Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of existing car wash site to provide 16 new council homes comprising a 4-storey building fronting Archway Road and two 2-storey houses fronting Bakers Lane, with associated refuse/recycling stores, cycle stores, service space, amenity space and landscaping.

 

 

Matthew Gunning, Area Team Manager, introduced the item.

 

Proposal: Redevelopment of existing car wash site to provide 16 new council homes comprising a 4-storey building fronting Archway Road and two 2-storey houses fronting Bakers Lane, with associated refuse/recycling stores, cycle stores, service space, amenity space and landscaping.

 

The scheme had been assessed as sustainable development on previously developed land. It had been designed to deliver sixteen affordable homes in a part of the borough where larger development sites are limited. The housing mix included eight two?bed flats, four one?bed flats, two wheelchair?accessible one?bed homes on the ground floor, and two semi?detached three?bed houses along Bakers Lane. These homes were intended to provide a high?quality residential environment for future occupiers.

 

The design featured a four?storey block along Archway Road, stepping down to three storeys with a recessed top floor, and two semi?detached houses along Bakers Lane. It had been considered to respond well to the surrounding urban grain and heritage context. The proposal had not been regarded as harmful to the character or appearance of the Highgate Conservation Area or nearby heritage assets. Instead, it had been expected to raise the architectural and townscape quality.

 

Neighbouring amenity had been protected through satisfactory siting, massing, and separation distances. Although some daylight and sunlight impacts had been identified for properties closest to the site, these had been judged acceptable within a dense urban context. The development would be car?free, with only one accessible parking space provided, and pedestrian improvements such as a new zebra crossing had been secured.

 

The scheme had incorporated renewable technologies, including EAHPs and PV panels, achieving a 77% reduction in carbon emissions and exceeding London Plan targets. A carbon offset contribution had also been secured. Biodiversity and urban greening requirements had been met through planting, green roofs, and landscaping. The development had been considered Air Quality Neutral, with no significant impact expected.

 

-          Members had questioned how the drainage would be managed. Officers advised that the submitted details for sustainable urban drainage were comprehensive and appropriate.

-           Concerns had been raised about the zebra crossings, which were described as potentially difficult to use and not pedestrian?friendly. They asked whether further evaluation would take place. At the start, the applicant and officers had recognised that if a development were to be built here, accessibility would need to improve. The proposal was to install a three?way zebra crossing system; however an alternative could be to install a single zebra crossing.   Discussions with TFL were expected to continue to reach the best resolution.

-          Members enquired as to whether a four storey development could be justified. Officers advised that there is a variety of building typologies and heights in the area, and that the proposed massing and design is considered to respond sensitively to the area.

-          Consultation with the local community was raised, particularly as objections to the scheme centred on where the application had been published in the press, with reference to the advert appearing in the Haringey Community Press. Officers explained that the advert was published in the Enfield & Haringey Independent, a locally circulated newspaper; and on their website.

-          In response to Members’ questions, Officers confirmed that planning obligations would also be expected to be achieved from this scheme, as they would from a development proposed by any another applicant.

 

-          It was noted by Members that the Quality Review Panel said the site was challenging from an air pollution and noise stance. Officers advised that the scheme had been assessed from an air quality perspective and found to be acceptable; and that mechanical ventilation, along with triple glazing, would be installed.  

 

 

Brendon Marczan attended the committee to speak in objection of the application:

 

-          The resident stated that he represented residents of his road and other local roads.

-           Residents had unanimously objected to the proposal, arguing it was unsafe, excessive, and procedurally flawed. They claimed the Council had failed to follow fair process, with numerous policy breaches, inadequate consultation, and lack of transparency. Concerns had focused on pollution, safety, poor environmental standards, and limited pedestrian access.

-          The committee was urged to reject the scheme as legally indefensible, while residents stressed they wanted safe housing through genuine collaboration.

-          It was said that the Council had failed to follow lawful, fair, and transparent procedures, citing 13 formal notices, 5 official complaints, 3 Ombudsman investigations, and 124 planning policy breaches, all evidenced in writing. None of these issues had been resolved or acknowledged in the Planning Officer’s report, which they described as inaccurate, misleading, and based on flawed technical data.

 

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

 

-          A procedural question was raised in regard to photographs that were taken by the objector. The photographs were then passed around to the committee.

-          The resident had argued that the plans were unsafe and flawed, citing traffic risks, poor pedestrian access, overlooking of homes, and unresolved flooding issues. They maintained that consultation had been inadequate and urged the Committee to reject the proposal or refer it to an independent inspector.

-          They argued that implementing loading spaces on Archway Road, already a high?risk area with frequent accidents, would worsen safety. Additional turning movements and pedestrian flows would be introduced without a proper safety review, and the transport assessment lacked a risk mitigation plan. Access to the site would be unsafe, with only informal crossings, raising serious concerns for wheelchair users and families with children.

 

Members responded to the objectors:

 

-          There was quite a lot of engagement so Members wanted to understand as to how the residents felt they had not been involved in the process. Also, there were to be further discussions,  would this change the perception of the project? Officers had stated that consultation on the application had been carried out widely. Site notices had been erected around the area, 113 letters had been sent to residents, and an advert had been placed in the local paper. Officers had also offered to meet the resident at their property to discuss their concerns, but despite discussions over possible dates, the meeting had not taken place as no agreement had been reached by the resident.

-          The resident stated that they discovered consultation letters had not been properly sent and, despite raising stage one and stage two complaints, the Council admitted that only 113 letters had been issued instead of the 333 required. Five formal complaints had been raised, including on procedural bias grounds, failures in document keeping and procurement policies, GDPR breaches in the handling of consultation data, and misrepresentation at a cabinet meeting. The procedural unfairness complaint had already been referred to the Ombudsman by the resident. Officers explained that the reference to 333 letters having been sent was a ‘typo’ and that there was no requirement to send so many letters. Also, all complaints have been and/or would be responded to in due course once officers have had time to analyse the information sent.

-          The resident explained that while residents might hold differing views, they would welcome something better than the existing car wash. However, they believed the site had unresolved challenges and that the proposed building was the right redevelopment solution.

-           

In response to questions to the applicant:

 

-          A question was raised about the meaning of Flood Risk Zone 1, given anecdotal reports of local flooding. Planning officers had explained that Flood Risk Zone 1 is defined as having a very low probability of river or sea flooding—less than one in 1,000 annually—and is considered the lowest flood risk zone.

-          Concerns had been expressed that this did not reflect the realities of the area or future climate risks. Officers had noted that other sources, such as water pipes, might explain local incidents. The Council’s flood and water management team, acting as the lead local flood authority, had been consulted on the application and raised no objections, confirming that mitigations were built in. The proposal included softer landscaping and sustainable drainage to reduce runoff and minimise flooding compared to the current hard?standing site.

-          Members noted that the scheme had been reported to the Quality Review Panel a number of times and that the scheme responded successfully to their comments.

-          Officers advised that there was a clear distinction between officers acting as the applicant and those acting as the Local Planning Authority, with appropriate working relationships taking place. 

-           Members stated that while photos of flooding appeared shocking, these were considered localised incidents rather than evidence of a long?term problem. The borough’s flood management team had determined the site was in Flood Risk Zone 1, meaning very low risk. The current car wash use had created excess water runoff across hard standing, sometimes causing ponding when drains were blocked. Officers believed that, if approved, the proposal with softer landscaping and drainage measures would materially improve conditions and reduce flooding risk

-          A question had been raised about whether the housing mix provided the right balance, since 14 of the 16 units were one? or two?bedroom homes, with two family properties proposed. Officers responded that there is a need for all sizes of council accommodation and the mix is acceptable.

-            

The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Enforcement Planning to sum up the recommendation. The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following a unanimous vote.

 

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 set out below, and informatives, 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 heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in the report and addendum,  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)   be completed no later than December 1st 2025 or within such extended time as the Head of Development or the Director of Planning & Building Standards shall in their sole discretion allow;

 

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 Planning as the Local Planning Authority) to secure obligations that would otherwise ordinarily be set out in a S106 legal agreement.

 

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 £10,830 (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

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

3. Car Club Provision and Membership Planning Sub-Committee Report

4. Enter into an agreement with the Highways Authority under S278 and TfL for the new crossing and necessary highways works

5. Travel Plan contribution: £3,000 (three thousand pounds) per year per travel plan for a period of five years

6. Travel Plan Monitoring Contribution

7. Construction Logistics contribution: £15,000 to administer and oversee construction impacts

8. Off-site highways and Landscaping working

9. Affordable Homes for Social Rent

10.Local Employment

11.Employment and Skills Plan

12.Skills Contribution

13.Energy Plan

14.Sustainability Review

15.Monitoring Costs

 

2.17 A summary of the recommended conditions   for the development is provided below:  

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

2) In accordance with approved plans

3) Materials submitted for approval

4) Hard and soft landscaping

5) Living Roof

6) Cycle parking

7) Part M4(2) Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings and M4(3) Wheelchair Homes

8) Energy Strategy

9) Water Butts

10) Water consumption

11) BNG Plan

12) BNG Monitoring

13) NRMM

14) Section 278 Agreement

15) Land contamination

16) Unexpected contamination

17) Demolition and Construction management plan (DCMP)

18) Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan (DCEMP)

19) Removal of permitted development rights for extensions

20) Satellite dishes/television antennae

21) Waste and recycling facilities, and collection

22) Considerate constructors scheme

23) Secure by design

24) Piling

25) Overheating report

26) Overheating

27) Urban greening factor

28) Accessible car parking provision

29) Delivery and servicing plan and waste management

30) External lighting