Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.  That subject to the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London and no objection being raised and the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning / Head of Development Management be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Planning / Head of Development Management be granted

delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the

matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Michael Cassidy, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the site and the proposals, including noting pre-application discussions and design evolution; mix of units; affordable housing offer; car parking; tree removal and planting; separation distances; relationship to the street scene; sunlight and daylight impacts; adverse heritage impacts; and public benefits. Confirmation this was a Departure Application: the proposed development was a departure from Policies DMD43 and DMD44 of the Enfield Local Plan : Development Management Document (2014) and Policy G4 of the London Plan (March 2021). Officers’ conclusion was that the public benefits outweighed the less than substantial harms, and the recommendation was for approval of planning permission.

2.    Recent updates to the report, published online and circulated to Members, including details of additional representations received.

3.    Receipt of further additional representations, circulated via email and printed and tabled for Members:

• Concerns particularly regarding the Council’s planning approach, and  application of tilted balance, on behalf of Cockfosters Residents Association (CLARA) and Save Cockfosters.

• Concerns from Mr J. Champion that there should be a Fire Staircase and a separate Service Staircase, and querying measures to address ventilation in summer.

• Full formal objections from Councillor Daniel Anderson dated 19/8/21.

• Letter from Laurie Handcock, Director, Built Heritage and Townscape, Iceni, that the application should be refused on heritage grounds.

• Letter from Irwin Mitchell LLP highlighting concerns regarding the officers’ report and that Members did not have sufficient information before them to safely resolve to grant permission for this development.

• Brochure supporting the proposals from Connected Living London.

4.    As part of the deputations Members would be seeing a video against the recommendation. Officers noted that it was prepared some time ago and did not reflect revisions to the scheme, did not show verified views, and included birds’ eye views rather than from people’s level.

5.    The deputation of Bambos Charalambous MP (Enfield Southgate Constituency) that he shared the concerns raised by Cockfosters residents that the proposal would be an overdevelopment and would lead to increased traffic congestion, parking issues in surrounding roads, and adverse impact on local services including schools and GP practices. The reduction in car parking at the station would affect disabled and elderly users.

6.    The deputation of Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP (Chipping Barnet Constituency) that the proposal violated planning policies and its massing and bulk were inconsistent with the neighbourhood, which was an area of predominantly one and two storey homes. It would be visually overbearing to the station. The building fronting Cockfosters Road was ugly, and the Trent Park Conservation Area would be irreparably harmed, and Cockfosters changed for ever. Loss of the car park would discriminate against vulnerable groups and affect their access to the Tube network.

7.    The video on behalf of East Barnet Residents’ Association to demonstrate objections particularly in respect of the overly high scale and density of the proposed development on a prominent ridge adjacent to Green Belt and cemetery and Christ Church. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.    That subject to the completion of a Section106 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.

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:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.    Updates to the report had been published, and circulated to Members.

3.    Updates to the provisions of the S106 agreement.

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

5.    Cllr Rye commented that it looked attractive but was still too tall and bulky. Residents felt it would loom over the public street and dwarf the area.

6.    Cllr Alexandrou commented that this proposal would not deal with overcrowding or the need for family housing.

7.    Cllr Levy commented on the improvements in the proposal since the deferral; the 100% affordability rate was good, and it offered better family housing options. The views of the Design Review Panel have not been fully accommodated; the narrative and conclusions do not match. Officers explained they had been transparent in the report, it was a unique offer with 100% LAR which the borough needs. Improvements have been made. It was a finely balanced judgement.

8.    Cllr Yusuf suggested the building should be shorter and wider rather than tall as there could be an effect on sunlight to surrounding houses.

9.    Cllr Erbil agreed it would be preferable to be shorter and wider rather than tall. Officers confirmed there was no grounds for refusal in terms of the impact on daylight or sunlight.

10. Cllr Steven stated the pictures did not represent the area.

11. Cllr Anolue recognised that we need accommodation for residents, but this proposal was monstrous. Silver House close by is just 9 stories high and this is double. She also agreed that the building should be wider and shorter.

12. MEETING TIME EXTENSION

AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10:00pm) be suspended for a period of 15 minutes to enable the item to continue to be considered.

13. Councillor Rye’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Alexandrou, that planning permission be refused due to the bulk, mass and height of the building and the impact on heritage assets, and inappropriate in the location.

14. The unanimous support of the Committee for Councillor Rye’s proposal.

AGREED that planning permission be refused on grounds relating to the effect on the setting and appearance of the Conservation Area and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Draft reasons for refusal to be prepared and agreed by Chair / Vice Chair and Opposition Leads (in attendance).

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.    That the Head of Development Management be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management to finalise the wording of the conditions

WARD:  Town

NOTED

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

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

3.    Discussion by Members resulted in request for additional condition regarding Construction Hours (8-6 Monday to Friday and 8-1 Saturday).

4.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED

1. That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions (with additional condition).

2. That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management to finalise the wording of the conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:  In accordance with Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be Granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.  Additional conditions are recommended to require the glazing at upper floor level in the new commercial units facing the existing residential block to be obscure glazed and similarly that the windows to the upper deck of the double decker bus on the west side facing the existing residential be fitted with an obscure film.

a.     That all glazing at first floor level in the west facing elevation of the new units        shall be obscured with an equivalent obscuration as level 3 on the Pilkington Obscuration Range. The glazing shall not be altered without the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining and             neighbouring properties.

b.     The windows to the upper level of the double decker bus to the west facing           elevation shall be fitted with obscure film with an equivalent obscuration as level 3 on the Pilkington Obscuration Range prior to first use of the bus for the purposes hereby approved.  The film shall not be removed or altered without the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority whilst the bus remains on site.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining and             neighbouring properties.

3.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that:

1.  In accordance with Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed Granted subject to conditions.

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

WARD:  Chase

NOTED

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

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

3.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that:

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

RECOMMENDATION:  That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed granted subject the following planning conditions.

WARD:  Edmonton Green

NOTED

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

2.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

3.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that:

1.  In accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed Granted subject to conditions.