Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, and the Legal Services representative read a statement regarding the order and conduct of the meeting.

NOTED that apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Cranfield, Prescott and Savva.

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

NOTED

1.   Councillor Cranfield declared a non pecuniary interest in application ref P13-00338LBE – Eldon Infant School, Eldon Road, London, N9 8LG, as she was a governor of the school which was located in her ward.

To receive the minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on Monday 4 March 2013.

AGREED the minutes of the Special Planning Committee held on Monday 4 March 2013 as a correct record.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday 26 March 2013 as a correct record.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Panel held on Thursday 28 February 2013 regarding application refs P12-03179PLA, P12-03177PLA, P12-02858PLA and P12-02859PLA.

RECEIVED the minutes of the Planning Panel held on Thursday 28 February 2013 regarding application refs P12-03179PLA, P12-03177PLA, P12-02858PLA and P12-02859PLA.

To receive the covering report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection.                                        (Report No. 212)

7.1       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.212).

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to completion of Section 106 Agreement

WARD: Southgate Green

NOTED

1.   Councillor Prescott arrived at the meeting at this point.

2.   The introduction of the Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals and officers’ conclusions.

3.   Four residents who had previously objected had written to re-affirm objections.

4.   A further objection submitted on behalf of residents of Hastings Road, Bexhill Road and Pevensey Avenue.

5.   A summary was given of objections received.

6.   Clarification that reference to Broomfield Road Residents Association should be Broomfield Home Owners and Residents Association.

7.   Councillor Cranfield arrived, but having missed the beginning of the item, would not be permitted to vote on this application.

8.   Clarifications / corrections to the report:

?  Para 2.1 should read: 9x3 and 6x4 bed houses as opposed to 13x3 bed and 2x4 bed.

?  Para 7.4.9 should read it is considered the scheme does not create any significant residential amenity concern.

?  7.6.10 was a typographical error and should be disregarded.

9.   An update from Sustainable Design Officer was provided on sustainability issues as referred to in para 7.11 – confirming that the proposals are broadly acceptable and considers there are no reasons why the scheme can not achieve the required Code Level 4. There are a number of green incentives included as part of the scheme such as green roofs and solar panels which are encouraged. Overall at this stage the information presented is acceptable, however a number of conditions have been proposed to ensure the site achieves the optimum requirements but requests delegated authority to review these conditions to ensure the objective is achieved.

10. The deputation of Caroline Chenier, local resident, including the following points:

a.  It would be impossible for the short roads of Bexhill, Hastings and Pevensey to cope with such a dense population increase, being in a cul-de-sac formation and landlocked by the Telford Road section of the A406.

b.  Site 14 would introduce a minimum of 240 residents, with additional residents to come from Sites 15a, b and c, and a private development, which would create an untenable burden on the current community.

c.  The meeting should be deferred as there had been insufficient time to read the report, ask questions under the Freedom of Information Act, review the information and formulate objections.

d.  They had wished to request the Process Documents.

e.  The high level of public objection was shown at the Planning Panel and the petition of 507 signatures.

11. The deputation of John Andrews, local resident, including the following points:

a.  He would be directly affected by the development, with overlooking directly from a large number of balconies, and noise from residents.

b.  The density, scale and height did not have regard to the context of houses at the rear.

c.  There would not be a buffer as the building did not exist yet.

d.  Notting Hill tenants did not feel able to make objections.

e.  A decision should be delayed for issues to be looked at again.

12. The statement of Councillor Achilleas Georgiou (Bowes Ward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 922.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to completion of Section 106 agreement.

WARD: Southgate Green

NOTED

1.   The introduction of the Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals and officers’ conclusions.

2.   Four residents who had previously objected had written to re-affirm objections.

3.   Clarification that reference to Broomfield Road Residents Association should be Broomfield Home Owners and Residents Association.

4.   Clarifications / corrections to the report:

?  Para 7.6.18 under the first table it should read: “the proposed development would result in the parking provision range in Table 1.”

?  Para 7.6.19 error reference source not found should read Table 1.

?  Para 7.6.21 error reference source not found should read Table 1 and Table 2.

5.   An update from the Sustainable Design Officer as referred to in para 7.11 – confirms that the proposals are broadly acceptable and considers there are no reasons why the scheme can not achieve the required Code Level 4. There are a number of green incentives included as part of the scheme such as green roofs and solar panels which are encouraged. Overall at this stage the information presented is acceptable, however a number of conditions have been proposed to ensure the site achieves the optimum requirements but requests delegated authority to review these conditions to ensure the objective is achieved.

6.   Confirmation of amounts for legal agreement.

7.   Amendment to Condition 33b – should read “the D1/D2 commercial unit” as opposed to premises.

8.   The deputation of Nikki Salih, Chair of Ritz Parade Traders Association, including the following points:

a.  The proposed development would be too high.

b.  The mews houses would have no windows at the back.

c.  The shared pathway for traffic and people caused great concerns.

d.  The proposed access road was dangerous.

e.  It was questioned how local schools would cope.

f.  Concerns regarding lack of green space, travel plan, bin space, and cycle storage.

g.  The strength of opposition was evidenced by the Planning Panel turnout, petition and banner. A clear message had been sent, but the community was not being listened to.

9.   The deputation of Peter Travis (Headteacher) / Adam Beamish, on behalf of Broomfield School, including the following points:

a.  This was the wrong development and would not enhance Broomfield School. The mews houses in particular would have a damaging effect.

b.  A narrow but pleasant quiet playground area with plenty of trees and plants would be made claustrophobic and dark by the mews element along the boundary which would be very close and block the sunlight.

c.  The condition in respect of the landscaping buffer would not work and there seemed to be reliance on negotiations between the school and developer.

10. The statement of Councillor Achilleas Georgiou (Bowes Ward councillor) including:

a.  The design should be in keeping with the street scene. This development was hugely different from nearby 1930s residential homes.

b.  Parking space provision to serve the flats was inadequate. For the flatted element, the parking ratio would not meet minimum requirements.

11. The response of Ken Barnett, Project Director, Notting Hill Housing,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 923.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.

WARD: Lower Edmonton

NOTED

1.   The meeting was subject to a brief adjournment before consideration of this application.

2.   The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager clarifying the proposals.

3.   Receipt of one further letter of objection raising concerns including increased traffic from parents causing obstruction, pollution and noise, and increased litter caused by children and parents.

4.   The deputation of Ros Bacal, including the following points:

a.  She was speaking on behalf of other residents of Woodlands Road as well as herself.

b.  In 2003 assurance had been given that pedestrian access would never be approved. Condition 18 was put in place to safeguard residential amenities of properties along Woodlands Road.

c.  Residents feared parking restrictions, and pollution, and parents parking with little regard for residents.

d.  She would be directly affected if carers or dial-a-ride transport were unable to park outside her home.

e.  Pollution from engines ticking over would adversely affect her health.

f.  There would be increased traffic with parents using this road.

g.  Concerns about the affect on the housing market in the road.

h.  She would like to view access requirements in full before the decision and to know about proposed zigzag markings and to have it noted that her disabled parking bay was not fully marked out.

5.   The response of Julie Messer, Executive Headteacher, Eldon Infant School, on behalf of the governing body, including the following points:

a.  In response to local authority requests in respect of the need for primary pupil places, the school agreed to expand to a yearly intake of 150 pupils and to double the nursery intake to 120 pupils.

b.  Access to the early years school building was through the main playground, and during the lunchtime swap-over infant pupils would also be in the playground with the potential they may run through as the gate was opened. The problem would be exacerbated by the increased number of nursery pupils. The solution would be access via Woodlands Road through a clearly defined entrance for early years classes.

c.  The school would have a much safer operating system. As well as improving safeguarding, this would also spread the footfall.

d.  Staff were deployed to all entrances to assist safe passage and the Woodlands Road entrance would be included in this system.

6.   SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL CONSTITUTION – TIME OF MEETING

      AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10:00pm) be suspended for a period of 60 minutes to enable the business on the agenda to be completed.

7.   Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers, including:

a.  Amendment to the recommendation to respond to issues raised by the depute and the requirement for an impact assessment and appropriate mitigation with a final decision delegated to officers, in liaison with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Lead Member if necessary.

b.  Clarification of policies relating to disabled bays, and to zigzag markings, and the Traffic & Transportation officer’s assurance there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 924.

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

WARD: Grange

NOTED

1.   Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal and recent planning history.

2.   Grange Park Residents Association supported the recommendation for refusal. They commented that the size and design of the current property complemented its surroundings whereas the proposed development did not and would stand out.

3.   Receipt of a further neighbour objection, received between publication of March and April meeting agendas, on the grounds that the development was out of keeping with the other properties in Vera Avenue, and the development would damage the integrity of the local environment and allow a property very different in style to the surrounding 1920s/30s dwellings.

4.   The deputation of Murat Aydemir, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  A supporting statement had been distributed to all Members ahead of the consideration of the item.

b.  The area had a mixture of houses, with the majority having been altered. The features of no.56 a few doors away were highlighted.

c.  This was not a Conservation Area. The building was not listed.

d.  The current scheme had been changed since the original refusal in the light of the Planning Inspector’s comments, and there had been further consultation with neighbours.

e.  The third floor element had been scrapped, with no balconies or windows in the roof level to front elevation.

f.  This was a sustainable design which included solar panels, rainwater harvesting, and ground source heat pumps, triple glazing and more.

g.  The rear glass structure had been kinked back to deal with light issues, and dropped below the fence line.

5.   Councillor Savva arrived, but having missed the beginning of the item, would not be permitted to vote on this application.

6.   Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers, including:

a.  Members’ comments that the street scene was mixed and there was no uniformity between nos 56 – 64. It was considered this design would not impact on the street scene as there was so much variation in size, design and mass, and the footprint of no.56 was bigger than this.

b.  Acknowledgement that the decision was finely balanced.

c.  Confirmation of the grouping considered by the Planning Inspector, and that the appeal decision was a material consideration.

d.  Reason 1 implied that a modern building would not be acceptable, which did not necessarily reflect Members’ views.

e.  Concerns in respect of the size of the building on the site, terracing effect, and overlooking from the rear.

7.   The majority of the Committee did not support the officers’ recommendation: 5 votes for and 8 votes against with 1 abstention.

8.   Members had raised sufficient reasons for granting planning permission during their debate, and officers would impose standard conditions to an approval.

9.   The support of the majority of the Committee for the proposal that planning permission be granted: 10 votes for and 4 votes against.

AGREED that Members resolved to grant planning permission considering that;

1.  The street scene comprises a mix of properties of differing designs and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 925.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.   Councillor Savva received advice from the Legal Services representative that he had no disclosable interest in the application.

2.   Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal, and that conditions were recommended to cover the hours of opening and to ensure the mixed use of the premises and not solely take-away.

3.   Advice in respect of refusal of planning permission in 2008 for the introduction of a take-away use at nos 32-34 The Green. Traffic and Transportation had raised no objections to the current application. It was acknowledged that the highway conditions immediately outside the premises differed due to proximity to the roundabout.

4.   Receipt of six further letters of objection raising concerns including:

?  The occupier has continued to trade illegally without the proper consent, this shows a lack of respect for the area and the Council.

?  Just because the premises are operating does not mean permission should be granted.

?  There will be ramifications of opening up the floodgates to allow take away operators into an area of special protection.

?  Impact on traffic flow.

?  Litter, this has increased substantially with rubbish regularly waiting collection to the front of the business as there is no rear access, and take away litter on the roads.

?  Bags left out ripped open by foxes and litter strewn across the Green.

?  Noise and disturbance.

?  The floor area is clearly leaning towards take away with the whole ground floor servicing the take away trade.

?  Any permission should be tailored to the applicant only.

?  A condition should ensure the operator walks the area at least twice a day to collect litter.

?  Samdam restaurant 5 doors away was denied an A5 takeaway when they applied correctly.

?  A take-away would change the character of the Green.

5.   Revision of Condition 2.

6.   Requirement for a litter strategy and provision of an additional bin.

7.   Recommendation that planning permission be temporary for one year so that use could be monitored.

8.   The deputation of Brian Foyle on behalf of Winchmore Hill Residents’ Association, including the following points:

a.  There had been disregard for the local community, and for planning requirements over the last ten years.

b.  This application would probably not have been made without residents having brought concerns to the Council’s attention.

c.  The use would lead to more traffic and short term parking in obstructive places, and food may be eaten on the Green causing litter disposal issues, especially in the summer weather.

d.  The majority of tables were hidden in the basement and the ground floor was dominated by a service counter typical of a take-away.

e.  Fears that nearby Sandam restaurant would introduce casual take-away food on the back of this application.

f.  Fears that the restaurant could be sold to one of the national multiples and this would destroy the character of the Green.

9.   The response of Matthew Wheeler, the agent, including:

a.  There would be no alterations to the façade.

b.  The restaurant already had a working flue.

c.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 926.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Chase

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Chase

NOTED

1.   Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager.

2.   The Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that subject to a condition to ensure that reptile migration strategy is implemented there should be no constraints to development, as on completion of the project the application site will continue to be suitable reptile habitat. He also recommends that details of the landscaping scheme for the site be submitted that planting comprise native species of regional provenance, due to the relationship of the site to a native woodland.

3.   Two additional conditions, in relation to reptile mitigation strategy, and details of landscaping.

4.   Tony Dey, Vice Chairman, Conservation Advisory Group, highlighted the comments of the group in para 4.1.3, and that Keepers Cottage was affected by every development at this site and should not be dismissed as in para 6.3.1.

5.   Confirmation that no additional traffic would be generated by this application.

6.   The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

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

Additional conditions in summary:

1.  No development hereby permitted shall commence until a reptile mitigation strategy has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall thereafter be implemented as approved. Should the applicant conclude that reptiles are not present on the site and that reptile mitigation is not necessary that applicant shall submit a report which details how this conclusion has been reached and the report shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  To ensure that reptiles, which are a priority species, as per the NPPF, are protected in line with Core Policy CP36 of Enfield’s Core Strategy.

2.  No development shall commence until a details landscaping scheme has been submitted. Planting to comprise native species of regional provenance.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Edmonton Green

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Palmers Green

NOTED

1.   Receipt of one letter of objection raising the following issues:

?  The sewerage network and ground disruption works to the existing car park, if any, should be identified and implemented prior to the proposed building being installed.

?  Works necessary to provide broadband connection to the intranet, and ground works disruption to the car park, if any, should be identified and implemented prior to installation of the proposed building.

?  Works necessary to provide and install CCTV should be identified before the building is occupied.

?  Works necessary to provide additional lighting both immediately in and around the outside of the proposed unit and the pedestrian approaches should be implemented before occupation.

?  The area around Lodge Drive has proven to be a magnet for anti social behaviour and users of the proposed library must have confidence in their safety during operational hours. The design and access statement fail to identify that the pedestrian route from Green Lanes is lengthy and has a blind spot – assurance could be given if additional lighting, safety mirror and CCTV were provided.

?  The installation of the building will cause dark shadows in and around the building.

?  Proposal will result in an increase in mobility scooters and pushchairs accessing the site. Secure and covered facilities should be provided for them.

?  The proposed building utilises 2 of the existing 7 disabled bays. 3 bays should be reserved for library users and further additional bays marked as disabled in the larger car park.

?  The routing of waste collection needs to be checked.

?  The use of a portable building will generally mean the use of a crane lift and a methodology document should be required by condition.

?  The transfer of documents and equipment from the existing building requires manual handling. An assessment is needed and the vehicle access necessary within the car park. It may be necessary to provide a level access vehicular transport platform height through a specialised opening in the building.

2.   Additional conditions reported:

(1)  Details of the refuse storage facilities.

(2)  Details of external lighting to the building.

3.   Members’ suggestion of signposting from Green Lanes to assist access.

4.   The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

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, additional conditions above, plus details of signage to mark route to the building from Green Lanes, for the reasons set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, subject to condition.

WARD: Southbury

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Upper Edmonton

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Upper Edmonton

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Upper Edmonton

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Ponders End

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Ponders End

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Enfield Highway

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to condition.

WARD: Enfield Highway

NOTED the unanimous support of the Committee for the officers' recommendation.

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 reason set out in the report.

To receive the report of the Director of Regeneration, Leisure and Culture.

(Report No.215)

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Regeneration, Planning and Programme Management) (Report no 215).

NOTED

1.   Members noted the contents of the report and its Annexes.

2,   Members agreed to receive six monthly monitoring information regarding S106 agreements reported to Planning Committee in May and November each year from now on.

3.   Members were invited to direct any queries to Paul Walker individually.

AGREED

1.   That a Planning Panel meeting be arranged in respect of the planning application for the Carterhatch depot site.

2.   The membership of the Panel be agreed with the Chairman and Opposition Lead Member once a meeting date had been identified.

NOTED

1.   This was the final meeting of the Planning Committee in the 2012/13 municipal year.

2.   Thanks were recorded to all Members for their participation on the Committee this year.