Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations set out in this report, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals.

2.    A change to the officers’ recommendation was reported that the Section 106 agreement did now not require an education provision and also the need for 1 or 2 conditions for delegated authority should members support the proposal.

3.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

4.    Councillor Rye raised a number of issues regarding Locally Listed building and the impact on the Conservation area:

·         How the 18-storey development was justified in light of the Grenfell disaster.

·         impracticable play space for residents to use from upper floors of development.

·         Tower blocks with 100% social housing inevitably leads to poor education and health outcomes. Developers should build social housing that people want to live in.

·         With social housing, there may be many more people with dis-abilities that will require proper access to residential units. Were properties designated for the dis-abled mostly on the ground floor?

·         There would be a strain on the health and welfare infrastructure. High quality social housing was required.

      Andy Higham (Head of Development Management) clarified that this was a balanced judgement and that planning did recognise that there are compromises that have been made. The 100% affordable housing at London affordable rent is a positive offer and a good addition to the Boroughs’ housing stock. Strategic housing colleagues were consulted and are supportive of this scheme. Officers felt that the design and introduction of materials when weighing up against the height of the development is acceptable and has improved the development following the recent design and review panel. There is an impact on Heritage but because the scheme can be seen from the Conservation area it didn’t make it unacceptable. Whilst Heritage officers have identified that there is harm, it is less that substantial harm. Balancing that against public benefits, officers felt that it carries significant weight and weight in favour of support for this scheme.

5.    In response to Councillor Andersons enquiry regarding the requirements officers bestow upon developers for family sized units, Officers clarified that this was a combination of what the developer presents to officers the site context, local constraints and scheme viability to inform how that is negotiated with the developer. Officers then apply policies and a planning balance to optimise development. Each site is different with different constraints i.e. size of site and in this case, constraints are placed around what the site could take and the form of typology of the development. There are design challenges for family units on upper floors. In this scheme, the family units are fronting Claremont (and road to the rear) with 3 storey town houses.

6.    In response to Councillor Alexandrou’s enquiry regarding light and air pollution, officers clarified that the Environmental Health officer did look at air pollution and raised no concerns around a tall building. Light pollution was looked at and this was not considered as a reason for refusal.

7.    In response to Councillor Yusuf’s enquiry regarding consultation with the Housing team and sub-letting of 1 bed units, officers clarified that the Housing team were consulted and overall were supportive of the scheme. There had also been discussions that the units will be socially rented potentially for an alternative registered provider whether that is for a housing association or the Council.

8.    Councillor Taylor stated that there is an impact on Heritage assets, indicated by the Heritage Officer and that it is not substantial. The committee would have felt more comfortable if the Heritage officer was in attendance.

In his opinion, when applications come forward with a significant Heritage impact, Heritage officers should attend planning committees which would be a significant benefit to members of the Committee. Officers clarified that they would look at schemes on future planning committee agenda’s, make sure that it is proportionate and decide about which specialist officers should be present and when. Members could also flag up any issues in reports and request that a specialist officer is present.

9.    The majority of the Committee did not support the Officers recommendation with 3 votes for, 5 against and 3 abstention.

10.  Councillor Taylor proposed a motion to defer the application, seconder by Councillor Rye.

11. The unanimous support of the committee for deferral for the reasons for refusal.

AGREED that Members minded to refuse planning permission but the decision be deferred for Officers to bring back reasons for Refusal.