Agenda item

Ashley House:

(i) Erection of new buildings on the Ashley House site (western side and southern end of Ashley Road): one part 7, part 24 storey building of c.530 co-living studios; and a 6 storey building of 87 affordable Social Rent homes; with commercial and community spaces; new public realm, landscaping, and parking, and

Cannon Factory:

(ii) One/two new buildings on the Cannon Factory site (eastern side and northern end of Ashley Road on corner of Ashley Road & Burdock Road): a part 8, part 10 storey hotel building with c.150 rooms; and a part 10, part 25 storey building of c.500 Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) units (including 35% affordable student accommodation); with employment, commercial and community spaces; new public realm, landscaping, and parking.

Philip Elliot, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the briefing report for Ashley House: (i) Erection of new buildings on the Ashley House site (western side and southern end of Ashley Road): one part 7, part 24 storey building of c.530 co-living studios; and a 6 storey building of 87 affordable Social Rent homes; with commercial and community spaces; new public realm, landscaping, and parking, and Cannon Factory:

 (ii) One/two new buildings on the Cannon Factory site (eastern side and northern end of Ashley Road on corner of Ashley Road & Burdock Road): a part 8, part 10 storey hotel building with c.150 rooms; and a part 10, part 25 storey building of c.500 Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) units (including 35% affordable student accommodation); with employment, commercial and community spaces; new public realm, landscaping, and parking.

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

· The applicant advised that a Registered Provider had not yet been formally appointed. However, several meetings had taken place with Haringey Homes, which had expressed an interest in becoming the developer and operator of the affordable housing. Discussions remained at an early stage but were progressing positively.

· The applicant advised that consultation had extended beyond the formal public consultation event, which had been attended by approximately 15 people. Additional engagement had included several coffee mornings and attendance at local working group meetings.

· It was confirmed that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions would be paid in accordance with the Council’s and the Mayor of London’s charging schedules. Any additional public realm or environmental improvements beyond statutory requirements would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. This could include enhancements to the tree belt adjacent to Down Lane Park, including the replacement of trees where appropriate.

· Members raised the potential cumulative impact of the development on Down Lane Park, noting that the park was already heavily used and would require additional maintenance, staffing and investment to accommodate increased demand. Members requested that these impacts be fully considered during the determination of planning obligations.

· The applicant advised that employment specialists, A&D, had been appointed to prepare an employment strategy. It was recognised that Tottenham was not considered an optimum location for large-scale office or industrial employment uses. Instead, the proposals sought to create active commercial frontages along Ashley House through a mix of commercial units, including potential anchor uses such as community-serving businesses rather than solely cafés. Flexible maker spaces were also proposed to encourage a range of occupiers and reduce the likelihood of vacant units.

· The applicant emphasised the importance of maintaining active ground-floor frontages and avoiding vacant commercial units. Previous developments had successfully incorporated affordable workspace, including schemes delivering up to 50% affordable commercial floorspace. The proposed community facility had been deliberately proposed to be located adjacent to Down Lane Park to maximise accessibility and provide a positive environment for users. A long-term management partner had not yet been identified. Affordable workspace could be provided, at peppercorn rent, subject to viability.

· Officers advised that the planning application would include the required evidence relating to the reprovision of employment floorspace, viability assessments and the proposed level of affordable workspace in accordance with the site’s allocation requirements.

 · The applicant advised that detailed needs assessments had been undertaken prior to acquiring the site, demonstrating strong demand for co-living accommodation, purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) and hotel use in this location. The site’s excellent public transport accessibility and the absence of existing co-living developments in this area supported this conclusion.

· The applicant explained that previous developments had incorporated an initial priority period for key workers, ward residents and borough residents before accommodation was marketed more widely. A similar approach was proposed for this development and could be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. The applicant noted that this approach supported local residents seeking intermediate housing without affecting the viability of the scheme.

· The applicant advised that there remained significant demand for purpose-built student accommodation. In addition, the proposed hotel would respond to increasing visitor demand associated with Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, UEFA EURO 2028 and the limited hotel provision within the local area. The hotel was also expected to generate employment opportunities across a range of operational roles and contribute to increased activity along the High Road.

· The applicant advised that the proposed tall building had been positioned adjacent to Down Lane Park to improve daylight and sunlight for neighbouring Rosa Luxemburg residential properties and to provide an appropriate relationship with the surrounding public realm. It was considered that the building would complete the emerging cluster of tall buildings within Tottenham Hale and create a landmark at the edge of the cluster.

· It was confirmed that both the co-living and PBSA buildings would be designed to allow future adaptation to conventional C3 residential accommodation. The planning application would include evidence demonstrating this adaptability. The proposed flat slab concrete construction and structural design would facilitate future conversion if required.

· The applicant advised that approximately 90% of the co-living accommodation would comprise single occupancy units, with approximately 10% designed as ‘dual occupancy’ or accessible units. The development would operate with 24-hour on-site staffing, including management and community support personnel.

· Members noted that the average length of stay within the operator’s existing co-living developments was approximately 19 months and that the average resident age was 33, demonstrating that the accommodation served a broader demographic than just recent graduates.

· The applicant confirmed that daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessments had been undertaken and would accompany the planning applications. Whilst some overshadowing would occur, particularly in relation to neighbouring communal gardens, it was considered that the proposed layout represented the most appropriate balance between urban design, daylight impacts and residential amenity. South-facing dwellings and landscaped open spaces would receive good levels of sunlight and would benefit from their proximity to Down Lane Park.

· The quality of the garden spaces to the proposed houses was questioned as they would be north facing; the applicant responding that though this was not ideal the occupants of the homes would benefit from more than sufficient private amenity space

· The applicant advised that the co-living accommodation was intended solely for single adult occupation and would not accommodate persons under the age of 18. Whilst residents who became parents would technically be in breach of their tenancy agreement, the operator would work with residents to secure suitable alternative accommodation rather than requiring them to leave immediately. The applicant reiterated that the accommodation had not been designed for family occupation.

· The applicant emphasised that demand for purpose-built single-person accommodation was expected to continue increasing in response to changing demographics, including later family formation, higher levels of single-person households and increasing housing affordability pressures. It was considered that providing dedicated accommodation for single adults would help relieve pressure on larger family homes.

· Members noted that the applicant would operate in accordance with the provisions of the Renters Reform legislation. Whilst the standard tenancy length was expected to be 12 months, shorter stays could occur depending on future legislative requirements.

· The applicant advised that the co-living model sought to address social isolation by providing extensive shared facilities, including co-working spaces, communal lounges, shared kitchens, gym facilities and social spaces. These communal facilities would allow residents to work, socialise and entertain whilst maintaining the privacy of their individual accommodation.

· The applicant explained that, whilst individual co-living units were single aspect, residents would have access to a range of large, dual-aspect communal spaces throughout the building. It was therefore considered inappropriate to compare the units directly with conventional single-aspect self-contained flats.

· The applicant outlined the support available to residents, including a dedicated residents’ app, partnerships with organisations such as Mind, and staff trained to support vulnerable individuals. Previous schemes had successfully accommodated domestic abuse survivors and care leavers in partnership with local authorities and charities, demonstrating the flexibility of the operational model to support a range of housing needs.

 · Officers advised that an early-stage Quality Review Panel had considered the overall masterplan for both development sites. Subsequent Quality Review Panels had focused on the southern site (Ashley House) as the design had evolved. Further design review would be undertaken for the northern site (Cannon Factory) as proposals progressed.

 · Officers noted that, whilst the proposed buildings would each have their own architectural identity, they could contribute positively to the evolving character of Tottenham Hale through the continued use of high-quality brick architecture. The proposals could reinforce the area’s established palette of contrasting brick buildings, whilst contributing positively to the wider townscape.