Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the obligations set out in this report, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Lower Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.    An update report had been circulated to Members and published online.

3.    Receipt of further representations from the Campaign for Real Ale.

4.    The condition in respect of the green roof would be updated in respect of the green wall.

5.    That the application street address did not align with the post code was noted.

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

7.  Members’ ongoing concerns, and discussion of appropriate reasons for refusal of planning permission.

8.  A motion proposed by Councillor Anderson, seconded by Councillor Alexandrou, that planning permission be refused for reasons in relation to parking, traffic and access to public transport; design, height and quality of residential space; the setting of the development in the surrounding area; and failure to provide an appropriate amount of affordable housing was unanimously supported by the committee.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

01. The proposed development, due to its height, scale, bulk and massing together with the inadequate provision of green spaces and play spaces would result in an intrusive and incongruous form of development which represents an inappropriately visually prominent and overly dominant form of development that fails to integrate satisfactorily with its surroundings. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to the appearance and character of the surrounding contrary to Policies D3, D4, D6, G5 and G7 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD 9, DMD37, DMD 73, DMD 80 and DMD81 of the Development Management Document (2014).

02. The proposed development, by reason of the inadequate quantum of on-site parking taking into account the poor accessibility to public transport and other non-vehicle infrastructure, would result in a more intensive use of the site and would lead to an increase in traffic, on street parking and conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic, cyclists and pedestrians using the adjoining highways. As such the development is contrary to Policy T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP25 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD45 and DMD47 of the Development Management Document (2014).

03. The proposed development, fails to provide an appropriate amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough having regard to the requirements of Policy CP3 of the Council's adopted local plan. The development of this site would therefore fail to contribute appropriately to the supply of affordable housing in the borough, contrary to Policy H5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD1 of the Development Management Document (2014).

04. The proposed development, due to the lack of trees and soft landscaping would result in a form of development that would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the application site and wider area. This would be contrary to Policies D3, D4, D6, G5 and G7 of the London  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

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

2.    The deputation of Toby Clarke (Neighbouring Resident) against the Officers’ recommendation.

3.    The deputation of Michael Donegan (Neighbouring Resident) against the Officers’ recommendation.

4.    The statement of Councillor Andy Milne, Grange Ward Councillor

5.    The response of Simon Warner (Agent).

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

7.  The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation: 1 vote for, 8 against and 2 abstentions.

8.  Members’ discussion of appropriate reasons for refusal of planning permission.

9.  A motion proposed by Councillor Rye, seconded by Councillor Taylor, that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         Notwithstanding the requirements of the NPPF and the need to have regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is considered the proposed development, involving the creation of three flats, by reason of the intensity of occupation of the site and the original plot of which it once formed a part, would constitute an overdevelopment of the site that would be out of keeping with, and would harm the established residential character of the area, contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy CP20 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD5 and DMD37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and the Enfield Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2015).

·         The proposed development, by virtue of insufficient provision of

private amenity space would result in sub-standard accommodation

and be harmful to the amenities of future occupiers, contrary to Policy

3.5 of the London Plan 2016, Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield

Core Strategy (2010), and Policy DMD8 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014).

was unanimously supported by the committee.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reasons given above.

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

WARD:  Town

NOTED

1.    The introduction by James Clark, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The deputation of John Boulton (Local Resident) against the Officers’ recommendation.

3.    The response of Alex Houghton (Applicant).

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

5.    During the discussion, it was agreed to amend C13 (CEMP) to restrict delivery times to outside of school drop off / pick up times in the interests of traffic movements and highway / pedestrian safety.

6.    The support of the majority of the committee for the Officers’ recommendation with 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

AGREED that upon completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions.