Agenda and minutes

NOTED

1.    Councillor Boztas (Chair) welcomed all attendees to the meeting, which was also being filmed for live public broadcast.

2.    Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Daniel Anderson, who was substituted by Councillor Derek Levy.

NOTED that there were no declarations of interest.

To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.

RECEIVED the report of the Head of Planning.

AGREED to vary the order of the agenda. The minutes follow the order of the meeting.

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

WARD: Bush Hill Park

NOTED

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

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

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

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 shadow Section106 agreement being agreed 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:  Enfield Lock

Application not considered due to time available in the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: 

1. That subject to the finalisation of a shadow Section106 agreement 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:  Enfield Lock

Application not considered due to time available in the meeting.

Future meetings of the Planning Committee will be:

·         22 February 2022

·         8 March 2022 – Provisional

·         22 March 2022

·         5 April 2022 – Provisional

·         26 April 2022

Future meetings of the Planning Committee scheduled:

·         22 February 2022

·         8 March 2022 – Provisional

·         22 March 2022

·         5 April 2022 – Provisional

·         26 April 2022