Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1. The deputation of Mr Barry Scott, local resident, including the following points:

i. Inaccurate description in the application, in particular in respect of tree screening.

ii. The proposed design does not respect the Art Deco building and would be detrimental to neighbouring properties.

iii. The erection of four 1 bed flats was not compliant with the Housing Needs The loss of trees and shrubs would be detrimental to Enfield’s Green Policy.

iv. Risk of fire due to proposed use of timber cladding.

v. Increased noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents.

vi. Clarification was required on the parking arrangements.

vii. The development would be overbearing, cause loss of light and privacy.

viii. He asked Members to consider deferring a decision to allow time to make a site visit.

3. The statement of Councillor Paul McCannah, Cockfosters Ward Councillor, including the following points:

i. He supported the comments of Mr Scott.

ii. Local residents had responded to the consultation and raised a number of concerns including loss of light, view and outlook, in particular from Consibee Court and Tregona Close.

iii. The proposals were contrary to policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as the objectives of PPS3.

iv. The removal of trees would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

v. Parking arrangements would increase on-street parking.

vi. He asked Members to consider deferring a decision to allow time to make a site visit in order to determine the appropriateness of the application.

4. The response of Mr Jeremy Spratley, the agent, including the following points:

i. The proposal includes, amenity space, unit sizes, parking spaces and cycle parking that all meet the required standards and policies.

ii. The proposed development not a listed building or in a conservation area.

iii. The design respects the character of the existing buildings.

iv. The scheme has been significantly redesigned since the previous application.

v. The development would contribute to increasing the Boroughs’ housing stock.

5. Councillor McCannah declared a prejudicial interest and withdrew from the meeting.

6. In response to Members’ queries, officers’ clarified the access road arrangements and the London Plan parking standards.

7. Members’ comments on the need for larger family dwellings, demand for which was identified in the Housing Needs Assessment.

8. Councillor Neville moved that consideration of the application be deferred to enable Members to conduct a site visit. Councillor Hurer seconded this motion. A vote was taken; 4 votes in favour of deferring consideration of the application and 6 votes against.

9. Confirmation of the Planning Officer that condition 8 covered refuse storage, and clarification that details of refuse and recycling storage facilities would be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Confirmation from Officer’s that the Trees were not the subject of a TPO but recognition that there were mature trees on site. Officers could see if they merited a TPO.

10. Discussion of Members’ remaining concerns regarding parking arrangements and officers’ confirmation that parking concerns were covered by conditions 4, 5 and 6 and the Council’s use of enforcement powers.

11.Members’ request for an additional condition to be imposed to control site working hours.

12. A vote to accept the recommendation was taken; 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against the recommendation. Councillor Hurer abstained on the grounds that he would have preferred a site visit. 

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

No demolition, construction or maintenance activities shall be carried on at the site outside the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:30 -13:00 on Saturday and at no time at all on Sunday and Bank Holidays which are audible at the site boundary unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority having been previously agreed under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

Reason: To ensure that the occupiers of the buildings are protected from external noise pollution.