Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Joseph Aggar, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.    An update to plan numbers listed at Para 2.6 (from page 83) of the report. A revision and correction for 2 of the drawing numbers on the decision notice. To add the letter A to the following plan numbers:

·         Proposed 2B4PF – Type U – Private A.

·         Proposed 2B4PF – Type Uv1 – Private A.

3.   Addition to the recommendation to include reference to delegated authority for the Head of Planning/Head of Development Management to amend/update conditions and the terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

4.  The Section 73 application is to vary the number of planning conditions as set out in the report. This is to allow amendments to the original planning consent to the New Avenue Estate regeneration scheme. The planning permission was originally granted in 2018 and members were advised to consider the proposed changes to the scheme in the context of the approved scheme.

5.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers

6.     Members comments and queries including the following:

·         The Chair asked for clarification regarding the difference in the scheme and the increase in the total number of units including affordable units. Officers clarified that there was an overall uplift of 94 units and the affordable units uplift was 30. Consent had been given for 140 units and is now 170. In terms of contributions to the scheme, the existing permission didn’t provide any off-site play provision and this proposal did. The existing permission didn’t facilitate all the play provision on-site, so this was an improvement. The scheme also offered further enhanced pedestrian and cycle movements and routes. The Section 106 contributions were considered as adequate relative to the scheme.

·         Councillor Rye’s comments including that this was a very dense development and limited open space & play facilities for families living on the site leading to a contribution for young people to make use of facilities to nearby open space rather than on-site. The lack of amenity space consequences would be educational and health outcomes.  There had been a loss of some 3 bed units.

·         In reply to Councillor Rawlings questions regarding the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) and the car parking PTAL rating of 2, officers clarified that the scheme, given its revisions and internal layout modifications there was an improvement in the ADF above the extant scheme. In terms of car parking, much of the site is PTAL 1A & 1B which is still consistent with the London Plan Policy. The term mansion block was just a description of the architectural style.

·         In response to Councillor Levy’s questions regarding the role of a Section 73 application in this regard and what impact it has on Members of the Committee, officers clarified that the application was submitted as a Section 73 and assessed as such. A Section 73 is used to seek material amendments to a scheme. Notably to alter the conditions to which it was attached. In terms of the process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8

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

WARD:  Bush Hill Park

NOTED

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

2.    The planning application was reported to Planning Committee following a request from Councillor De Silva for this proposal to be considered by Members.

3.    The deputation of Michael Kelly (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

4.    The deputation of Councillor Clare De Silva speaking as Bush Hill Park Ward Councillor.

5.    The response of David Davidian (Applicant) and Michael Koutra (Agent).

6.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

7.    Members concern in relation to the width of the access road into the development, level of objection made by residents, loss of light, overshadowing, size of amenity space, level of consultation, massing, high density, reasons as to how the development is policy compliant, failure of the application to present how monies are to be re-invested in the social club and remaining 6 tennis courts, the size and scale of this application was much larger than the original application for 4 semi-detached houses, accuracy of the parking survey as no dates given, car parking issue not resolved, a more comprehensive archaeological survey required/conditioned and the impact, appearance and effect on the Conservation Area.

8.     There was a general discussion which highlighted a number of points including the loss of the tennis courts adequacy of financial information, how the benefits are going to be secured, the acceptability of flats in a conservation area, on street parking which led to an alternative motion being proposed.

9.    Motion to defer the application made by Councillor Michael Rye and seconded by Councillor Maria Alexandrou for the following reasons:

·         More information on the reinvestment of monies into the social club and remaining tennis courts.

·         The application to be clearer on design detail.

·         Clarity on why Council Conservation officers disagree with study groups about the impact on the Conservation Area.

10.         The unanimous support of the Committee to Defer the application.

AGREED to Defer the application for the reasons given below.

Reason: To seek more information on how the money from the development will be invested in the facilities by the club and to obtain further CGI images of the proposed development to better understand the appearance in the street scene/Conservation Area.