Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.    There was a 5 minute adjournment of the meeting so as to allow committee members to view a scale model of the development.

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

3.    Request by officers for:

·         delegated authority to address/update planning conditions.

·         Confirmed resolution of SuDs (Sustainable Drainage System)

·         Confirmed Secure by Design to be covered by additional condition..

4.    The statement by Dennis Stacey (Chair of the Conservation Advisory Group).The Conservation Advisory Group were generally supportive of the proposal.

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

6.    Andy Higham (HoDM) spoke on the weight to be assigned to the Enfield Town Framework Master plan and its purpose to guide future development.

7.    Officers spoke on how the scheme responded to the Master plan despite being a solely office development including potential to adapt the building in the future

8.    Andy Higham advised on the potential future redevelopment / development of neighbouring sites including current Metaswitch premises. Confirmed latter was not material to current assessment

9.    Discussion on design having regard to comments of Place &Design Review Panel and Conservation groups / officer

10. Discussion on parking available within town centre following redevelopment of existing car park.

11. Andy Higham advised on why the level of parking provision was considered acceptable referring to needs of applicant, the relationship to the wider town centre and the weight  assigned to relevant adopted policies

12. Andy Higham spoke about the status of the trees and the weight could be given when assessing this application.

13. Members raised concern regarding:

a.    Compatibility of the proposals to the adopted Master Plan.

b.    Lack of mixed use to the development.

c.    Oversupply of car parking contrary to London Plan policy

d.    Future Management of car park.

e.    Design – Need for a Landmark building.

f.     Use of existing site.

g.    Impact on trees along southern boundary.

h.    Number of outstanding points in the report.

i.      Relationship to the conclusion of Place & Design Review Panel.

j.      CCTV within the development.

k.    Against London Plan Policy

14. The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation with 3 votes for, 6 against and 1 abstention

15. A proposal to defer the decision on the application was agreed unanimously by the committee so that the above issues are addressed.

AGREED that a decision be deferred.