Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1. That subject to the finalisation of a Section 106 to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The deputation of Councillor Andy Milne speaking as Grange Ward Councillor.

3.    The response of Jay Ahluwalia (Dominvs) and Nick Grant (Iceni Projects).

4.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

5.    Councillor Rye had a number of concerns regarding the application including the low affordable housing figure which was way below the expectation of the Local Authority and the Mayor of London, there would be substantial damage to the Conservation area, close proximity to the New River is a challenge, the loss of 5 pine trees which currently softens the site and no clear planting scheme to soften the appearance and improve what is being proposed, unresolved issues of roof top plant equipment which is unsightly in a Conservation Area, the spacing in between the 2 proposed blocks was insufficient and the under provision of disabled parking spaces.

Being a car free development didn’t mean that people living on the development won’t have any cars and people would be parking just outside of the CPZ which is 5 minutes away. This would need to be resolved for this application to move forward. A further concern highlighted was inadequate play space. There were many reasons to refuse this application. Andy Higham clarified that whilst this was brownfield site and the proposed development is in a Conservation area. Looking at the harm regarding the development, the advice received is less than substantial and the impacts needs to be weighed up by members to see if any reasons for refusal against the benefits this proposal would bring in terms of housing delivery.

Through negotiation with the applicant, the quantum of development has had to be reduced which had put pressure on the scheme viability. Officers had worked with the developer and applicant to ensure that affordable housing units are focussed on the larger family units at London affordable rent levels.

The conclusions around heritage is that those public benefits do outweigh the areas of concern and were not so sufficient to justify a refusal on those grounds.

The tree officer had been consulted and had confirmed that he had no objection and supported the removal of trees. There was also a condition for replacement planting.

The rooftop plant concern would be dealt with by condition with further condition to seek to ensure that satellite dishes are on the outside of premises.

The spacing between the blocks was looked at and is considered to be appropriate. The design & review panel supported the 2-block proposal rather that one. If the spacing was wider then there would be less units and therefore less affordable housing. There could have been more development on this site, with improved viability, but in terms of heritage, this was the best approach.

In terms of play space, the proximity to Town Park is a key asset in this instance and the provision is the right quality.

In terms of parking and car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

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

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

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

2.    The deputation of Steve De Vos (Local Resident) speaking against the Officers’ recommendation.

3.    The deputation of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou speaking as Cockfosters Ward Councillor.

4.    The response of Bryan Staff (Planning Consultant), Trevor Wynn Jones (applicant) and Michael Betts (Architect).

5.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

6.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments including parking restrictions on approach to access road, the height of the development, flood risk to the proposed basement area, the high number of objections received, reference to previous refused applications and how scale/ massing and quality of accommodation had been overcome on the current application, number of parking spaces on site and compliance with the old and new London plan regarding parking spaces and mix of accommodation.

7.    The majority of the Committee supported the Officers recommendation with 5 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.   That subject to the finalisation of a shadow S106 to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Ponders End/Enfield Highway

NOTED

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

2.    The deputation of Councillor Ayfer Orhan speaking as Ponders End Ward Councillor.

3.    The response of Ben Pierson (Agent) and Simon Lea (Architect).

4.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

5.    Members concern in relation to the remaining level of green space, loss of open space, overlooking, increase in local population and children due to the high percentage of family homes, what play space facilities there would be on site, the health and wellbeing of residents due to impact on amenities, loss of trees and more details of type/height of trees lost, increased vehicle movements, daylight/sunlight issues, impact of traffic in the vicinity, car parking spaces and if they are sufficient, resident consultation and the distance from the new building to rear boundaries of nearby properties.

6.    Councillor Taylor’s suggestion of a new access road to alleviate traffic access into and out of the development and Nags Head Road. Metropolitan Open Land could be built upon if it enhances an area. The Head of Development Control would look at options to see if the suggestion is viable and would report back to the Committee.

7.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers recommendation.

AGREED that:

·         subject to the finalisation of a shadow Section 106 agreement to secure the matters covered in the report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management/the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

·         the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

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

2.    One additional letter of objection had been received.

3.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

4.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments including the intensification of use, parking and traffic issues in the immediate area, more allocated spaces should be provided and not yellow lines, a nighttime vibrant economy is needed and an acoustic report had been received since the previous application.

5.    The majority of the Committee supported the Officers recommendation with 8 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be Granted subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate

This item was deferred and will now be heard at the  22 July 2021 Planning Committee.