Agenda item

RECOMMENDATIONS:

In light of the update information provided in this report:

1. That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 Agreement.

2. That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the s106 Agreement and the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of the original report dated 18 January 2022 and this report.

WARD: Upper Edmonton

Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

Members welcomed the changes the developer had made in light of a number of concerns expressed by the committee previously.

In response to Member’s queries regarding conditions, officers confirmed that there were conditions relating to the colour of the brick work and the wind effect of the tall building, amongst others outlined in the report. Officers agreed to add a condition looking at the potential for more disabled parking spaces to be provided as part of the development, if possible, for those in accessible dwellings.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the GLA comments, officers advised that with regards to tall buildings, Policy D9 sought a plan led approach to their location but could take other considerations into account and the GLA had looked at the location/context of the site and decided that on balance the benefits outweighed the harm. If the committee accepted the recommendation, the application would go back to the Mayor for a new Stage 2 referral.

In response to Member’s queries regarding construction time, officers advised that there was still process to follow before implementation of any planning permission (finalisation of legal agreement & Stage 2 referral), but its construction once commenced was probably upwards of 2 years.

In response to Member’s queries regarding parking, officers advised that there would be 4 disabled parking spaces provided on Clive Avenue, but that otherwise the application was located in a controlled parking zone. The provision met the relevant parking standards. It was subsequently clarified that while there is a condition requiring 10% M4(3) units to be provided in the development in accordance with policy, the parking standard requires 3% for disabled parking provision. It was therefore acknowledged that there would not be a 1 for 1 allocation for the M4(3) units. Officers highlighted for members the locations of the bin store and cycle parking.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the Snell and Joyce Estate, officers advised that at present the building would be 24 storeys at its highest, but that discussions were still ongoing, and the height was subject to change. These proposals would come to committee in due course for consideration. By way of further context, officers highlighted the application was for would be 18 storeys, and there were other tall buildings in the surrounding area including those in Haringey to the south.

In response to Member’s queries regarding community impact, officers advised that a key part of the proposal was the potential for the re-provision of a public house on the ground floor on the ground floor frontage, which would facilitate this but that it could not be committed as a public house as this would be commercial decision and there were other locations in the area which could provide this. The use of the community space would need to be discussed in the future.

In response to Member’s queries regarding viability, officers advised that the scheme is made on the basis of 110 affordable units (100%) and therefore no viability appraisal was required, that the developer was confident of delivering this, and this including nomination rights, would be secured through the section 106 agreement.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the height of the development, officers advised that the current local policy is outdated, and the application must be assessed against the most up to date policy, that of the London Plan and that in respect of this it was acceptable.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the conservation area, officers advised that harm did exist, that harm was less than substantial and could be balanced against the public benefits. It was said that the weightings attributed to these factors had shifted, which when combined with the GLA comments, meant that on balance there was a greater argument for approving the application.

In response to Member’s queries regarding children’s play areas/ amenity space, officers advised that each of the units had balcony space, that there was a play area for young children, but the details of this were not yet known. A condition securing these details was requested. Given the urban nature of the development there would be a section 106 contribution for offsite improvements. 

Officers summarised the additional conditions outlined in the GLA Stage 2 response and those reported as part of the presentation together with a HoT for the S106 which would ensure future occupiers re excluded from permits to park in the CPZ.

The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted:

11 FOR

0 AGAINST

0 ABSTENTIONS

and so, it was AGREED unanimously:

1. That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 Agreement.

2. That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the s106 Agreement and the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of the original report dated 18 January 2022 and this report.