Issue - items at meetings - 19/04345/RE4 - TENNIS COURTS, BROOMFIELD PARK, BROOMFIELD LANE, LONDON N13 4HE

Issue - meetings

19/04345/RE4 - TENNIS COURTS, BROOMFIELD PARK, BROOMFIELD LANE, LONDON N13 4HE

Meeting: 04/08/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 5)

5 18/00646/FUL - 32 Waggon Road and Land Rear of 30 Waggon Road, Barnet, EN4 0HL pdf icon PDF 5 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  That the Head of Development Management /the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Cockfosters

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues and additional information provided since the previous deferral.

2.   Additional correspondence objecting to this application was received after the committee report was published from residents at 26 Waggon Road and 34 Waggon Road.

3.   This case was originally reported to the meeting of Planning Committee on 21st January 2020. It was resolved to defer determination of this application pending a site visit. This resolution was in response to a number of points that were raised in terms of the relationship of the proposed development to the boundary, the relationship to neighbouring properties and their amenity (in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy) and the impact on the character of the area and the access.

4.   The site visit took place on Saturday 1st August 2020

5.   The report sets out the key issues in the assessment of the planning application which proposes the erection of three two storey five bedroom dwelling houses on existing garden land in association with the demolition and reconstruction of No 30 Waggon Road, forming one of the existing properties, in association with the creation of a new access off Waggon Road.

6.   The development constitutes a back-land development site utilising the rear gardens of No 30 and No 32 Waggon road. As part of the development, No. 32 Waggon Road would be demolished and reconstructed; it being sited on the western boundary adjacent the boundary with No 34 Waggon Road. The eastern side of No 32 Waggon Road site would provide the access road for the three dwelling houses at the rear of site, permitting independent access to plots 2, 3 and 4. 

7.   Although talking of back land, we are talking about gardens of considerable proportions in excess of 100 metres.  To give some perspective. At over 100 metres in length, the building known as Centrepoint Soho could comfortably fit into this garden.

8.   The rear boundary of the site is formed by Monken Mead Brook; a designated main river. Detailed discussions have been held with the Environment Agency and with the SUDs team pertaining to the impact of the development on the brook and surface water drainage. The site is not within a designated Flood Zone and it is agreed that the effect on neighbouring properties and surface water drainage consideration are acceptable subject to the approved SuDS report and site plans.

9.   The scope of the proposed development has also been considered against historic development along Waggon Road and against relevant national, regional and local planning policy context. The full planning application satisfies overarching planning policy and is considered to be acceptable subject to pre-commencement and pre-occupation planning conditions applied to the site.

10.   It was explained to Members that the proposed houses would be in excess of 55 metres from the rear elevations of the existing houses in Waggon Road and in excess of 45 metres from the rear elevations in houses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5


Meeting: 21/07/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 6)

6 18/04517/FUL- 4 Advent Way, London N18 3AG pdf icon PDF 4 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Development Management/ Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

Additional documents:

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    An update report for Members had been published and circulated by email.

2.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals, highlighting proposed amendments to the conditions as set out in the update report and delegated authority sought by officers for wording of all conditions.

3.   The application site sits within the EcoPark ,  immediately  north of the North Circular Road. Members will be aware that the EcoPark is to be reconstructed pursuant to the Development Consent Order granted in 2017. This reconstruction will take place on a phased basis to ensure the site can continue to operate throughout.

4.   This application is for the erection of a new building to accommodate the new district heating energy centre alongside the initial phase of pipework to extend westwards towards the MW regeneration area.

The building is predominantly 2 storeys with a tower reaching 26.5m housing the thermal stores and an exhaust chimney rising 30m. Both would be contained within expanded aluminium mesh clad enclosures. The main building would accommodate plant, equipment and offices on the ground floor and further plant and equipment within a mezzanine.

5.   The energy centre will connect to the Energy Recovery Facility on the EcoPark when it is renewed in 2026.

The proposal includes night time LED lighting to assist in signifying its presence. The lighting scheme would back light the mesh cladding surrounding the thermal stores and chimney tower to create a lantern effect.

6.   The energy centre will move energy in the form of hot water through a system of underground pipes to homes and businesses, including the proposed MW development. Overtime, the network has the potential to connect to additional heat sources and demands elsewhere in the Lee Valley, such as the 3 satellite networks of Ponders End, Arnos Grove and Oakwood, other Enfield developments as well as the energy centre in Haringey.

7.   An underground route has been secured to meet capacity of Phase 1 of the MW development. The Centre however had been designed to be capable of delivering energy to the whole of MW and more, with a capacity to serve approximately 30,000 homes.

8.   Strategic regional and local policy is supportive of the delivery of a new heat network for the Lee Valley area and local policy is supportive of the provision of an energy centre on this site. The building design is functional and high quality and appropriate to its industrial context, announcing itself and signifying positive change and an investment in sustainable regeneration.

9.   Having regard to the mitigation identified in the report and to be secured by conditions, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable when assessed against relevant planning policies.

Members were reminded of the amendments to conditions set out in the update report already circulated.

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

11. The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

 

AGREED that subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6


Meeting: 07/07/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 5)

5 19/03624/VAR - Alma Estate, EN3 pdf icon PDF 13 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and the completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions

WARD:  Ponders End

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    Councillor Anolue missed the introduction, and was therefore unable to discuss and vote on the item.

2.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues and additional information provided since the previous deferral.

3.   This application was reported to 21st April Planning Committee when Members deferred consideration largely because of concerns relating to the impact of the proposed development on the Phase 4 site on the amenities of adjoining residents.

4.   Firstly, to refresh Members on the changes proposed through this application to the existing outline planning permission before focusing on the impacts of these changes on the amenities of adjoining residents.

5.   Outline planning permission was granted in 2017 for the redevelopment of the site to provide 993 homes in blocks ranging in height between 2 and 16 storeys. The development was to be taken forward on phased basis.

An outline planning permission sets the parameters within which the development can come forward identifying and key things like build zones, access routes, landscape strategy, the quantum and mix of development etc. It does not fix the detailed design and appearance of buildings.

6.   When the outline planning permission was granted, the Borough’s housing target was moving from 560-798 units per year. The 2019 Intend to Publish London Plan is suggesting a housing target of 1250 units/year. It is in the context of a significant increase in housing demand that schemes are being reviewed to ensure all sites are optimised.

7.   This application seeks to vary the parameters of the outline planning permission. The details of the proposed changes are set out on pages 11 and 12 of the report. Essentially, the proposal is to increase the number of dwellings proposed from 993 to 1086 and in so doing ament the building height parameters of development with Phases 2A and 4.

8.   Following deferral of the application, the applicant has not amended the scheme but has provided additional information to demonstrate the impact of the development now proposed on the amenities of adjoining residents in comparison with the development already consented through the 2017 outline planning permission.

9.   It is recognised that, as with any development, there will be an impact. This impact needs to be balanced against the benefits arising from the scheme. It is Officers view that the impact of the development now proposed has been minimised and this this limited additional impact is outweighed by the benefits that the scheme will deliver in terms of increased housing units , the bringing forward of affordable housing delivery and an overall improvement to the quality of the local environment and public realm.

10. The deputation of John Williams (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

11. The statement of Councillor Doug Taylor, Ponders End Ward Councillor.

12. The statement of Councillor Ayfer Orhan, Ponders End Ward Councillor.

13. The response of Greg Blaquiere, Terence O’Rourke (Agent).

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

15. Members’ concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5


Meeting: 23/06/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 588)

588 19/01941/FUL - Southgate Office Village, 286 Chase Road, London, N14 6HF pdf icon PDF 24 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report and referral of the application to the Mayor of London and no objection being raised, the Head of Planning / Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate

Additional documents:

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    An update report for Members had been published and circulated by email.

2.    A Member site visit had taken place on Saturday 20 June 2020.

3.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues and policy considerations.

4.    There had been a Planning Panel public meeting in January 2020, the notes of which were appended to the officers’ report, and over 1000 comments had been received in respect of this application.

5.    Receipt of objections from Bambos Charalambous Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate and Joanne McCartney, Assembly Member for Enfield and Haringey, as set out in the update report.

6.    Receipt of a further three letters of objection raising concerns including overshadowing, residential amenity, health and safety of school children, air pollution, impact on parking, impact on property values, construction noise, and affect on mental health.

7.    Receipt of one further letter of support in respect of the shortage of housing and need for new homes, especially close to stations.

8.    Further additional conditions in respect of Fire Statement, opaque glazing and window openings, disabled car parking, waste strategy, permitted development, and amalgamation of Condition 13 with Condition 21.

9.    Receipt of a written representation from Denise Gandhi (Southgate Green Association), against the officers’ recommendation, circulated to Members.

10. The deputation of PreenalGondhea (MRICS Chartered Surveyor, member of Southgate District Civic Voice planning group and local resident.) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

11. The deputation of Ralph Kley (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

12. The deputation of Marianne Linden on behalf of residents of Hillside Grove and Park Road speaking against the officers’ recommendation. Without having got permission from the committee, Marianne Linden handed over to Jonathon of 43 Hillside Grove to make part of the deputation.

13. The deputation read out on behalf of Chris Horner (Southgate District Civic Voice - Conservation Advisory Group rep) against the officers’ recommendation.

14. The statement of Councillor Stephanos Ioannou, Southgate Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation

15. The statement of Councillor Charith Gunarwardena, Southgate Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation.

16. The statement of Councillor Derek Levy, Southgate Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation.

17. The statement in response from Holly Mitchell, Simply Planning, agent on behalf of Viewpoint Estates, the applicant.

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

19. The Committee voted unanimously not to support the officers’ recommendation.

20. Councillor Rye’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Boztas, that planning permission be refused on the grounds of height, bulk and massing; affordable housing and the housing mix; impact on the setting of heritage assets; visually intrusive and having a detrimental impact on residential properties.

21. The unanimous support of the Committee for refusal of the application.

 

AGREED that the application be refused for the following reasons.

 

Height, Bulk & Massing

 

The proposed development, due to its height, bulk and massing would result in an intrusive and incongruous form of development which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 588


Meeting: 21/05/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 562)

562 19/04345/RE4 - TENNIS COURTS, BROOMFIELD PARK, BROOMFIELD LANE, LONDON N13 4HE pdf icon PDF 8 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate Green

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    Councillors Boztas and Leaver joined the meeting at this point, and would therefore be able to discuss and vote on the item.

2.    An update report for Members had been published and circulated by email.

3.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues.

4.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers on behalf of Planning and of Parks Services.

5.    A brief adjournment of the meeting at 8:00pm to allow attendees to join in the national clap for carers, key workers and NHS staff.

6.    Members’ concern that evidence was not available in respect of existing or projected usage and need for tennis and netball at the sports courts.

7.    Councillor Rye’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Leaver, that a decision on the application be deferred until information was provided to demonstrate the need for the sports and the hours of operation to support an exceptional case for the floodlighting in this Metropolitan Open Land and historic park.

8.    The support of a majority of the Committee for the application to be deferred: 7 votes for and 3 votes against.

 

AGREED that the application be deferred.