Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION: That subject to 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

NOTED

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

2.     The application was brought back to committee following deferral at 15th December 2020 meeting to allow consultation with Ward Councillors to be undertaken.

3.     The Regeneration Team undertook direct consultation with Ward Councillors, with 2 meetings taking place. It is understood Councillors wanted reassurance that thorough consideration had been given to how the medical centre, youth centre and community centre would operate, and that the proposal would not lead to a situation where any of the functions couldn’t operate properly.

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

5.    The response of Greg Blaquiere (Agent) on behalf of the applicant.

6.    Members lengthy debate and questions responded to by Officer’.

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

·         Traffic concerns in the Spur and Du Jardin Mews.

·         Inadequate consultation with residents with only 47 letters sent to surrounding residents.

·         Previous planning permission granted allocated parking spaces and no proviso now to re-visit parking allocations.

·         Why was planning permission granted to Medical Centre as its use- age was not appropriate for this site.

·         Request by the committee to officers to look at parking spaces for medical centre on the roadside (Woodhall Road) close to the surgery.

8.  Motion to defer the application by Councillor Taylor, seconded by Councillor Rye. To explore the possibility of alternative additional parking spaces in other locations including Woodhall Road to ensure that the Medical Centre can operate.

9.  The unanimous support of the committee to defer the application for the reasons given.

AGREED that a decision on the application be deferred to allow officers to explore if there were any alternative parking facilities that could be utilised to support the medical practice, either in total or by minimising the use of the approved community uses spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: That temporary planning permission and advertising consent be Grantedsubject to the conditions.

WARD: Upper Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

3.  The support of the majority of the committee with 11 votes for and 1 against.

AGREED that temporary planning permission and advertising consent be granted subject to the conditions for a period of 15 years.

RECOMMENDATION: Notwithstanding any direction from the Mayor of London to the contrary, that planning permission be Granted, subject to conditions and a S106 legal agreement.

WARD: Enfield Highway

NOTED

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

2.    Receipt of additional letters of objection including email from Councillor Christine Hamilton (Enfield Highway Ward Councillor).

3.    The deputee raised a request, also emailed to the Chair from Councillor Hamilton to defer a decision due to inadequate public consultation. Officers confirmed that correct processes had been followed and the Chair confirmed that consideration of the application at this meeting would continue.

4.    The deputation of Sam Nanji on behalf of Green Street residents.

5.    The response of Gill Eaton (Agent) and Jamie Narborough (Transport Consultant) on behalf of the applicant.

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

7.    Officers noted the committee’s concerns and comments including request for more details on the mix of units, the proposed car parking arrangements in the area, industrial land management, and particular concerns regarding the adequacy of consultation given the low response from the local community in light of Councillor Hamilton’s concerns.

8.  Councillor Rye’s proposal that a decision be deferred for further consultation was seconded by Councillor Anolue and supported unanimously by the committee.

AGREED that a decision on the application be deferred to undertake further consultation with local community on the proposed scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to S106 Agreement and Conditions.

WARD: Cockfosters

NOTED

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

2.    Changes to conditions 3 and 21 concerning the re-wording to secure the format of the housing units to clearly state the housing mix of units and the provision of communal satellite and cable equipment.

3.    The statement of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou against the officers’ recommendation.

4.    The response of Nick Makasis (Agent).

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

6.    The committee’s concerns and comments included the following: clarification of the difference in height and width of the development from the approved application which now included two additional units, the contribution by the applicant for offsite affordable housing, the number of trees lost to the development and if new trees would be planted, if the 2 new units would have sufficient daylight/sunlight and amenity space and the loss of green space to car parking provision.

7.  The Chair’s proposal that a decision on the application be deferred to review the contribution to offsite affordable housing, to review the standard of accommodation in the two proposed additional units in terms of daylight and sunlight, to review the level of amenity space for the two additional units proposed and to review the number of replacement trees proposed, was seconded by Councillor Daniel Anderson and supported by the majority of the committee with 11 votes for and 1 against.

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

·         to review the contribution to offsite affordable housing

·         to review the standard of accommodation in the two proposed additional units in terms of daylight and sunlight

·         to review the level of amenity space for the two additional units proposed

·         to review the number of replacement trees proposed

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Ponders End

NOTED

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

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

3.    The committee’s concerns and comments included the following:

·         The loss of 1 mature tree and replacement of 3 saplings was not sufficient and more trees were needed to soften what will be a hard standing for vehicles.

·         Had a noise assessment been done regarding operational vehicles servicing the industrial area.

·         Would there be enough flood mitigation measures. Could more be done with hedging and more landscaping to prevent flooding.

·         The development was a re-provision of an existing car park.

·         Traffic generation by the 100 workers on site.

·         More cycle spaces required to encourage workers, not travelling to the site by car, to cycle.

4.    Members’ noted the offer by the applicant to increase the number of trees being re-provided and this will be reflected in Condition 5.

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

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the addition to Condition 5.

Note: Addition to Condition 5.

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Enfield Highway

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.

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Enfield Highway

NOTED

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

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

WARD: Town

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