Minutes:
NOTED
1. Councillor Rye had written in support of the objections of the occupier of 31 Little Park Gardens.
2. Receipt of two further letters of objection from residents, summarised verbally by the Planning officer.
3. The Education Department had raised concern regarding floor space and child capacity but this issue had been resolved.
4. Councillor Dey confirmed that Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) had, over the past year, commented on the design development of this proposal on a number of occasions. CAG felt that the current proposal respected both the conservation area and the adjoining properties in terms of design, massing, disposition and height. The report noted the issues that could not be resolved and, as a consequence, CAG objected. Since that meeting the architectural issue had been resolved by officers; namely window size. The remaining issues that caused CAG to object were largely resident driven
5. The deputation of Mr David Holmes, neighbouring resident, including the following points:
(i) He lived at no. 31, Little Park Gardens, which adjoined the site.
(ii) He had a number of concerns, but particularly highlighted the noise that would be generated by the scheme.
(iii) He asked that a decision be deferred to allow a noise assessment to be carried out, including investigation of the noise impact of a centre for young adults.
(iv) The proposed children’s playground would be right behind his home, immediately under his living room window, and the noise would be intolerable.
(v) The noise issues were significant and may not be resolved by the installation of an acoustic wall.
(vi) The report referred to opening hours which included Saturdays.
6. The deputation of Mr Alan Weitzel, local resident, including the following points:
(i) He lived in Holly Walk and was a retired architect and considered this proposal would be a gross overdevelopment.
(ii) The buildings and activities’ footprint covered 100% of the site, to the exclusion of car parking provision. Therefore spaces would be taken up in the car park opposite, which was already full most days of the week, and there would be parking in adjacent roads.
(iii) There would be dropping off and picking up of children/disabled people by vehicles in Chapel Street which would obstruct access for Holly Walk residents and access for emergency vehicles to flats in Chapel Street which housed elderly people.
7. The response of Mr Mareos Miltiadous, the applicant, including the following points:
(i) He had been working with the Planning Department on this application for over two years and working with Mr Holmes and his personal planner. During the process he had agreed to keep the car park closed for their benefit.
(ii) He had been involved with many businesses in Enfield relating to social care and no other neighbouring residents of any of the other properties had made any complaints regarding their day to day use.
(iii) He would be happy to restrict the number of users of the playground at any one time.
(iv) The scheme would be employing local people, who would come by public transport.
(v) The windows were for light and ventilation and would not be a source of noise.
(vi) An acoustic wall had been introduced and he would also offer triple glazing to Mr Holmes’ windows at the developer’s expense.
(vii) No more traffic or congestion would be introduced into the area by this proposal.
8. The advice of officers regarding the application and that the two uses proposed were within the same Use Class.
9. The advice of officers in respect of Environmental Health’s comments regarding noise.
10. Cllr Simon’s continued concern regarding noise impact on no. 31, Little Park Gardens and suggestion that it may be a better solution to extend the hours of outdoor play but limit the number of children outside at any one time. He also suggested that the hours of opening should be reduced to 08.00 to 18.00 hours.
11. Members’ requests for more information on noise levels and greater clarification of the noise impact.
12. Councillor Delman’s concerns regarding the impact of the scheme on parking availability in the pay and display car park.
13. The advice of officers regarding the design and materials of the roof.
14. The advice of officers regarding the function of the roof lights at 31 Little Park Gardens.
15. Councillors McGowan and Pearce considered that the applicant should apply for one type of use.
16. Members’ requests for more information about the proposed internal layout, and how the development would fit on the site.
17. Councillor Constantinides stated that the application should be considered as submitted.
AGREED that consideration of the application be deferred in order to receive advice from Environmental Health in regard to the applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment.