Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 agreement.

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

2.    Neither TfL nor Network Rail have raised an objection to this application but both have objected to the Reserved Matters application 17/04748/RM in that both bodies wish to see that part of the site comprising Phase 2 (i) reserved for a construction depot required in connection with potential works to Ponders End Station and the four tracking of the line in association with Crossrail 2 proposals. Therefore, there is an implied objection to the principle of the development of Phase 2A(i) and legal advice has been sought on the weight that the Council needs to give to the objection in determining this application.

3.    Since the report was published, Counsel has further  advised as follows:

‘neither TfL nor Network Rail objected to the London Borough of Enfield (Alma Estate Regeneration) Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) 2016, confirmed by the Secretary of State on 15.12.17 which authorised the acquisition of land including the triangle of land.

The justification for the acquisition of the land was part of the case presented to the Inspector and Secretary of State, and included substantial building proposals in line with the Outline permission(OPP).’

4.    Planning officers’ response to points raised and members to note the following:

·         The absence of objections by Network Rail and TfL to the CPO

·         The absence of objections by Network Rail and TfL to the OPP

·         The justification for the acquisition of the triangle site advanced by the Council in the recent Alma Estate CPO inquiry and accepted by the Secretary of State.

·         The GLA had confirmed no objection and that the application does not raise any strategic planning issues further to those previously considered in respect of the outline application.

·         One further objection from Mr D South, and the objections raised:

a.    When Phase 1A was granted planning permission, he was never made aware at all workshops that outline planning for Phase 2A had been included.

b.    The main objection to Phase 2A is no social housing has been included. The builders are trying to merge phase 1A and 2A to overcome this.

c.    Negotiations took place on Phase 1A regarding a community chest that had taken months to conclude. If the two phases are merged, the community loses a chest for Phase 2 (still to be negotiated) and the Council will lose out on a section 106 payment themselves.

5.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

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 completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 agreement.