Issue - meetings

20/

Meeting: 22/09/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 6.)

6. 20/02127/FUL - Car Park South Of Wharf Road Enfield EN3 4TW pdf icon PDF 4 MB

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Ponders End


Meeting: 01/09/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 6)

6 20/01021/FUL - ARK John Keats Academy 52 Bell Lane EN3 5PA pdf icon PDF 44 MB

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Enfield Highway

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.   The principle of the replacement building and associated alterations to the site are appropriate given their size, form and detailed design. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance upon the school buildings or the wider area and would protect the openness of the land designated as MOL.

3.   The temporary siting of accommodation on the tennis courts is considered appropriate and would protect the openness of the land designated as MOL.

4.   The 3-storey replacement building, by virtue of its size, location and proximity would not harm the amenity of occupying and neighbouring residents.

5.   The proposal would not cause any unacceptable harm upon highway safety or the flow of traffic in the locality.

6.   The design and construction of the proposal would have appropriate regard to environmental sustainability issues including energy and water conservation, renewable energy generation, and efficient resource use.

7.   The proposal would replace where required and protect trees of amenity and biodiversity value.

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

9.  The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 9 votes for. Councillor Anolue was unable to cast her vote.

 

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and amendment to condition.

 

Note: Members requested that the condition on replacement planting specifies 20 trees.

 

 


Meeting: 04/08/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 9)

9 20/01021/FUL - ARK John Keats Academy 52 Bell Lane EN3 5PA pdf icon PDF 44 MB

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Enfield Highway

Minutes:

NOTED

 

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

 


Meeting: 07/07/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 9)

9 20/01084/FUL - 36 Holtwhites Hill, Enfield, EN2 0RX pdf icon PDF 8 MB

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

WARD: Town

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and the site’s planning history.

2.   This application relates to a planning proposal for: Two storey side and rear extension including roof extension and two front and three rear dormers, and relocation of front bay windows to existing House in Multiple Occupation to increase the accommodation from nine rooms with shared facilities plus one self-contained one bedroom flat to twenty one rooms over three floors with shared facilities at no 36 Holwhites Hill.

3.   The proposal is to increase the quantity of accommodation. Currently the site provides accommodation for up to 20 residents. Proposal is to extend to provide accommodation for up to 37 residents

4.   The facts in this case relate back to a decision of a Council to refuse planning permission for bulkier but relatively similar scheme at the site submitted in 2015 for:

·         Two storey side extension, two storey rear extension and roof extension to existing House in Multiple Occupation to increase the accommodation from nine rooms with shared facilities plus one self-contained one bedroom flat to twenty one rooms over three floors with shared facilities

Planning permission was refused by the Council for:

ii)    resulting in an over-intensive HMO use of  the site.

ii)    The overall size, bulk in particular in respect of the roof design would appear overly        dominant, visually intrusive and out of keeping in the street scene.

iii)   Over intensive use and density of development proposed, that would result in a level        of activity, noise and general disturbance which will have detrimental impact on        amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.

iv)   The proposed development fails to demonstrate adequate and safe access arrangements, adequate levels of parking provision, servicing and cycle parking arrangements commensurate with the more intensive use proposed, leading to an        unacceptable parking demand on the local highway network and conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic.

The applicants appealed against the Council’s decision.

5. Whilst the appeal was dismissed the Planning Inspector made it clear that they did not uphold the Council’s arguments in respect of:

i)  PP was refused by the Council for being an over intensive overdevelopment   of the    site

ii)  Over intensive use of the site for HMO purposes

iii)  Poor access arrangements in relation to highways safety

6.  However, the Inspector did uphold the Council’s concern in respect of the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, in particular, concerns with regard to the scale and bulk of the roof design.

7.   In 2017 a further planning application was made which sought to respond to the concerns that were raised by the Planning Inspector in respect of the roof design.  This scheme was granted planning permission.  This scheme is very similar to the scheme presently before Members.  However, that permission has now expired, and the applicants are now seeking permission again.

8.      So, in relation to the issues upon which we went to appeal from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9