Emergency accommodation at 312 High Road, Tottenham, London N15

What was proposed

The proposal would create 52 short-stay emergency accommodation units, with a roof extension, two rear buildings, café and support facilities.

“Change of use from former educational facility (D1 use class now replaced by new class F1) to short term emergency accommodation (sui generis use class). Proposal also includes erection of roof extension to the building with erection of two new single storey buildings to the rear. Provision of a new commercial use on part of the ground floor level.”

“The proposal seeks planning permission for change of use from a former educational facility and refurbishment of the property, including a single-storey roof extension of the existing building, alongside the construction of two new single storey buildings to the rear, to provide short-stay emergency accommodation. There would be 52 units in total: 10 in the single storey new buildings and 42 in the refurbished and extended existing building.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a partly vacant three-storey building on the High Road, within a conservation area and near locally listed heritage buildings.

“The application site is located on the eastern side of the High Road in Tottenham along the busy thoroughfare with heavy traffic use - opposite Tottenham Green. The site is currently occupied by a three-storey building with a commercial use at ground floor. The building has been the subject of substantial alterations to the front façade and a single storey extension towards the rear of the building.”

“The development site is surrounded by some relatively well-preserved heritage buildings, such as the locally listed High Cross Church and Hall to the south of the development site, and locally listed Nos.318 to 322 and No. 324, located to the north of the development site.”

Officer report

Earlier uses and applications

The building was previously used for college, office training and community-related activities, with earlier changes of use granted in 1992 and 1996.

“HGY/1992/0124 – Change of use of first floor to office training centre – Granted 09/03/1992.”

“HGY/1991/1279 – Change of use of second floor to office training centre – Granted 06/01/1992.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered there was an identified need, suitable accommodation, acceptable neighbour impacts, good transport access and benefits to the building and conservation area.

“The proposed development provides specialist accommodation for single homeless people for which there is an identified need. • The proposed change of use and refurbishment of the building will improve the internal and external quality and appearance of the site which is currently in a poor state. • The proposed facility will provide an appropriate standard of accommodation for temporary accommodation for homeless individuals including for wheelchair users.”

“The development would achieve a reduction of 70% carbon dioxide emissions over Building Regulations Part L 2021 and provide appropriate carbon reduction measures plus a carbon off-setting payment. • The applicant will continue to work with Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime officers to ensure that the premises are appropriately safe and secure.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Council services and external consultees generally supported the scheme or raised no objection, subject to conditions, legal obligations and further management measures.

“No objection subject to conditions (further details requires with regards to species and after care programme).”

“No objection in principle, concerns about the high crime volume in the area. But made three key observations: o Identification of and risk assessment of those who may be placed into the accommodation.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eighteen individual objections raised concerns about losing community and business space, design, parking, traffic, consultation, noise and disturbance.

“- Excel House provides safe space for many communities uses and rental spaces for small business/events. Therefore, the loss of these spaces would have a negative impact on the community and local business. - Contemporary design of the proposed extension is out of keeping. - Concerns with parking and traffic. - Inadequate community consultation.”

“Comments on representations: - Objector’s comments are noted and the issued raised are addressed and considered in the main body of the report and as such conditions will cover issues relating noise and disturbance.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor spoke against the application, while the applicant spoke in support and answered questions about staffing, security, costs and management.

What members discussed

Members questioned local homelessness need, referrals, residents’ needs, staffing, security, waste, landscaping and possible work experience linked to the café.

“The objection, in summary, was concerned about adding pressure to local benefit and employment support systems, undermining active community programmes which benefited residents, increasing the potential for antisocial incidents and the need to support employment.”

“The applicant had engaged with the local planning authority and with the housing authority. They had held a pre application briefing for Members of the Planning Sub- Committee, and invited members down to their other, similar, development in Newham. The following was noted in response to questions to the applicant:”

Minutes

The committee vote

The chair moved approval, which received six votes in favour, two against and one abstention.

“The Chair asked Catherine Smyth, Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement to sum up the recommendation as set out in the report. During discussions, two additional section 106 obligations had been identified that the applicant had agreed to. Firstly, that residents of the property would be involved in the planting of the landscaped areas. Secondly there would be a connection between the supported accommodation and work experience in the cafe.”

“The Chair moved that the recommendation be approved following 6 in favour and 2 objections and one abstention…”

Minutes