Minutes:
NOTED
(i) No further technical information had been provided by the applicant or Planning officers as requested at the previous Planning meeting, on what measures would be taken to prevent structure-borne noise and vibration to neighbouring properties.
(ii) Enfield Environmental Health had elected not to set maximum noise levels stating ‘ setting a noise level is inherently difficult as we do not know how the sound will transfer through the structure of the building’.
(iii) Planning Officers had provided new case information offering information which was presented as a precedent within the London Borough of Enfield. However, the example offered was for a large detached property on Cockfosters Road and was inherently different to this proposal as there was physical connection to the adjoining property.
4. The deputation of Mr. Geoff Rubenstein, neighbouring resident, including the following points:
(i) The proposed development would be contrary to UDP policies. His written representation listed relevant UDP policies.
(ii) Concerns were raised previously over the inaccuracies in the Ordnance Survey Map and the officer verbally corrected this at the September Planning meeting. The inaccuracies were repeated in the present Committee report and Committee Members may be misled to believe that the building work would not go right up (and possibly encroach) the property boundaries of 6, 8 & 10 Radcliffe Road.
(iii) There would be a loss of mature boundary trees.
(iv) The overall detrimental effect of the proposed development would include a curtain wall of brickwork built up to and potentially over the rear boundaries of No’s 6-10 Radcliffe Road. His outlook, amenities and enjoyment of the garden would be compounded by the loss of mature boundary trees at the rear of his garden.
5. The statement of Councillor Hurer, ward councillor, including:
(i) The proposal had been deferred at the September Planning Committee to allow for further technical data to be provided to determine how noise and vibration would not impact on neighbouring properties, this information had not been provided.
(ii) The proposal would be a substantial extension that would impact on visual amenity.
(iii) A comparison could not be made with the officers’ report detailing a similar development on a detached house on the Cockfosters Road.
6. The response of Mr. Michael Walliss, PMSS, the Agent and architect, including the following points:
(i) The noise that would emanate from the proposed lift would be minimal, comparing it to the noise of a domestic lawnmower.
(ii) The development would not encroach boundaries due to the foundations.
(iii) The company that would be installing the lift was an International corporation who had to comply with the highest European standards.
(iv) The boroughs Environmental Health and Building Control were ‘happy’ to accept that noise levels would be acceptable.
(v) In response to Councillor Simon, Mr. Wallis confirmed that the European Standard that applied to the installation covered all areas of the development, including, mechanical parts, vibration rates and noise levels.
(vi) The planning officer advised that an extra condition could be added to include the European Standard being applied to the development.
7. Planning officers’ confirmation that building regulations covered foundation depths.
8. In response to Councillor Hall, the Planning officer’s confirmation that the development would not encroach on neighbouring properties.
9. Planning Officers’ confirmation that any outstanding issues could be resolved by mitigation and that noise / vibration concerns could be managed by conditions.
10.Councillor Delman’s concerns that the request for further technical data to be provided, as detailed in the previous September Planning minutes did not materialise. Further concerns over no guarantees with regard to compliance noise / vibration concerns.
11.The Planning Officers’ confirmation that any breach of condition would be a Planning issue.
12.Councillor Lamprecht’s concerns over the lack of technical data which would have provided further insight on the vibration / noise levels that may impact on neighbouring properties.
13.A proposal not to accept the officers’ recommendation supported by the majority of the Committee.
14.A proposal that planning permission be refused supported by the majority of the committee.
AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reasons below.
Reasons:
The proposed development due to its size, siting and massing would represent an overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area, contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 4B.8 of the London Plan.
The proposed development due to the absence of technical specification regarding the operation of the car lift, could give rise to conditions through noise and vibration that would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining and neighbouring residential properties. This would be contrary to Policies (II)EN30, (I)GD1 and (I)GD2 of the Unitary Development Plan.