Agenda and minutes

NOTED

1.         the start of the meeting was adjourned to 7.45pm as some interested parties had not been told the correct time of the meeting in notification letters sent from the Planning Department;

2.         the Chairman welcomed attendees to the Planning Committee and introduced Keith Trowell, Legal Representative, who read a statement regarding the order of the meeting and expected behaviour during the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members of the Committee are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda.  A definition of personal and prejudicial interests has been attached for members’ information.

NOTED

1.            Councillor Lamprecht declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to CAC/06/0006 and TP/06/0309;

2.            Councillor Buckland declared a prejudicial interest as a nearby resident, and Councillor McGregor a personal interest as ward councillor, in relation to LBE/04/0038/REN1;

3.            Councillor Prescott declared a personal interest in TP/06/0352 as ward councillor;

4.            Councillor Fallart declared a personal interest in TP/06/0477 as he was a Governor at Capel Manor Primary School located close by;

5.            Councillor Ford declared a personal interest in relation to TP/06/0564 as ward councillor;

6.            Councillors Buckland, Hasan and Simon declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to Report No.25, as they owned properties in areas affected by the Article 4(2) Direction.

NOTED that Councillor Dey had also been in attendance at the meeting for the Riverside Sports Club item, TP/06/0477).

With the above amendment, the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 25 May 2006 were agreed as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the order of the agenda be varied to accommodate officers’ obligations and the members of the public who wished to make deputations.

4.1             Applications dealt with under delegated powers

(A copy is available in the Members Library)

4.2             Planning applications and applications to display advertisements

(Pages 1 to 83)

4.3             Appeal information

Section 1:            New Town Planning Application Appeals

Section 2:            Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) (Report No. 23).

NOTED that a copy of those applications dealt with under delegated powers was available in the Members Library and on the website.

NOTED

1.         the receipt of three further letters of objection raising the following issues

?  area designated to remain as green fields;

?  the Council have promised to protect areas of special character and Green Belt;

?  the proposal is a departure from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP);

?  the building does not meet the requirements of essential facilities as changing rooms already exist;

?  it will generate noise harmful to residential amenity;

?  existing floodlights have not been used for many years;

?  there should be no removal of trees or hard surfacing;

?  high fences are unacceptable in the conservation area;

?  inadequate parking;

?  dangerous Turkey Street/Bulls Cross junction;

2.         an amendment to the recommendation to include additional conditions regarding the floodlights and changing rooms;

3.         the deputation of Mr John Cherry, on behalf of local residents in the Bulls Cross and Turkey Street area, including the following points

?  a statement on behalf of Jenny Holmes of the Forty Hill and Bulls Cross Study Group, drawing attention to objections previously circulated to Committee members;

?  concerns that Planning Committee were being asked to extend the already approved facilities before the existing facilities on the site had been tested;

?  residents were concerned that 200+ people may be permitted to use the site at any one time and 100+ vehicles may be arriving or leaving at the same time in an area which experienced regular gridlock and that emergency services would be unable to reach the site easily;

?  the proposal did not amount to essential facilities, as such facilities were already present;

?  concerns regarding noise and floodlight diffusion in a conservation area of special character;

?  the proposals would not contribute to the preservation or enhancement of the area;

?  the planning officer’s recommendation was flawed and made no reference to a risk assessment or advice of the conservation officer

4.            Councillor Tony Dey, Chase Ward Councillor, spoke on behalf of local residents opposed to the application, including the following points

?  he supported the comments of Mr Cherry and the study group;

?  the recent Paul Drury Partnership appraisal report was highly significant and should have been referred to;

?  the proposals were contrary to policies (II)GD2, (II)GD6, (I)GD1 and (I)GD2 of the Unitary Development Plan;

?  granting the application would lead to desecration of an area of Green Belt and special character;

5.            Councillor Annette Dreblow, Chase Ward Councillor, also spoke on behalf of local residents, including the following points

?  the development would be contrary to UDP policies and the Green Belt policy outlined in PPG2 as there were no special circumstances in this case;

?  she had been disappointed that not all the Committee members had attended the site visit;

?  the height of the proposed shelters would detrimentally affect local residents’ visual amenity and the sense of openness;

?  the majority of the trees were deciduous and residents would be exposed to sight and noise of the users of the pitches;

?  the proposals would lead to a major traffic impact on a road and area too small to cope;

?  existing floodlights had not been used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

NOTED

1.         this application was considered alongside CAC/06/0006;

2.            additional conditions relating to trees and shrubs, sustainable construction, cycle storage, height of the building, no additional fenestration, external lighting, use of the retail unit, and an amendment to existing conditions regarding refuse storage;

3.         the deputation of Dr Denise Gandhi of Southgate Green Association including the following points

?  this was not a quality scheme and would not enhance the special character of the area;

?  too much accommodation was proposed for the site, especially in the roof space;

?  the reasons for refusal of the previous application were still applicable despite the reinstatement of retail units;

?  the development would be bad for the vista and incompatible in the historic context of the area and the additional conditions would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm;

4.         the deputation of Mr Phillip Dawson, a local resident and architect, including the following points

?  the proposal did not represent the best design solution for this site on this critical vista and demolition should not proceed until there was a good proposal for the replacement;

?  the accommodation provision would exceed maximum UDP limits, would provide little amenity space and poor rooms in the roof space;

5.         the response of Mr James Griffiths, Land Director, Abbey Investments Ltd, the applicant, including the following points

?  they had listened to planning officers’ advice and amended plans accordingly;

?  the development would reflect existing designs and fenestration and would fit in well with the street scene;

?  he confirmed that if Committee was minded to approve this application, the outstanding application under appeal would not be pursued;

6.         Denis Stacey reported the concerns of the Conservation Advisory Group but gave weight to the benefits associated with the provision of the ground floor retail units, which had been achieved through negotiation.  Given the revisions that had been achieved and the likelihood that a better scheme would be unlikely, he accepted on balance that the scheme should be supported; and

7.         an amendment to the recommendation that approval of planning permission be subject to the applicant entering into a unilateral undertaking confirming withdrawal of the appeal against the decision made under ref. TP/03/2216.

RESOLVED that subject to the applicant entering into a unilateral undertaking confirming withdrawal of the appeal against the decision made under ref. TP/03/2216, the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and the additional conditions below, for the reasons set out in the report.

Additional Conditions:

1.         The trees identified on Drg P309/0001 Rev Q shall not be felled and shall be retained thereafter.  For the duration of the construction period, all trees shown on the approved plans and application as being retained shall be protected by fencing of a minimum height of 1.2 metres at a minimum distance of 5 metres from the existing planting.  No building activity shall take place within the protected area unless agreed by the Local Planning Authority.  Any tree or shrub which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

RESOLVED that Conservation Area Consent by granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reason set out in the report.

RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred at the request of Members to address issues highlighted by Conservation Advisory Group.

RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred at the request of Members to address issues highlighted by Conservation Advisory Group.

NOTED the proposal by Councillor Hayward, seconded by Councillor Lamprecht, that planning permission be refused as the proposed development would be over intensive and incongruous in terms of size, siting and relationship to the prevailing form and pattern of the street scene in Broad Walk, and contrary to UDP policies, supported by a majority of the Committee.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

The proposed subdivision of the existing residential curtilage and the construction of two detached dwellings would result in the creation of residential plots and dwellings that, due to their size, siting and relationship to the prevailing form and pattern of development along Broad Walk, would represent an over intensive and incongruous form of development out of keeping with and detrimental to the appearance and character of the street scene, having regard to established pattern of plot widths, spacing between dwellings and their contribution to the overall character and appearance of Broad Walk.  In this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillors Constantinides, Anwar, Brett, Buckland, Hasan, Oykener and Simon asked for it to be noted that they voted against the proposal.

NOTED

1.         receipt of two letters of objection:

?  that the occupier of no.8 Little Park Gardens objected to the proposal on grounds of design and appearance, traffic/access/parking issues, inappropriate dangerous location, loss of privacy and loss of outlook;

?  that the occupier of no.31 Little Park Gardens objected to the proposal on the grounds that the temporary buildings were unsuitable for a residential conservation area;

2.         the advice of the planning officer regarding the proposed permanent location of the facility and timescales for completion; and

3.         the views of Conservation Advisory Group and request on behalf of neighbouring residents that the appearance of the portacabins be improved and the toilet block at least to be better screened.

RESOLVED to delegate authority to the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) to approve the application, subject to efforts to improve the appearance of the building and investigation of the possibility of providing further screening of the toilet building from the neighbour, in consultation with the Chairman of Conservation Advisory Group.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

NOTED that this application had been withdrawn.

NOTED

1.         the deletion of Condition 4; and

2.         an amendment to Condition 11 regarding details of landscaping, with a Directive to be sent to the applicant.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, as amended, for the reasons set out in the report.

Amendment to Condition 11

The development shall not commence until revised details (in accordance with the Directive) of the structure, design, species, maintenance and management of the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained thereafter as such and in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule.

Reason:  to ensure a satisfactory appearance and the sustainability of the landscaping scheme.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

NOTED the appeal information provided in the document pack.

To receive the report of the Assistant Director (Planning & Transportation)

NOTED

1.         the contraventions information included in the document pack; and

2.            Members’ request that information be provided in Ward order in future.

To receive the report of the Assistant Director (Planning & Transportation).

(DEC)

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) introduced by Steve Jaggard, Team Leader – Planning Projects.

NOTED

1.         the Council at its meeting on 25 January 2006 resolved to make an Article 4(2) Direction in specific areas, to remove certain Permitted Development rights from householders in Enfield’s Conservation Areas to preserve the areas’ special character;

2.         the Direction was served in January, but required confirmation within six months.  This Committee was delegated the authority by Council to authorise the subsequent confirmation of the Direction to make it permanent, having been advised of any representations received objecting to the Direction;

3.         the representations received were set out in Appendix A of the report;

4.         the affected addresses were set out in Appendix B of the report;

5.         four further planning applications had been generated by the Direction in addition to the seven referred to in paragraph 5.2 of the report.  Two of these additional applications had been approved with the other two undetermined at this stage;

RESOLVED that “The London Borough of Enfield Council (Enfield Borough Conservation Areas) Article 4(2) Direction 2006” (as confirmed in Appendix B) be made permanent, and the statutory notification requirements be followed forthwith to enact this decision.

To receive the report of the Director of Environment, Street Scene and Parks.

(INF)

NOTED the report of the Director of Environment, Street Scene and Parks.