Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Edmonton Green

NOTED

1.         Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Hasan left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

2.         The Chairman agreed to Councillor Bakir’s request to remain in the meeting to speak then to leave the room and take no part in the discussion or vote.

3.         The introduction of the Planning Decisions Manager. The key point was highlighted as the relationship with the adjacent residential property site already granted planning permission and where construction was underway.

4.         Receipt of an additional letter of objection from Councillor Stafford, emphasising the inward investment. Though there were parking issues, the development was needed for active engagement with the community. Councillor Stafford had queried the lack of Police comments, but it was clarified that those would normally be picked up in the licensing process rather than planning.

5.         The deputation of Mr David Snell and Mr Ian Dix, acting for the applicant, including the following points:

a.  There was a recognised demand for such a facility, but the report made no reference to the social and economic contribution the development would make.

b.  The development would be mixed use, would be highly sustainable, and would provide valuable employment opportunities.

c.  The facility would make use of the existing ramp. If that use was considered to have a detrimental impact on residents it would seem to preclude any re-use of the building.

d.  There had been no assessment of the residential development in respect of this application site, or of the amenities of future residents.

e.  At the time of approval of permission for the adjoining residential site, this site was vacant.

f.  The proposals had been substantially amended to address parking issues, and one banqueting hall had been removed and the number of customers reduced.

g.  The residential impact was not raised as a concern until July 2010. In order to address it, the applicant was willing to consider solutions such as moving the access ramp or entering into a S106 agreement and an offer had be made in relation to a valet service, but officers had not accepted further amendments to the application.

h.  Technical matters could be addressed and dealt with by condition.

i.  Ian Dix spoke as the advisor on highways and transport issues.

j.  Discussions had been held with officers and additional information provided in support of the proposal. The only objection from transportation officers now concerned the level of parking.

k.  There was a mix of uses proposed and the parking concerns were only in respect of the banqueting hall.

l.  The maximum capacity was limited to 400 for all uses on site.

m.  The café would be modest, and parking provision would be in accordance with the UDP; across the borough many cafes had no parking at all.

n.  There were 92 spaces on site, which equated to 1 space for 4.3 guests if at full capacity. This was comparable to other similar examples, and no standards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 319