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, McGowan, and Pearce.

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.

 Councillor Barker declared a prejudicial interest in application TP/09/0667 – 34 New River Crescent, London N13 as he was a Governor at Hazelwood School.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 29 July 2009.

To Follow.

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2009 as a correct record with the following amendments:

1.         Minute 104 (1.) – TP/09/0643 –2, York Gate, London, N14 6HS -

 remove : ‘At this stage of the meeting Councillor Barker left the room and Councillor Delman was Chairman for this part of the meeting’.

2.         Minute 106 (1) – TP/09/0667 – 34 New River Crescent and land of Rear Of, 2-32 New River Crescent, London, N13 5RF – add ‘At this stage of the meeting Councillor Barker left the room and Councillor Delman was Chairman for this part of the meeting’.

3.         Minute 106 (3) - TP/09/0667 – 34 New River Crescent and land of Rear Of, 2-32 New River Crescent, London, N13 5RF -  ‘Ann Wigans’ replace with  ‘Ann Wiggins’.

4.         Minute 106 (5.b) TP/09/0667 – 34 New River Crescent and land of Rear Of, 2-32 New River Crescent, London, N13 5RF ‘thins application’ replace with ‘this application’.

5.         Minue 106 (6.h) TP/09/0667 – 34 New River Crescent and land of Rear Of, 2-32 New River Crescent, London, N13 ‘indicatted’ replace with ‘indicated’.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Panel meeting held on Thursday 23 July 2009.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Panel held on 23 July 2009, with the following amendment:

Minute 214 (2) : Remove ‘to the Council’.

6.1             Applications dealt with under delegated powers.

(A copy is available in the Members’ Library.)

6.2            Planning applications and applications to display advertisements.

6.3            Appeal information

            Section 1 : New Town Planning Application Appeals

            Section 2 : Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection (Report No. 66)).

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 meeting.

NOTED

1.         The deputation of Mr. Barker, on behalf of residents of Amberley Road and the Fox Lane & District Residents Association, including the following points:

a.      The previous application was for nine extra bed spaces not bedrooms.

b.      There were too many conversions in Amberely Road and this application would add to the existing problems with traffic and parking.

c.      Residents would look to convert their front gardens for car park spaces which would be detrimental to the streetscene.

d.      Residents were concerned over issues of privacy, overlooking and security.

e.      There would be loss of well established trees if the conversion application was granted.

f.        Amberley Road was very busy and the extra traffic will impact on the existing dangers in the vicinity.

2.         The statement of Councillor Lamprecht, Southgate Green Ward Councillor, objecting to the application on the following basis:

a.     Councillor Lamprecht fully endorsed the concerns of the residents in the area, and felt that the overdevelopment in Amberley Road had a detrimental effect in many aspects for residents.

b.     The traffic and congestion in the area caused problems for residents, including parking issues.

c.      Parents of children attending Walker School will not risk walking them to school as the congestion on the roads was already too dangerous.

d.     The character of Amberley Road had already suffered due to other conversions and this application would have further negative effects.

3.               A letter, in response to the objections submitted by Mr. Forrester, the Agent, was read out in full.

4.      The Planning Officer clarified that although nine extra bedrooms were included in the application, this did not increase the number of residents, which would remain at 25. He added that it did not amplify to the footprint, as the developer was just re-organising the internal space.

5.       Councillor Dreblow raised concerns over the removal of trees as a result of the development.

6.      General discussions took place, including the loss of conifer trees along Bourne Hill, that Councillor Dreblow had referred to.

7.      Condition 5 to be amended to include reference to replacement planting along the boundary.

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

NOTED

1.         At this stage of the meeting Councillor Barker left the room and Councillor Delman was Chairman for this part of the meeting.

2.         The statement read out by the Legal Officer:

            ‘Planning committee members are reminded that this matter was deferred from the July committee for technical input from the Planning officers. That meeting is reconvened now for the purpose of making the final decision on the application. As such it is not appropriate to take further deputations or representations. Planning committee members may have received additional correspondence or representations regarding this application. I would advise all members to disregard these representations and consider only those matters raised by the deputees at the last meeting and the matters that are contained in the officers report’.

3.         The planning officer reported that in response to previous concerns over amenity space provision, the applicant was willing to consider an alternate mix, reducing the number of family units, but this would increase the total to 39 units. The Chairman considered that this was effectively a new deputation and requested that the members disregard it for the purpose of the discussion.

4.            Councillor Simon acknowledged that the amenity space was less than usually required but acknowledged that as a reason, it was unlikely to be a sufficient reason to refuse the application Councillor Simon felt that the original 3 / 4 bedroom proposal was preferable to meeting housing needs of families, but, to address the issues over the amenity space provision, a management plan could be included within the conditions attached to the proposal to ensure that the amenity space was a useful place.

5.         The Planning Officer confirmed that a condition could be incorporated for a management plan for amenity space provision.

6.            Councillor Chamberlain’s concerns over density and amenity space, notwithstanding previous decisions, but, following officer’s advice, agreed not to pursue this concern which focused on physical amplification.

7.         Discussions took place between members and officers on the application, with the main concerns being voiced over density, amenity and the increase in height. Aled Richards (Head of Development Services) reminded members that previous applications had not been refused in respect of density and amenity space provision.

8.         Linda Dalton, (Legal representative), advised that if it was deemed that the Council refused the application for ‘unreasonable reasons’, costs could be awarded against the Council on an appeal decision.

9.            Councillor Constantinides added his concerns over the increase in the height of the balconies and proposed, seconded by Councillor Buckland, not to support the Planning officers’ recommendation for approval The majority of the Planning Committee agreed with this proposal. (Councillor Simon voted against this proposal).

10.            Members had full discussions over the reasons for refusal and considered the full impact of the proposed development, including the height of the development which would be overly dominant.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed development due to its size and massing would result in the introduction of an overly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 268.

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 condition 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 condition 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 deemed to be granted subject to the condition set out in the report for the reasons set out in the report.

NOTED

1.         The planning officer reported an additional objection which included:

·        Too many cars already queuing to access the site which obstructs access to Cosgrove Close

·        Already excessive amount of noise from the use of the site especially associated with movement of skips around the site

·        Will increase incidence of fly tipping around the site after the facility is closed.

2.         The extension of opening hours will be reviewed after a period of 14 months.

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

Amendment to Condition 2

The premises shall only be open for working between the hours of 07:45 - 16:15 on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 08:00 - 16:15 on Saturday and Sunday and 07:45 - 19:45 Tuesday and Friday.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties.

AGREED that a decision on the application be deferred due to a review by Adult and Social Care.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in the report.

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

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

NOTED the information on town planning application appeals received from 15/07/2009 to 07/08/09.

To note the report of the Assistant Director, Planning & Environmental Protection (Report No. 67)

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director of Planning & Environmental Protection (Report No. 67), summarising the consent regimes that permit the use of public highway as external seating areas outside existing cafes and restaurants.

NOTED

1.         the contents of the report.

2.         The Panning officer advised that following consultation with residents and ward councillors, a report on the consultation responses would be presented to the Planning Committee for consideration.

AGREED that an additional meeting of the Planning Committee be held to consider the Southgate Planning application on 12 November 2009, at 7. 30 pm at Enfield Civic Centre.