Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed attendees to the Planning Committee and introduced Linda Dalton, Legal representative, who read a statement regarding the order and conduct of the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Joannides and McGregor. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor T. Smith.

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda. Please refer to the guidance note attached to the agenda.

NOTED

1.  Councillor Fallart declared a personal interest in application LBE/08/0024 (104, Farndale Avenue, London, N13 5AL) as he was a Director of Enfield Homes but he had no previous knowledge of the application.

2.  Councillor Simon declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/08/2020 (Vacant land, adjacent to 81, Cecil Road, Enfield, EN2 6TJ) as he lived in Raleigh Road. He left the room when this application was considered.

3.  Councillor Hall declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application LBE/08/0029 (Raglan Infant School, Wellington Road, Enfield, EN1 2RG) as he was a Governor of the school. He left the room when this application was considered.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 18 December 2008.

AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2008 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive the report of the Interim Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise, recommending that the Article 4 Directions are made permanent.

DEC

RECEIVED the report of the Interim Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise, included on the supplementary agenda for Planning Committee.

NOTED the representations received from stakeholders and the public on the Article 4 Directions made by Council on 12 November 2008, and the recommendation that the Article 4 Directions are made permanent.

AGREED that the Planning Committee, having considered the representations received from householders and stakeholders, makes permanent the Article 4 (2) Direction under The Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008, in respect of those Parts/Classes of the Order scheduled against each Conservation Area in Appendix A of the report, removing permitted development rights and that the statutory notification requirements be followed forthwith to enact this decision.

5.1            Applications dealt with under delegated powers.

            (A copy is available in the Members Library)

5.2            Planning Applications and applications to display advertisements.

5.3            Appeal information.

            Section 1:  New Town Planning Application Appeals

            Section 2:  Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals

RECEIVED the report of the Interim Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection (report no. 178).

NOTED that a copy of those applications dealt with under delegated powers was available in the Members’ Library and via the Council’s website.

AGREED that the order of the agenda be varied to accommodate the members of the public in attendance at the meeting. The minutes follow the order of the agenda.

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

NOTED

1.  Receipt of two additional letters of objection raising concerns about impact of construction traffic and pollution, more intensive use of the school and extra traffic movements.

2.  Additional conditions in relation to construction methodology, delivery vehicles and times, and road access, to address residents’ concerns.

3.  An amendment to Condition 17 to insert “prior to occupation” after “shall be implemented” (3^rd line).

4.  An amendment to the report (page 30 – 2^nd line Parking and Access) to insert “which was previously proposed” after “loading bay to Raglan School”.

5.  Officers noted Councillor Fallart’s views on the need for a sprinkler system, to be passed on to the applicant.

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, amendments above and additional conditions below, for the reasons set out in the report.

Condition 19

That development shall not commence on site until:

(i)                 A photographic condition survey of the roads and footways leading to the site of construction including the access between 106/108 Raglan Road.

(ii)               Details of measures to safeguard existing properties adjoining the access to the site of construction have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

(iii)             Details of a waiting area on Sennen Road for construction vehicles have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

(iv)              No construction related vehicles are parked on the School’s “Keep Clear” markings.

(v)                Existing pedestrian and vehicular accesses shall be kept clear at all times.

(vi)              No deliveries shall be made to the site between the hours of 08:30–09:15 and 14:45–15:30.

(vii)            Only a single vehicle shall enter or leave the site at any one time.

Reason:  to minimise the impact of construction traffic on residential amenity and the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highways.

Condition 20

During the construction period, the following measures as set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement, shall be adhered to unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

(i)                 A banksman shall be permanently retained at the entrances to both Amberley Road and Wellington Road to control the movement of construction vehicles.

(ii)               All construction traffic associated with the development hereby approved for the Infant School shall be directed from the A10 Great Cambridge Road via:

(a)  Bury Street West – turning right into Delhi Road;

(b)  Delhi Road – turning second left into Sennen Road;

(c)   Sennen Road – crossing Amberley Road into the site.

No other route shall be permitted unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason:  to minimise the impact of construction traffic on residential amenity and the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highways.

NOTED

1.  Receipt of four additional letters of objection, summarised verbally by the planning officer.

2.  Receipt of a letter of objection from David Burrowes MP, reflecting residents’ concerns particularly regarding the distance between dwellings and over-intensive use of the site.

3.  A condition to be added in relation to subdivision of the garden to ensure adequate amenity space.

4.  The arrival of Councillor T. Smith at the meeting.

5.  The deputation of Mr Paul Lee, neighbouring resident of Fountains Crescent, including:

a.      The development would be inappropriate and impractical and the rear amenity space would be narrow and of little practical value.

b.      The separation would be inadequate between properties.

c.      The development would be overbearing and intrusive to no. 26, causing loss of daylight and sunlight, and loss of privacy, and existing residents would suffer environmentally and financially.

d.      The development would be against Unitary Development Policy (UDP) policies and Local Development Framework objectives.

6.  The deputation of Mr John Tarrant, neighbouring resident of Fountains Crescent, including:

a.      Measurements were outside limits of acceptability, and there would be inadequate distance between no. 24 and the existing house.

b.      The rear gardens of no. 24 and the proposed house would both be substandard in area and shape, difficult to use, and make adding extensions or garden sheds impossible.

c.      There would be increased surface water drainage problems.

7.  The response of Mr Chris Georgiou of CG Architects, the agent, including:

a.      The design would be in keeping with the surrounding area.

b.      The house would be 3.5m away from no.26 and 7.5m away from no.24 and the building line would create a continuous rhythm of the street scene.

c.      Loss of privacy would be mitigated by the building orientation and loss of light would be negligible.

d.      There were provisions for off-street parking and refuse storage.

e.      The development would meet safe by design standards, had numerous sustainable features, and would provide an additional family dwelling house for the borough.

8.  The statement of Councillor Robert Hayward, ward councillor, including:

a.      Residents of Fountains Crescent had contact him with concerns that the development would be visually and environmentally inappropriate and detract from the character of the original estate.

b.      There were overlooking and privacy implications.

c.      The subdivision of the site would create two inferior quality houses.

d.      The proposal did not accord with a number of local and national standards and strategies.

9.  The Planning officer’s response that Condition 2 removed development rights regarding detached buildings in the rear gardens and extensions.

10.  The Planning officer’s response that density would be marginally over the upper limit, but in the design and setting were considered acceptable.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional condition below, for the reasons set out in the report.

Additional Condition

Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the existing garden shall be sub-divided and separated as shown on Drg No 469/12 rev  ...  view the full minutes text for item 770.

NOTED

1.  Councillor Simon left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

2.  The applicant had agreed to the dedication of land at the north west corner of the site to provide an enhanced entrance to Town Park, subject to further discussions about the area of land required, and the recommendation to be amended accordingly.

3.  The provision of a Travel Plan would also be incorporated within the Section 106 Agreement.

4.  Addition of a standard condition in respect of archaeological investigation at the request of English Heritage.

5.  Receipt of two further letters of objection, with a verbal summary of the concerns raised.

6.  The Planning officer’s confirmation that Conditions 14, 15 and 16 covered hours of use, and noise issues.

7.  The deputation of Mr John Rooke, resident of Raleigh Road, including:

a.      There had not been adequate local consultation.

b.      The footpath to the park was a public right of way and should not be incorporated in the scheme, and the plans were flawed in other ways with houses shown in incorrect locations and other key points not adequately shown.

c.      The parking area was still needed, and shoppers preferred such open car parks.

d.      The arterial route Cecil Road would be blocked by this proposed use.

e.      At three storeys the building would be intrusive and invasive.

f.        The proposed decking area would overlook neighbouring residents and cause noise and lighting problems.

g.      The development would be to the detriment of a conservation area and historic family houses (with elderly occupants) and a 'Green Flag' park. Other more suitable sites were available.

8.  The response of Mr Andrew Whitehead, Enfield Evangelical Free Church representative, including:

a.      Cecil Road had been the church's home for 111 years, but members of the church had been meeting in temporary accommodation since their previous building was demolished.

b.      The new church would make a positive contribution to the town.

9.  The response of Mr Luke Emmerton of DP9, the Agent, including:

a.      A town centre location was best for this intensive use; the church would benefit from good transport links and would provide only limited parking space. A CPZ study had been agreed and the church would have a travel plan to limit car use, while a drop off / collection area would be managed.

b.      There had been consultation, and comments had been taken on board, especially in relation to landscaping on the eastern boundary. There had been close work with Friends of Town Park to mitigate the impact on the park, and there would be a financial contribution for screening.

c.      The church would not have a music licence, there would be no external plant on the building, and all opening windows and doors would be controlled.

 10.  Confirmation that the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) was happy with the proposals.

11.  The advice of officers in respect of the height of the building relative to nearby houses, landscaping, hours of use conditions and highway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 771.

NOTED

1.  Receipt of an additional five letters of objection, with a verbal summary of the concerns raised.

2.  Fox Lane and District Residents' Association had objected to the narrowness of the proposed house, flat featureless frontage, and inadequate separation between buildings.

3.  An additional condition in relation to amenity space.

4.  The deputation of Dr Richard Mapleston, nearby resident, including:

a.      This was the third application in a series, and the others were strongly rejected by officers.

b.      This would actually be a three storey building, not two.

c.      Photos and drawings were misleading, not showing no.87 as it was now.

d.      The estate was characterised by Edwardian villas, there were no terraced homes in the street.

e.      The choice of materials was inappropriate for the street, and the building would lack features.

5.  The deputation of Mr Brian Bartram, nearby resident, including:

a.      The local community and the residents' association were opposed to this proposal.

b.      The drawings were of poor quality and scale with cross sections not shown at all and members therefore did not have enough information.

c.      The dwelling would be crammed between two existing buildings with a small gap on both sides which would be unable to be cleaned.

d.      There were anomalies in the design, and building regulations could not be complied with.

6.  The response of Mr Matt Bailey of Metropolis Planning and Design, the Agent, including:

a.      This proposal focused on sustainable design.

b.      Photographs showing the way the three applications had evolved had been provided. Compromises had been made following previous refusals of planning permission and points raised by the Planning Inspector, with changes to materials and design and amenity space.

c.      All other elements of the scheme accorded with UDP policies.

7.  The statement of Councillor Lamprecht, ward councillor, including:

a.      This scheme would deface a beautiful Edwardian street, and was unacceptable on aesthetic and sustainability grounds in this area.

b.      The locality already had a number of sub-divided dwellings, and squeezing in more homes such as this would add to problems with oversubscribed schools and health services and other infrastructure.

c.      If committee was minded to give approval, there should be clear conditions specified.

 8.  The advice of officers in respect of the plans, separation between properties, the basement, the scheme’s acceptability and building regulations consideration.

9.  Officers' confirmation that the grounds on which the appeal was dismissed had been addressed.

10.  As a result of the discussion, amendment to Condition 1 (Approval of Materials) to secure the introduction of a more traditional brick finish to the ground floor of the front elevation. If this was not acceptable, the application would be reported back to Planning Committee.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and amendment to Condition 1, for the reasons set out in the report.

Condition 1 now to read:

The development shall not commence until details of the external finishing materials to be used have been submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 772.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

NOTED members’ views that a site visit would be useful to explore the actual location of existing and proposed buildings and potential traffic movements on the site.

AGREED that consideration of the application be deferred to allow members to make a site visit.

NOTED the information on town planning applications appeals received from 01/12/2008 to 09/01/2009.

To agree:

(a)       to hold a Planning Panel meeting in relation to the application for redevelopment of the site of Southgate College, High Street, London, N14 6BS to provide enhanced educational facilities for Southgate College on a single site, comprising a mix of 2, 3, and 4-storey buildings and refurbishment of existing buildings together with associated access and car parking.

(b)       a date for the Planning Panel (suggested potential dates are Thursday 26 February or Tuesday 3 March 2009).

(c)        the membership of the Panel (up to 7 members of the Planning Committee).

AGREED

1.  To hold a Planning Panel in relation to the application for redevelopment of Southgate College, High Street, London, N14 6BS (application TP/09/0089).

2.  The Planning Panel meeting to be held on Thursday 26 February 2009, at 7.30 pm, at Southgate College.

3.  The membership of the Planning Panel (subject to final confirmation) to be Councillors Barker (Chairman), Pipe, Pearce, Joannides, Buckland, Constantinides and Lemonides.