Issue - meetings

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

WARD: Upper Edmonton

Please see the links below to the public register for item 7 – drawings will be amongst the documents

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QELIENJNI5O00

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QELIFFJNI5P00

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Joseph McKee, Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals for both applications for a temporary redevelopment of the site for as a film studio’s and the temporary installation of 3 externally illuminated signs and one internally for a period of 2 years.

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

3.    Members concern regarding condition 22 and to limit the sound to 110 dB.

4.    The unanimous support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation regarding both applications.

AGREED that temporary planning permission and advertising consent be Granted subject to the conditions.

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

WARD: Cockfosters

NOTED

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

2.    The statement of Cllr Alessandro Georgiou, Cockfosters Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation.

3.    The response by Stuart Lees (Alan Cox Associates – Agent).

4.    The deputation of Kevin Robinson (local resident).

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

6.    Members discussion on the merits of the scheme in terms of its scale, additional mass, bulk and design.

7.    The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation with 1 vote for, 7 against and 4 abstentions.

8.    The majority of the committee supported refusal of the application with 10 votes for and 2 against.

AGREED that the application be refused for the reasons given below:

·         The proposed development by reason of the unsympathetic design, would result in an incongruous and discordant form of development, out of keeping with and detrimental to the traditional suburban character and appearance of the surrounding area, as well as the visual amenities of the surrounding area and neighbouring occupiers. This is considered contrary to Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD6, DMD7, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

·         The proposed development by reason of its excessive size, scale and bulk, would be a dominant, obtrusive and overbearing form of development detrimental to the appearance of the property and resulting  in discordant and demonstrable harm to the open, spacious, and suburban character and the appearance of the site when viewed from neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore fails to respect the pattern of development that characterises the surrounding area and in this regard the proposed development would constitute an unacceptable form of back land development that would be contrary to Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD6, DMD7, DMD8 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).