Issue - meetings

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

WARD: Bush Hill Park

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

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

AGREED that the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.That subject to the finalisation of a Section106 to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD: Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Updates to the report had been published and circulated to Members.

3.    The deputation of Tom Clarke from the Theatre Trust.

4.    The deputation of Rebecca Gediking from Save the Intimate Theatre Group.

5.    The response of Jenny Harries, Agent, and Father Mehall Lowry, Applicant.

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

7.    Cllr Boztas enquired about the difference between the application in 2020 and now and whether the hall area was the same. Officers clarified that there was no change, just additional information provided. The proposal provided an uplift of floor space in the hall. It would be a flexible space and more capable of being used for a variety of community uses. It was important to consider this proposal as new and decide based on that information.

8.    Cllr Rye commented that there was nothing in the proposal to allow performances of quality and the marketing on the church website was not sufficient. The design of the proposal added little value and was less attractive than the current one.

9.    Cllr Yusuf commented that he voted against the proposal as he considered it a vandalism against the arts, heritage, and culture of Enfield. The proposal added nothing to the area and the new building was hideous, did not fit into local designs and did not do much for housing needs.

10. Cllr Levy commented that the proposal was policy compliant, and he would like to see articulation of how space would be used rather than just flexible use.

11. In response to Cllr Erbil’s query regarding the application being approved by the committee and the notice not being issued, officers confirmed that following committee when the resolution to grant was made, there was an indication from the Secretary of State that the Theatres Trust called in the application and so we withheld.

12. Cllr Taylor commented that the Parish should be allowed to do things on its own land for its own interest. It was disappointing that the applicant gave little regard to the heritage of the site. If the committee agreed, then the historic assets should be removed and reserved.

13. Cllr Rye suggested it would be useful for officers to explain how the loss of facilities could be made in exceptional circumstances. Officers clarified that the building was not designated as a heritage asset, and retaining features was difficult to do. Section 9.54 in the report clarified what was required and how applications were assessed.

14. In response to Cllr Levy’s question, officers confirmed Members were free to decide based on the information available to them in the updated report. The demolition relates to the community hall rather than the theatre hall. If the committee proceeded with a refusal, we will look at the reasons.

15. Cllr Taylor expressed concerns regarding loss of heritage assets in the borough and officers offered an assessment if there were specific elements they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be Grantedsubject to conditions.

WARD: Southgate

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.    In accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country General regulate 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to conditions:

2.    That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Changes were made to the following conditions:

·         Condition 13 – Boundary treatments to specify acoustic performance.

·         Condition 19 – Update to wording; requirements for Remediation Verification Strategy.

·         Condition 30 – Updated to state 80% of dwellings to meet Building Regulations M4 (2).

      Additional conditions covering Secure by Design, NRMM, Ventilation details & Acoustic report.

3.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

4.    Members comments/queries as follows:

·         The scheme was a significant improvement on what was there before.

·         A much better use-age.

·         There would be a CIL contribution and was applicable. Relief would also be able to be applied for.

·         Clarification that boundary treatment alongside Barrowell Green would be a vegetative acoustic barrier for noise and appearance.

·         In terms of emergency access, tracking had been provided and a turning head. Officers were satisfied that emergency vehicles can access the site from different locations.

5.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that:

1.  In accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed Granted subject to conditions.

2.  That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the recommendation section of the report.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.    That subject to the referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and the completion of matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning or the Head of Development Management be a planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management/ Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated a heads of terms and agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommend report.

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Officers advised than an additional condition was proposed to be added to the recommendation regarding details of levels and access road and junction to serve the development.

3.    There was also a proposed update to the heads of terms for the Section 106 Agreement clarifying that the contribution towards sustainable transport measures, would now include a footway crossing over Station Road as referred to at para 9.10.9 of the report.

4.    The deputation of Councillor Daniel Anderson, Southgate Green Ward Councillor.

5.    The response of Alice Cutter (Senior Architect).

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

7.    Officers noted the committee’s concerns and comments including construction traffic management plan condition, the viability of the scheme, clarity of what type of trees to be retained, the number of trees to be re-planted & guarantee that the number of 59 trees would not fall below this figure, trees planted in communal spaces and if these were safe for residents of the new scheme, pollution and noise levels impacting the scheme by the North Circular Road, heritage impacts on Alexandra Palace and Broomfield House, sunlight and daylight regarding the nearby park and that any shadows cast by the scheme would only be early morning, the CPZ in the area would have the hours of operation looked at by officers and future residents  would not be eligible for CPZ permits, contamination of the site to be further conditioned for assurance, the scheme would include a variety of fire suppressors i.e. a water and gas system, there would be a variety of play spaces offered by the scheme for differing ages, requirement of more socially rented properties and family sized homes, costs of the development and the inclusion of the number of supporting comments as well as the number of objections, for all applications.

8.    During the debate, it was agreed that an additional condition would be included requiring that a heritage information board to be displayed on site capturing the former use of the site / gasometer. This was proposed to be covered at Condition 37.

9.    It was also agreed that the minimum number of trees to be replanted would not be less than 59 and this would be stipulated in Condition 6

10. Following a discussion on financial contributions, it was confirmed by Officers that a financial contribution of £53,000 would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement towards projects for Millennium Green. Although there was mention of an increase in the financial contribution towards projects on Millennium Green to £90k, this was not subject to a formal motion put to the Planning Committee.

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

AGREED that:

1.    That subject to the referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and the completion of a Section 106 to secure the matters covered in the report at Points 2 & 3 above and the sum of £53,000  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

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

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

3.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments including construction traffic management plan condition, trees, costs of the development and the inclusion of the number of support comments as well as the number of objections, for all applications.

4.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that:

1.  In accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed Granted subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant conditional planning permission.

WARD:  Bush Hill Park

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.      A scheme of this nature would normally be dealt with under delegated authority however the application is being reported to planning committee because it was called in by Councillor Clare De Silva.

3.      The application was considered by the Planning Committee on 22 June 2021. The application was deferred by Members in order to obtain more information regarding the justification for the loss of the tennis courts and how the money from the development will be invested in the facilities by the club. There was also a request for improved visuals to better understand the relationship of the development to the street scene which have been received.

4.      The application site is an area of open space that comprises two tennis courts located between 23 and 35 Abbey Road, located within the Bush Hill Park Conservation Area.

5.      The proposal would result in the loss of two existing tennis courts currently used by the Bush Hill Park Tennis and Social Club to accommodate the proposed sub-division and development of the application site to provide two buildings consisting of 8 residential units. An access road would provide access to the rear of the site.

6.      Members were advised that the existing and proposed plans had been updated to show the existing streetlight column located along Abbey Road which is proposed to remain. The Traffic and Transportation and Street Lighting teams have raised no concerns with the positioning of the streetlight column and the proposed development.

7.      The original committee report refers to the supporting information that was provided by the applicant and sets out that 2 of the courts have been sporadically used over the past 5 years, are only able to be used 6 months of the year and require constant maintenance and watering; 5 courts are disused at present, 5 of the courts are proposed to be upgraded and the revenue for the sale of the tennis courts will be used to pay for improvements to the remaining tennis courts. The Lawn Tennis Association raised no objection to the scheme and Sport England recognise that although the loss of the two courts is not ideal, the improvements to the remaining facilities would meet Sport England’s enhance principles to support improvements to existing sport and physical activity provision where they are needed. No adverse noise implications will be generated by the proposed development and this is supported by the Environmental Health Officer. Improvements to the courts on the application site and adjacent to the site are identified within the council’s Enfield Playing Pitch Strategy.

8.      Following the June planning committee, an updated written representation from the Bush Hill Park Bowls Tennis and Social Club was circulated to members which included information on membership numbers. It identified that the highest proportion of tennis members were under the age of 11. The document sets out that they work closely with the local community to encourage membership of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

RECOMMENDATION:  The Reserved Matters application be APPROVED subject to conditions, with delegated authority granted to the Head of Development Management and/or Planning Decisions Manager to agree the final wording of conditions and that conditions 29, 63, 65, 86, 71 and 73 be discharged.

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.    Condition 4 would not be required as it had been included in the outline permission.

3.    Clarification of paragraph 9.1.10 of the report – there would be 129 car spaces proposed and not 131.

4.    Clarification of paragraph 9.4.5 of the report – confirmation of 5% visitor parking.

5.    The deputation of Matt Burn (Local Resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

6.    The response of Sara Parkinson (Vistry Partnership) as the applicant.

7.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

8.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments.

9.    The support of the majority of the committee with 7 votes for, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

AGREED that the:

1.  Reserved Matters application be Approved subject to conditions, with delegated authority granted to the Head of Development Management and/or Planning Decisions Manager to agree the final wording of conditions and that conditions 29, 63, 65, 86, 71 and 73 be discharged.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.  That the updates set out in this report be noted

2   That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Management /Planning Decisions Manager to finalise conditions, the Design Code and the shadow section 106 Agreement heads of terms

3 That the application be referred to the Greater London Authority (GLA) and that the authority be given for the Council to enter into a section 106 legal agreement with any subsequent/non-Council landowner.

4 That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be given

delegated authority to grant conditional planning permission subject to:

i) The inclusion of any changes requested by the GLA in their stage 2 referral and/or government body.

ii) Prior to the decision being issued after consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition lead on the materiality of any changes arising from any other development plan document or any new/altered other material planning consideration.

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.     This application was brought before Planning Committee in March 2020 when Members resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a draft S106 Agreement to secure certain obligations as set out in the report. This is an important consideration to note and must be given significant weight.

3.     The planning application and proposal considered at that meeting and now had not changed. The adoption of the new London Plan has not altered or introduced new maters to be considered or changed the basis on which the application was assessed and determined to be acceptable.

4.     What had changed and why the report is before the committee this evening, is the manner in which the affordable housing baseline is referenced in the draft S106 Agreement. This change is necessary in order to ensure the maximum amount of affordable housing can be delivered through this development and that grant funding necessary to get to 40% provision is not put at risk.

5.    In summary:

·         The application had not changed since it was originally considered in March 2020. The maximum amount affordable housing that can delivered without grant remains at 28%, with grant 40%. The GLA remain committed to providing grant funding to deliver 40%

·         The change to the approach to referencing the affordable housing baseline threshold is a response to changes in grant funding provisions

·         The change is necessary in order to ensure affordable housing delivery is not prejudiced by an inability to access the grant necessary to deliver 40%.

·         All other elements of the development considered and accepted by Members remain unchanged

6.     Members were reminded that the application still needs to be referred to the Mayor post this Committees resolution .

7.    The deputation of Mira Glavardanov speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

8.    The response of Peter George (Programme Director – Meridian Water) as the applicant.

9.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

10. Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments:

11. The support of the majority of the committee with 8 votes for and 4 abstentions.

AGREED that the:

1.   That the updates set out in the report be noted

2.   That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Management /Planning Decisions Manager to finalise conditions, the Design Code and the shadow section 106 Agreement heads of terms.

3.   That the application be referred to the Greater London Authority (GLA) and that the authority be given for the Council to enter into a section 106 legal agreement with any subsequent/non-Council landowner.

4.   That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be given delegated authority to grant conditional planning permission subject to:

·         The inclusion of any changes requested by the GLA in their stage 2 referral and/or government body.

·         Prior to the decision being issued after consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition lead on the materiality of any changes arising from any other development plan document or any new/altered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

RECOMMENDATION:  That a positive Certificate be issued under section 17(1)(a) of Part III of the Land Compensation Act 1961, as amended by Part 9 of the Localism Act 2011, indicating that in the Local Planning Authority’s opinion there is development, for the purposes of section 14 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 that is appropriate in relation to the acquisition and that planning permission would have been granted, subject to the conditions detailed below in this report, for development comprising of:

• 2x 1bed self-contained units (1 unit within each roof space) and erection of dormer

windows and skylights.

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Joseph McKee, Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.  Two applications made under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and seek a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) to establish what planning permissions, if any, would have been granted had the Site not been acquired compulsorily by the Council in 2017.

3.  The first proposal (referred to as Application A) is for the conversion of the roof space of each block to create 4 x 1-bedroom units (2x1 bedroom units in each roof space). To facilitate the conversion, associated works are proposed in the form of hip to gable roof extensions, the construction of front and rear dormers at roof level, plus the reconfiguration of the external staircase, to facilitate access to the upper floor flats.

4.  The second proposal (referred to as Application B)  seeks to establish if planning permission would have been granted for the alteration of the roof space of each block to create 2 x 2-bedroom units (1 unit in each roof space). To facilitate the conversion, the proposal includes the constructions of dormers, reconfiguration of the access stairs internally and inclusion of rooflights.

5.  Both Applications A and B would have resulted in poor quality accommodation for future occupiers. In addition, the alterations and extension to the roof of the blocks in Application A would have resulted in a dominant an incongruous form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, in overall terms, the proposals would not have met the social and environmental objectives of sustainable development, having regard to the NPPF. The proposals, would therefore, have been considered to be unacceptable.

6.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

7.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments.

8.     During the debate, it was AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10pm) be suspended for a period of 15 minutes to enable the business of the agenda to be completed.

9.     Members first vote was for the committee to confirm whether they agreed with Officers’ that planning permission would not have been granted for the development comprising 4 x 1 bedroom self-contained flats in the roof space or 2 x 2 bedroom self-contained flats in the roof space.

10.  The unanimous support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation regarding applications A & B, that planning permission would not have been granted.

11.  Members second vote regarding the third recommendation; would the committee have granted planning permission for a 1bedroom flat in each block and if planning permission was granted then the committee are agreeing with the overall recommendation to grant a positive Certificate.

If the committee would not have granted planning permission for 2 x 1 bedroom flats then the committee are voting against the officers’ recommendation.

12.  The majority of the committee did not support the 3^rd option and overall officer recommendation: 11 votes for and 1 abstention.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning or the Head of Development Management be authorised to Grant planning permission and Listed Building consent subject to conditions.conditions.

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Allison De Marco, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.     An update report had been circulated to Members, including additional representations received since the Main Report was published. Officers considered no substantial new issues had arisen but given the length of the representations, and for clarity, Officers had responded to objections by referring to sections in the Main Report that assessed the matters raised. A verbal update on additional representations: a petition had been re-circulated by Bowes Road residents group, this petition has been previously circulated to members and considered and address in the Main Report at Section 6; and no objection from the twentieth century society.

3.     The Planning Decision Manager explained the applications under consideration had been listed on the agenda for consideration on 24 November 2020 and had been withdrawn from consideration by officers. Officers reviewed representations received in the lead-up to the 24 November 2020 and several omissions. Officers were confident the issues raised in the representations had been fully considered.

4.    The deputation of Henry Grala (Local resident) speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

5.    The deputation of Peter Gibbs (Federation of Enfield Residents & Allied Associations) speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

6.    The deputation of Virginia Knox (Local resident) speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

7.    The statement of the Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP (Chipping Barnet).

8.     The statement of Councillor Roberto Weeden-Sanz, Brunswick Park Ward (LB of Barnet).

9.     The statement of Councillor Daniel Anderson, Southgate Green Ward Councillor.

10. The response of Lee Campbell (Transport for London) on behalf of the applicant.

11. The response of Richard Lavington (Scheme Architect) on behalf of the applicant.

12. The response of Rebecca Crow (Grainger PLC) on behalf of the applicant.

13. Members lengthy debate and questions responded to by officers.

14. Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments:

·         Arnos Grove car park is popular with local residents due to the regularity of the Piccadilly line service which provides a level of safety for single people travelling late at night. There is an issue here in terms of meeting the standards of the Equality Act.

·         The application involves a Grade 2 listed building and block BD 01 (east side) obscures views of the drum.

·         Both sides of the car park are small and this was an overdevelopment which is to be crammed into the space. The intended blocks, ranging from 4 to 7 storeys in height would impact Arnos Park, the surrounding area, the listed arches and would change the character of the area.

·         The social housing is not affordable to people of an average income in Enfield. Concern that the proposed secure tenancy of 1 – 5 years would not be meeting the needs of those less well off and vulnerable in the borough.

·         Point 6.62 of the report showed that the needs of new people, in terms of health provision is being overlooked. There was nothing in then report to tackle additional medical services.

·         The proposed new drop off point  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the recommendations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement be authorised to Grantplanning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Comments received today from the Greater London Authority’s Culture at Risk Office. The comments were advice only and no objection was raised to the scheme. The comments confirmed that the building had been added to the Culture at Risk register. In summary, it was the view of the Culture at Risk Office that the retention of the historic Intimate Theatre presented an opportunity to safeguard a valuable and historic cultural asset, for the benefit of the local community. The proposals for a mixed-use flexible community space as a reprovision of this asset limited the potential for theatre production and did not match the same quality of dedicated theatre space that currently existed.

3.    Additional conditions were suggested to ensure there were no significant impacts on existing and future residents during and after construction including: a scheme to deal with any contamination on the site, requiring certain non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) to comply with a certain level of emission standards, air quality assessment, sound insulation details, specific hours for the delivery of construction and demolition materials, obscure glazing the side kitchen windows at first and second floor level, the flat roof to be used for maintenance purposes only and details of communal amenity space to be provided including the management of the communal amenity spaces.

4.    The deputation of Tom Clarke on behalf of Theatres Trust.

5.    The deputation of Warren McWilliams and Rebecca Gediking on behalf of Save The Intimate Theatre Group.

6.    The response of Colin Smart (Agent) and Father Mehall Lowry (Applicant).

7.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers. Confirmation was provided that there would be no permanent stage in the new facility. Father Mehall Lowry confirmed recent usage for theatre shows as a maximum of three per year for one week each. It was advised that the condition in respect of heritage and original building features could be strengthened, and a condition could be added to require details of availability of the hall to the wider community.

8.  The support of a majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation with additional conditions as discussed: 7 votes for, 1 vote against, and 4 abstentions.

AGREED that subject to the recommendations set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and amended and additional conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the recommendations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grantplanning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    One additional letter of objection had been received.

3.    The deputation of Mrs Margaret Georgious, neighbouring resident.

4.    The response of James Engel (agent).

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

6.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments including the intensification of use, parking and traffic issues in the immediate area including parking on pavements and access to and from the Meadway, noise and disturbance issue intensification, the report had not addressed concerns by deputee and that the extractor ventilation unit, seen from nearby residential properties, would impact the nearest residential properties.

7.    Councillor Rye’s proposal that a decision be deferred until further information is received about parking, clarification of use and clarity surrounding the impact of the extractor facility on nearby residents was seconded by Councillor Maria Alexandrou and supported by the majority of the committee with 7 votes for and 5 against.

AGREED that a decision on the application be deferred for the following reasons:

·         To enable further review of the proposal in light of the existing parking situation.

·         To check the relationship of the extractor ventilation plant to the nearest residential properties.

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

WARD:  Town

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Planning permission had been granted last year by the planning committee for a single storey rear extension currently under construction. The applicant now seeks to regularise the addition of a canopy to the rear of the property which was added without planning permission.

3.    Members commented that this was a standard application that would normally have been dealt with under delegated powers. There had not been any objections by residents and the committee were happy to approve.

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

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

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:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The deputation of Tom Vass (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

3.    The response of Rachel Banford (Agent).

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

5.    Members concern in relation to the proposed floodlights to the MUGA and that retractable floodlights should be considered, access arrangements to the development, comments of the SUDS officer, Bio-diversity of the MUGA concerning badgers and bats within the vicinity and security lighting around the development.

6.  The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 10 votes for.

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed granted subject to conditions and to revisions to conditions.

Note:  

·         Amendment to Condition 29 to include reference to automatic turn off of floodlights.

·         Condition 8 – Landscape condition to include full planting/maintenance details.

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:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.    This item was adjourned to the next meeting on 1 September 2020, due to time constraints, and not heard.

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

NOTED

1.    Councillor Alexandrou withdrew from the Committee for this item.

2.    Councillors Anolue and Hasan were present from this point of the meeting.

3.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the additional information in the addendum report.

4.   The application site is located to the south of Alderman’s Hill. It falls within Broomfield Park which is a Grade II registered park, and consists of 9 sports courts. The site is also identified as local open space, metropolitan open land, and a site of archaeological interest.

5.   Planning permission is sought by the Council, for the refurbishment of 9 Sports courts, involving resurfacing and partial reconstruction of the courts, installation of low level footpath bollard lighting from the entrance at Alderman's Hill to the courts, and installation of floodlighting.

6.   The application was brought to Planning Committee on 21st May 2020. The application was deferred by Members to obtain more information regarding existing and projected usage of the courts, to demonstrate the need for the floodlighting on Metropolitan Open Land and within the historic park and the benefits of the proposal to the local community, and this additional information is clearly set out in the addendum report.

7.   With regard to the usage of the courts by local schools, there are a number of local schools within the borough such as West Lea School (N9) and Grange Park Prep School (N21) that use the courts as well as others schools that fall outside of the borough, which raises no planning concerns.

8.    The need for the improvements to the existing courts and proposed floodlights is clear and justified. The proposal would assist with increasing the participation of people playing netball and tennis in the Borough and meeting the Councils strategy and objectives for the sports courts at Broomfield Park and the wider community.

9.    Receipt of 443 representations in support of the application from residents, the wider netball community, and local councillors: many addressed to Bambos Charalambous MP, and a petition received today.

In summary, matters raised include:

·         Immediate and positive impact for maintaining netball in the park

·         Improved facilities including the provision of floodlights would increase the uptake in the usage of the courts for both tennis and netball for people across all age groups, abilities and ethnic backgrounds.

·         Provides income for the community café and other local businesses.

·         Without the floodlights and the refurbishment of the netball courts there would be a real danger that netball will no longer be played in the park and the viability of the North London Netball League.

·         There are football pitches, rugby pitches, tennis courts, basketball courts and skateboarding facilities in many parks around the Enfield area, but these are the only netball facilities in the borough. They are a central part of the netball community in Enfield and north London.

·         Important for health and well-being and social cohesion.

10.   The courts have been identified as requiring significant improvement. The proposal will include resurfacing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

RECOMMENDATION:  That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant deemed consent subject to conditions.

WARD:  Lower Edmonton

NOTED

1.    It was confirmed that Councillor Bedekova had re-joined the meeting.

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.

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

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

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant deemed consent subject to the conditions set out in the report.