RECOMMENDATION: That had the power to determine the planning application remained with the local planning authority, planning permission would have been Grantedsubject to conditions.
1. The introduction by James Clark, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposal and the differences between the previously refused application and this proposal, and confirming the receipt of 9 letters of objection.
2. If the Committee was minded to approve the application, additional conditions were recommended regarding wheelchair accessibility and parking layout.
3. Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.
4. The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation: 6 votes against and 6 abstentions.
5. Members’ discussion of appropriate reasons for refusal of planning permission.
6. A motion proposed by Councillor Rye, seconded by Councillor Alexandrou, that planning permission be refused for a reason relating to scale, bulk and massing and out of keeping with the properties on either side was supported by majority of the committee, 10 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.
AGREED that had the power to determine the planning application remained with the local planning authority, planning permission would have been refused, for the reason below:
The proposal, by virtue of its excessive scale, inappropriate design and overall appearance, would result in an out of keeping development in the street scene and prevailing character in the location. As such, the development is contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan (2016), Policy CP30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD 6, DMD 8 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (2014).
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
1. The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.
2. The deputation of Jerry Avenell on behalf of neighbouring residents, against the recommendation.
3. The statement of Councillor Andy Milne, Grange Ward Councillor, against the recommendation.
4. The response by Robert Kadiu, the applicant.
5. Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.
6. Members’ concerns and discussion on a number of points regarding the incongruous form of the terraced dwellings, the size and form of the proposal leading to overdevelopment and the impact on the character of the area.
7. A motion proposed by Councillor Rye, seconded by Councillor Alexandrou, that planning permission be refused for reasons relating to overdevelopment and the terraced form, how it was set in the street scene and out of keeping with the surrounding area, was supported by majority of the committee, 11 votes for and 1 abstention.
AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reason below.
The proposed terrace of three dwellings due to their size, siting and design, would result in an overdevelopment of this site and would represent an inappropriate and incongruous form of development, out of keeping with and detrimental to the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies DMD 6, 7, 8 and 37 of the adopted Development Management Document (2014), Policy CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policy 3.5 of the adopted London Plan (2016) and Policy D4 of the Publication London Plan (2020).