Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.  In accordance with Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 planning permission be Granted, 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 Sarah Odu, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposal.

2.    Amendment to Condition 20 to amend the trigger point from prior to the construction to prior to operation of the development.

3.    Members’ questions responded to by officers to clarify that this was a stand-alone planning application.

4.    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 granted, subject to conditions.

2.    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: 

1.   That subject to the finalisation of a Section106 to secure the matters covered in this report 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:  Chase

NOTED

1.    The introduction by James Clarke, Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

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

3.    Cllr Levy supported the application and asked if there had been consideration to a crossing point for the bus stop as The Ridgeway is a very busy road. Officers confirmed there was a draft design for an entrance gateway scheme; a white picket gate which enhances drivers to slow down, and a crossing point in consideration.

4.    Cllr Rye welcomed the application and suggested that the crossing point should be safe for children to cross to be able to get the school across the road.

5.    Cllr Alexandrou commented that she was pleased to see more three bedroom houses than one bed flats and supported the application.

6.    Cllr Yusuf explained he was happy with the application but would like to see more dementia rooms in the plan.

7.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED

1. That subject to the finalisation of a S106 to secure the matters covered in the report 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 the report.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1. That subject to the finalisation of a 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:  Grange

NOTED

1.    Detailed introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposal and the background issues, recent discussions, and amendments to the application.

2.    Following the resolution of Planning Committee on 26 October 2021 to defer making a final decision to enable officers to prepare detailed reasons for refusal and reasons to be brought back to a future meeting for consideration, the applicant responded to the concerns identified by Members with an offer to revise the application. A report had been presented to Planning Committee on 23 November 2021, and Members resolved to defer the application to enable the additional information to be assessed. The report on the proposed development had been updated to reflect the assessment of the additional information.

3.    The current proposal had been subject to extensive discussions involving the Council’s Conservation and Urban Design teams. Amendments had been made to the proposal in order to address identified concerns whilst still recognising the need to optimise the development potential of the site and to create an economically viable scheme that was able to be implemented and deliver new homes. Reductions to the scale, massing and quantum of development had been made, and revisions to the elevations. It was acknowledged that the proposal did still raise heritage and design issues. Officers concluded that, on balance, the level of harm was considered to be less than substantial and within that, the harm was considered to be moderate in impact. The development would provide public benefits including the delivery of 78 units of residential accommodation. The Council’s position in terms of the Housing Delivery test was also highlighted. Landscaping and tree removal and replacement were confirmed.

4.    Clarification on CIL to confirm Mayoral CiL of £320,400 and Enfield CiL of £640,800.

5.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers, including in respect of the amount of affordable housing which could be supported, the housing mix, car parking, landscaping, relationship / boundary with the new river, and heritage impacts.

6.    During discussion, there was a request for conditions to be included in respect of

i)  details of screening of the roof top plant and lift overrun to be provided;

ii)  details of railing / boundary treatment to be provided if considered necessary, along the boundary with the new river – discharge of this condition to be subject to consultation.

7.    The support of a majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

8.    Having declared an interest, Councillor Milne did not take part in the vote on the application.

AGREED that

1.                        That subject to the finalisation of a S106 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 (including additional conditions above).

2.                        That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6