Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a building of 8 storeys (ground plus 7 upper storeys) accommodating a 192-bedroom hotel (C1 use), ground floor bar/restaurant (A4/A3 us) together with ancillary hard and soft landscaping, cycle parking, refuse storage, and related works.

(Planning application number: P2017/3429/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         A ward councillor raised concern that the development of a hotel at the site would mean a lost opportunity in terms of providing affordable housing. The case officer explained that the proximity to the railway line and Seven Sisters Road meant the site was not suitable for housing.

·         The planning officer reported that a planning obligation in relation to training and employment opportunities for local people would be added as the applicant had agreed to provide these and for this to be included within the S106 agreement. The applicant would work with Job Centre Plus and the councils’ iWork team to provide these.

·         The planning officer advised that Condition 4 (o) of the officer report should be reworded to read, “Confirmation that construction traffic is not to attend the site during periods of peak network congestion (7-10am and 4-7pm) unless otherwise agreed by TfL”.

·         In response to a question from a member, the planning officer stated that he could not say how many jobs would be provided if the development was an office but that the proposed hotel would generate approximately 80 full time equivalent positions.

·         A member raised concern as to whether there were enough servicing bays and the planning officer replied that current usage of the bays had been considered and it was anticipated that the bays could accommodate the proposed development. TfL were satisfied with the servicing and delivery plans.

·         The planning officer confirmed that the proposed development would be set back from Seven Sisters Road and Isledon Road.

·         A member asked whether there would be a designated person responsible for safeguarding and the planning officer stated that this was not one of the recommendations made by the police. The applicants stated they would be willing to have a designated safeguarding person and this could be added to the S106 agreement.

·         A member raised concern about the lack of active frontages. The planning officer stated that the bar and restaurant would be separate to the hotel, although it could be operated by the hotel and would make up for the loss of the two cafés/takeaways that had been there and had been bought by the applicant. The hairdressers which had been there had been relocated 50m away at the expense of the applicant. There were two more units which had not been bought by the applicant and would remain. The council had not suggested that the applicant buy these units.

·         In response to a member’s question about an affordable housing contribution, the planning officer stated that in this case no contribution was required.

·         The affordable workspace team had stated that they did not consider the site to be appropriate to provide affordable workspace and so the affordable workspace contribution had been calculated. This figure was just over £946,000. A member suggested that this could be reserved for use in the Finsbury Park area.

·         A member raised concern about a potential concentration of budget hotels in the vicinity. The applicant stated that research had shown the hotel would be busy throughout the year.

·         In response to a members’ concern about the use of the site for a hotel, the planning officer stated that policy referred to concentrations but there was not an overconcentration in this area. There were 1,400 rooms per 500m and at the Angel it was 2,600 rooms per 500m. He stated that this was not the best place for permanent housing and whilst an office use would have been acceptable, it was not being proposed. The site was an acceptable location for a hotel.

·         The design of the building was considered.

·         The application was policy compliant.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report as amended above; and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report as amended above; and subject to any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application or for it to be called in for determination by the Mayor of London.