Venue: Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions
Contact: Jane Creer Email: (jane.creer@enfield.gov.uk 020 8132 1211) / Metin Halil Email: (metin.halil@enfield.gov.uk 020 8132 1296
No. | Item |
---|---|
WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: NOTED
1. Councillor Bedekova (Vice - Chair) welcomed all attendees to the meeting. 2. Apologies for absence were received for Councillor Boztas (Chair). 3. Councillor Kate Anolue was nominated as Vice - Chair for the meeting which was unanimously agreed by the Committee. |
|
DECLARATION OF INTEREST Minutes: NOTED
1. Councillors Fallart, Stevens, Rye and Alexandrou declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5 – 20/02858/FUL – 100 Church Street, EN2 6BQ as the premises were next door to the Conservative Club and they were not members of the club. They are only members of the Conservative Party. |
|
To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 31 August 21 and Tuesday 21 September 21. Additional documents: Minutes: NOTED
The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 31 August 2021 and Tuesday 21 September 2021 were agreed. |
|
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.
Minutes: RECEIVED the report of the Head of Planning. |
|
20/02858/FUL - 100 Church Street, Enfield, EN2 6BQ 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 Minutes: 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. |
|
21/02685/FUL - Firs Farm Playing Fields, Firs Lane, London, N21 2PJ RECOMMENDATION: 1. That 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: Bush Hill Park Minutes: NOTED 1. The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager (Interim), clarifying the proposals. 2. Members debate and questions responded to by officers. 3. The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers’ recommendation.
AGREED: 1. That the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grantplanning 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.
|
|
20/01742/FUL - 50-56 Fore Street, London, N18 2SS RECOMMENDATION: That subject to the completion of a Section 106 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: Upper Edmonton Minutes: NOTED
1. The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals. 2. A change to the officers’ recommendation was reported that the Section 106 agreement did now not require an education provision and also the need for 1 or 2 conditions for delegated authority should members support the proposal. 3. Members debate and questions responded to by officers. 4. Councillor Rye raised a number of issues regarding Locally Listed building and the impact on the Conservation area: · How the 18-storey development was justified in light of the Grenfell disaster. · impracticable play space for residents to use from upper floors of development. · Tower blocks with 100% social housing inevitably leads to poor education and health outcomes. Developers should build social housing that people want to live in. · With social housing, there may be many more people with dis-abilities that will require proper access to residential units. Were properties designated for the dis-abled mostly on the ground floor? · There would be a strain on the health and welfare infrastructure. High quality social housing was required. Andy Higham (Head of Development Management) clarified that this was a balanced judgement and that planning did recognise that there are compromises that have been made. The 100% affordable housing at London affordable rent is a positive offer and a good addition to the Boroughs’ housing stock. Strategic housing colleagues were consulted and are supportive of this scheme. Officers felt that the design and introduction of materials when weighing up against the height of the development is acceptable and has improved the development following the recent design and review panel. There is an impact on Heritage but because the scheme can be seen from the Conservation area it didn’t make it unacceptable. Whilst Heritage officers have identified that there is harm, it is less that substantial harm. Balancing that against public benefits, officers felt that it carries significant weight and weight in favour of support for this scheme. 5. In response to Councillor Andersons enquiry regarding the requirements officers bestow upon developers for family sized units, Officers clarified that this was a combination of what the developer presents to officers the site context, local constraints and scheme viability to inform how that is negotiated with the developer. Officers then apply policies and a planning balance to optimise development. Each site is different with different constraints i.e. size of site and in this case, constraints are placed around what the site could take and the form of typology of the development. There are design challenges for family units on upper floors. In this scheme, the family units are fronting Claremont (and road to the rear) with 3 storey town houses. 6. In response to Councillor Alexandrou’s enquiry regarding light and air pollution, officers clarified that the Environmental Health officer did look at air pollution and raised no concerns around a tall building. Light pollution was looked at and this was not considered as a reason for refusal. 7. In response to Councillor Yusuf’s enquiry regarding ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
RECOMMENDATION: 1. That planning permission be Granted subject to conditions as set out in the report. 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
Minutes: NOTED
1. The introduction by Sharon Davidson, 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: 1. That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as set out in the report. 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. |
|
FUTURE MEETING DATES Future meetings of the Planning Committee will be:
· 2 November 2021 - Provisional · 23 November 2021 · 14 December 2021 · Tuesday 7 December 2021 - Provisional · 4 January 2022 – Provisional · 18 January 22 · 3 February 2022 – Provisional · 22 February 2022 · 8 March 2022 – Provisional · 22 March 2022 · 5 April 2022 – Provisional · 26 April 2022
Minutes: NOTED
1. The next meetings of the Planning Committee:
· 2 November 2021 - Provisional · 23 November 2021 · Tuesday 7 December 2021 - Provisional · 14 December 2021 · 4 January 2022 – Provisional · 18 January 22 · 3 February 2022 – Provisional · 22 February 2022 · 8 March 2022 – Provisional · 22 March 2022 · 5 April 2022 – Provisional · 26 April 2022
|
|
MEETING TIME EXTENSION Minutes: NOTED
1. The committee would not reasonably be able to consider the remaining application on the agenda this evening due to the late hour, but was recommended to progress Agenda Item 8 (21/02991/FUL – Meridian Water Site Bound By Leeside Road, to the South and a New Road Serving Meridian One to the West, London N18. 2. The recommendation to extend the meeting and consider Items was supported unanimously by the committee.
AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10:30pm) be suspended for a period of 30 minutes to enable Item 8 to be considered.
|