Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a Section106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grantplanning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Jubillee

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues and the revisions made since deferral by Planning Committee in November 2019.

2.    An update on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) figures. The scheme was liable to CIL and would need to pay an Enfield CIL of £25,530.18 and a mayoral CIL of £38,295.27, equating to a total CIL figure of £68,825.45.

3.    An addendum had been submitted by the applicant with further consideration of Daylight and Sunlight impacts upon gardens to the rear. Three gardens passed BRE standards, however the garden at 1 King Edwards Road did not accord, however this garden at present receives inadequate levels of sunlight and would as a result of the development lose 1 hour of winter sun, which by reason of the small amount of daylight lost was considered acceptable in this instance.

4.    The condition suggested, restricting the opening hours of the commercial unit would be 8am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 9am to 11pm Sundays and bank holidays.

5.    Paragraph 10.24 of the committee report should read ‘the proposed development does not include any flank windows at ground, first or second floor level’.

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

7.    The support of a majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 7 votes for, 2 votes against, and 2 abstentions.

AGREED that subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Highlands

NOTED

1.    Having declared a pecuniary interest, Councillor Alexandrou left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote on the application.

2.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues.

3.    The tree to be removed would now be retained.

4.    Receipt of updated plans showing the relationship between the proposed development and existing flats, and included in the presentation.

5.    The deputation of Johanna Kernot and Sally Mantell on behalf of residents of Avalon Close, speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

6.    The statement of Councillor Lee David-Sanders, Highlands Ward Councillor, speaking in support of residents.

7.    There was no representative from Capita Planning Consultancy in attendance who came forward to speak in response.

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

9.    During the discussion, concerns were raised regarding the design of the additional floor and its impact on the amenities of residents living on the third floor. It was agreed that a concern regarding the height and visual impact could not be sustained and this was accepted.

10. The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation: 2 votes for, 3 votes against and 4 abstentions.

11. The unanimous support of the committee with 1 abstention that planning permission be refused for the reasons below.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)         The proposed development, by reason of its design and resultant appearance relative to the existing blocks, would result in an unsympathetic and incongruous form of development detrimental to the appearance of the existing blocks and their setting and appearance within the wider area. This             would be harmful to the character of the locality contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016, Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policies DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014.

2)         The proposed development, by reason of the siting and structural design leading to the enclosure by the additional floor of existing residential windows        / doors would result in a harmful loss of privacy and outlook detrimental to the amenities of the existing occupiers at third floor level of Avalon Close, contrary to Policy 7.6 of the London Plan 2016, Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Core Strategy and Policy DMD8 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014.