RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Bush Hill Park

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager.

2.    Confirmation that the application was within Grange Ward and that consultation was correctly carried out with the relevant properties and local group.

3.    The deputation of Mr Kevin Girling, neighbouring resident of Green Dragon Lane.

4.    The response of Dr Mark Matheson, agent for the applicant.

5.    The statement of Dennis Stacey, Chair of Conservation Advisory Group, that the group objected to the application.

6.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers. Issues raised included:

-       quality of the design of the proposed dwelling;

-       impact on the Conservation Area and character of the surrounding area;

-       relationship to neighbouring properties;

-       management of water and drainage;

-       screening and landscaping.

7.    Additional conditions suggested by officers.

8.    The officers’ recommendation with additional conditions was supported by a majority of the Committee: 6 votes for and 3 against.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional conditions to cover fence height / means of enclosure restricted pd, and no additional fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager.

2.    Officers reported the additional Archaeological condition.

3.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers.

4.    Members noted the opposition of Historic England, CAG and The London Park and Garden Trust.

5.    Andy Higham (Head of Development Management) explained the legislative context and the relationship to any identified public benefits

6.    Officers set out the heritage context for the proposal in terms of the harm to the settings and identified the public benefits to offset this. Discussion on this point

7.    Officers explained management would be for the relevant Service within the Council to arrange but could be covered by a condition if minded.

8.    The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation with 7 against and 3 abstentions.

9.    A motion to defer was not agreed – 2 for / 8 against.

10. The proposal that planning permission be refused was supported by the majority of the committee: 8 for refusal / 2 against

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed wetlands area, given the absence of information to identify sufficient public benefit to offset the potential harm, the proposal, due to its size, skiting and form are considered to result in harm to the special character and appearance of the designated heritage assets of the Grade II listed Broomfield House and registered Broomfield Park. This would be contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 7.8 of the London Plan, Policy CP1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DMD 44 of the Development Management Document.