 1970s block, which was seen as setting a high standard. The applicant was responsible for tenant allocation, while officers explained that early and late?stage reviews would assess economic conditions to determine whether any affordable housing could be achieved in the future.  Affordable housing could be delivered on site within the development permitted if it were to become financially viable in the future, though financial contributions remained an alternative option. Officers would seek to secure the best position available if the circumstance were to arise. The applicants are a charity and would use the property for housing, in connection with their charitable purposes.

-          Members questioned what would happen to the green space in front of the homes and the plans for the chapel were. The chapel would be used for community use and the green space would be retained, though a some of it would be used a play area for children.

-           

Carol Hebbs attended the committee to speak in objection of the application:

 

-          The speaker, Chair of the Friends of Bruce Castle and member of the Heritage Quarter Committee, opposed changing the Draper’s almshouses from retirement housing to family use. They stressed the buildings’ historic value, their Grade II listing, and their original purpose for elderly residents. They highlighted Haringey’s growing older population, the need for suitable housing, and the benefits of retaining the almshouses for over?55s, which would ease pressure on social services while preserving heritage and community.

 

Councillor Ali attended the committee to speak in objection of the application:

-          He acknowledged that the applicant had presented a much-improved scheme compared to three years earlier and recognised the need for refurbishment of the site. However, he raised several concerns. He criticised the absence of affordable housing, noting this was the second scheme in the ward within twelve months to lack such provision, despite the area having a large elderly population and significant sheltered housing needs.

-          He stated that one- and two-bedroom homes should be retained, questioned the demand for family housing, and asked whether the applicant had sought funding support from the Almshouse Consortium, Homes England, or the GLA. He also highlighted that rental figures provided were outdated, failing to reflect current market conditions.

-          Concerns were expressed about families being housed as licensees without secure tenancies, citing past cases of vulnerable residents being evicted.

-          Heritage issues were also raised, with calls for input from the conservation officer on balancing historic preservation with energy efficiency measures such as air source heat pumps.

-          Finally, the speaker noted that 33 residents had objected to the scheme, particularly over the loss of daylight, which he said was not adequately addressed in the report, especially for residents on Elsdon Road and Harton Road.

 

Members responded to the objectors:

 

-          Members queried how important the site was to local residents. The speaker explained that the importance of the site was ultimately a matter for the applicant to address. They recalled childhood memories of visiting the almshouses from Lancasterian School during Harvest Festival, emphasising the site’s long-standing role in serving the poor elderly. They noted that the almshouses had originally been bound by a covenant designating them for this group, and that this only changed following reforms by the Charity Commission which allowed such covenants to be altered.

 

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

 

-          Queries were raised about future plans for the almshouses after refurbishment. The applicant explained that costs and listed status made the project complex, but it aimed to find a financially viable scheme while retaining the buildings for charitable purposes.

-          It was queried whether housing for the elderly would be included. It was explained that a new apartment block had been specifically designed for older residents, incorporating a lift to address accessibility issues absent in the original almshouses, which had steep, narrow staircases unsuitable for elderly people. The charity emphasised the importance of creating a mixed community with housing for both older and younger people, noting that it was no longer considered good practice to isolate elderly residents. The scheme was praised for following modern trends by combining different age groups within the development

-          Questions were raised about whether funding had been sought and if partnerships with housing associations or the Council had been explored. It was explained that every possibility had been considered, including approaches to the GLA, but the accommodation was deemed unsuitable for grants. The applicant stated that if planning consent was to be secured, it would review options and, if unable to proceed alone, would seek suitable partners such as housing associations. The main challenge remained achieving a financially viable scheme to cover refurbishment costs.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendation for the planning application. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a vote of 6 in favour of officers’ recommendation, 2 against and 1 abstention.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendation for the listed building consent application. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a vote of 6 in favour of officers’ recommendation, 2 against and 1 abstention.

 

RESOLVED:

 

2.1 That the Committee authorise the Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement or the Director of Planning and Building Standards to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out below and informatives, and the completion of an agreement satisfactory to the Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement 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 and Planning Enforcement 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 27/11/2025 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Director of Planning and Planning Enforcement 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

1. Three years

2. Drawings

3. Materials & Design Detail

4. Demolition Works

5. Replacement Windows & Doors

6. Details for extension junctions to existing building, chimney, roof and party wall

7. Retrofitting

8. Landscaping

9. Details of ancillary buildings, including cycle store, bin stores, ASHP screening

10.Energy Strategy

11.Whole-House Retrofit Strategy and Monitoring

12.Overheating

13.Living roofs

14.Community Use Plan

15.Demolition and Construction Logistics and Management Plan

16.Cycle Parking

17.Land Contamination

18.Unexpected Contamination (Pollution)

19.NRMM

20.Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plans

21.Waste

22.Secured by Design

23.Secured by Design

24.Tree Protection Plan

25.Surface Water Drainage 1

26.Surface Water Drainage 2

27.Accessible Homes

28.Electric Vehicle Charging Point

29. Removal of Permitted Development

 

Application HGY/2022/3419 A summary of the recommended conditions   for the development is provided below:

 

Conditions:

 

1. Three years

2. Drawings

3. Materials & Design Detail

4. Demolition Works

5. Replacement Windows & Doors

6. Details for extension junctions to existing building, chimney, roof and party wall

7. Retrofitting

8. Landscaping

9. Details of ancillary buildings, including cycle store, bin stores, ASHP screening

10.Energy Strategy

11.Whole-House Retrofit Strategy and Monitoring

12.Overheating

13.Living roofs

14.Biodiversity

15.Demolition and Construction Logistics and Management Plan

16.Cycle Parking

17.Land Contamination

18.Unexpected Contamination (Pollution)

19.NRMM

20.Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plans

21.Waste

22.Secured by Design

23.Secured by Design

24.Tree Protection Plan

25.Surface Water Drainage 1

26.Surface Water Drainage 2

27.Accessible Homes

28.Electric Vehicle Charging Point