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.

NOTED that apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bakir and Cicek.

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 Prescott declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/10/1019 – Garages adjacent to 2, Fox Lane, and to rear of 2-36, Caversham Avenue, London, N13, as he had spoken against the previous application at the meeting of Planning Committee on 30/04/09. With the agreement of the Chairman, Councillor Prescott would be permitted to address the Committee before leaving the room and taking no part in the discussion or vote.

2.  Councillor Delman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/10/1215 – 4 (formerly known as Visteon UK), Morson Road, Enfield, EN3 4NQ, as he had been involved in negotiations with the applicant on another site on behalf of his company.

3.  Councillor Simon declared a personal interest in application TP/10/0818 – 36, Walsingham Road, Enfield, EN2 6EY, as he lived nearby.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 26 October 2010.

NOTED that a revised set of minutes were distributed for approval, to incorporate further comments received.

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 26 October 2010 as a correct record.

To receive the covering report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection.

5.1       Applications dealt with under delegated powers.

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

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection (Report No. 122).

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Turkey Street

NOTED

1.  The deputation of Mr Chris Frangoudes, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  He had bought the property in 1986, and he had received planning permission for an extension similar to that now being sought, but that permission had expired.

b.  In the past two years, planning applications had been approved at no. 17A, Turkey Street. He considered his proposal to be similar in nature and detail. Officers’ objections in this report could have equally applied in that case.

c.  The proposal would provide a needed improvement to the external appearance.

d.  The borough needed more housing.

e.  He disputed officers’ references to historical importance in the reasons for refusal. The property was not listed and there was no evidence in support.

f.  The second reason for refusal was not unique to this application and would also have applied to no. 17.

g.  With regard to the third reason for refusal, in size this proposal was very similar to the extension previously approved, and similar to the application granted at no. 17, which was also closer to neighbouring property.

h.  He also disagreed with the fourth reason for refusal and would argue that this development would be in keeping and sympathetic to the street scene and would restore balance.

i.  He would willingly work with the Council towards meeting the objections.

2.  The response of the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following:

a.  Attention was drawn in particular to the objections raised by the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) and that the site was in the Turkey Street Conservation Area.

b.  He acknowledged the previous approval, but that was for a first floor extension and the circumstances were very different.

c.  Officers shared the concerns of CAG and did not consider the development would preserve or enhance the conservation area.

d.  The compromising of the 45-degree line from the rear window would affect the neighbour’s dwelling, and the kitchen would receive little natural light, giving poor living conditions for the occupants.

3.  In response to Councillor Savva’s queries it was advised that the conservation area had been designated in the 1980s, but the character appraisal which defined the historical significance of the area was developed in the last two to three years and that was the benchmark against which the proposal was now being judged.

4.  The advice of the Head of Development Management in response to points raised by Members, including the following points:

a.  The previous approval was to extend upwards on the first storey. This proposal was for an additional two-bed two-storey dwelling on the site.

b.  The resulting amenity space provision for the new dwelling and for the original dwelling would be sub-standard.

c.  The development at no. 17 did not set a precedent; each application was dealt with on its own merits, and there had been a material change in circumstances, with regard to the character appraisal.

d.  The applicant’s offer to negotiate with officers was noted, but there were a number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 524.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.  Introductory statement by the Head of Development Management confirming the change of recommendation since the previous meeting of the Planning Committee. He explained that the issues involved were subjective and therefore subject to differing opinions. However the department felt that having visited the site the original case officer recommendation could not be sustained and therefore the department took the exceptional action to change the recommendation to that of refusal as it is felt that the proposed loss of garden space and erection of a dwelling did neither enhance nor preserve the setting of the conservation area.

2.  A number of objectors had raised additional issues in relation to the outlook from properties, but these were not considered sufficiently strong to be recommended as a reason for refusal.

3.  The deputation of Mr Ian Wood, IWPS Planning, the agent, including the following points:

a.  The borough had a shortage of family accommodation; within this application he could provide such a family home which would be sustainable and comply with all necessary standards.

b.  There had been no objections from other statutory consultees; and Planning officers had been satisfied previously, with the application being recommended for approval at the last Planning Committee.

c.  Members were being asked to make difficult decisions and they were not being helped by contradictory reports.

d.  Not all parts of a conservation area contributed the same significance; and any proportionate loss was against the benefit to the borough as a whole.

4.  The deputation of Mrs Tracey Fitzgerald, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  She had lived in Enfield all her life, did not want to change the conservation area, and had submitted this application in good faith.

b.  The planning process had not been transparent.

c.  Unlike objectors, she had received no home visit.

d.  The land concerned was no longer garden land.

e.  Any views would be from restricted vantage points and the development would not be within the eyeline of Essex Road properties.

f.  She questioned whether the proposal would genuinely degrade the area.

5.  The response of Mr Richard Berndes, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a.  He thanked officers for arranging the site visit in response to genuine concerns.

b.  The proposal was in a conservation area, in a lovely location, and the residents’ and wider community’s response to the plan was that it would damage the area’s beauty.

c.  The report rightly highlighted the importance of the gardens and the views, which were an essential part of the area.

d.  There were objections to the size, height and dominance of the building.

e.  Conservation areas were created to preserve unique areas of the borough. This proposal would do nothing to enhance the area.

6.  The response of Mr Tom Meadows, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a.  People living in a conservation area did so with full acceptance that along with the benefits came restrictions beyond those on average home owners.

b.  The proposal would have an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 525.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.  Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following points:

a.  He drew attention to the previous application which was refused and the appeal which was dismissed.

b.  Three key issues were highlighted by the Planning Inspector: (i) insufficient amenity space provision; (ii) impact on the oak tree; and (iii) overlooking to gardens in Caversham Avenue.

c.  How the applicant sought to address the issues was set out in the report.

d.  The Planning Inspector had not supported the safety concerns.

e.  The main difference in the current application was the change in orientation. Slides were shown of the context with Fox Lane and the relationship with the properties in Caversham Avenue.

2.  Receipt of two further letters of objection, including the following points:

a.  Too much flexibility had been given by the Planning Inspector.

b.  Insufficient amenity space.

c.  The housing would not be high quality.

d.  The development would produce a feeling of enclosure.

e.  The potential of overlooking would remain from some first floor windows.

f.  Safety was still an issue.

g.  Visibility was compromised by the bridge.

3.  Receipt of an additional four letters of support, including the following points:

a.  The development would provide needed family housing.

b.  Safety and security would be improved if the site was developed.

c.  The site was an eyesore, attracting anti-social behaviour and vandalism.

4.  The deputation of Mr William Cook, local resident, including the following:

a.  He represented residents of Caversham Avenue who were opposed to the development.

b.  The distance from existing properties was insufficient as the site was too narrow having a width of only 22 metres.

c.  There would be problems of loss of privacy, overlooking, and loss of sunlight especially in winter.

d.  There would be overlooking from first floor windows due to the close proximity of houses to the common boundary.

e.  Reasons for rejection of the first application still applied.

f.  The site entrance was close to the hump-back bridge and dangerous and he suggested a site visit was made to assess.

g.  There was a TPO on the site but trees would be lost.

h.  The wildlife corridor was unique and thriving and should be saved.

i.  The site was a soakaway for the whole Lakes Estate, with the drainage ditch dating from the time the railway was built. Loss of trees and vegetation would also affect drainage in the area. The natural springs needed inspection.

5.  The statement of Councillor Elaine Hayward, Winchmore Hill Ward Councillor, including the following points:

a.  She acknowledged there were residents with different points of view on the proposal, and that residents living directly adjacent would like to see a speedy resolution to end their security concerns.

b.  She had been asked to speak against the recommendation by the Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association and was representing residents who objected to the application, whose objections were also set out in the report.

c.  The three points raised by the Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 526.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement

WARD:  Town

NOTED

1.  Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager to clarify the change in circumstances and reduction in scale from the previous agreed application.

2.  Confirmation received from the developer that all plant would be located in the basement plant room, with only AOV fans on the roof, which would not be seen from viewpoints, which should address concerns raised by CAG.

3.  Members’ discussion of the Section 106 agreement that residents would not be permitted to purchase a parking permit for the CPZ, and the Traffic and Transport Officer’s advice in respect of protection for existing permit holders and progress towards a car club for the borough.

4.  Members voted unanimously in support of the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of the heads of terms as detailed in the report and as previously agreed.

RECOMMENDATION:  That officers be afforded delegated powers to grant approval subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

CONDITIONS TO FOLLOW

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED

1.  Councillor Delman left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote on the application.

2.  It was understood that the Environment Agency had a solution to the only objection that was outstanding.

3.  Receipt of a written representation in support from ex-councillor Bill Price, in his capacity as Meridian Business Park Association Manager.

4.  Members voted unanimously in support of the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that officers be afforded delegated powers to approve the application subject to conditions, subject to the applicant overcoming the Environment Agency’s outstanding objection and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include the head of terms referred to.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

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

Monthly decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals.

NOTED

1.  Members noted the information on town planning appeals received from 12/10/10 to 10/11/10, summarised in tables as requested, but full details of each appeal could be viewed on the departmental website.

2.  A correction to the table of Committee decisions which should read 1 appeal against refusal as per officer recommendation; and 3 appeals against refusal against officer recommendation, of which 2 were dismissed.

To receive the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection, seeking Members’ agreement to the response to the consultation document to be forwarded to the CLG.

NOTED the Head of Development Management’s introduction to the consultation document and the recommended response, which was fully supported by Members.

AGREED the response to the consultation as set out in the report to be forwarded to Communities and Local Government.