Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed attendees to the Planning Committee, and introduced John Hood, Legal representative, who read a statement regarding the order and conduct of the meeting.

NOTED that apologies for absence were received from Councillors Neville and Simon. In the absence of Councillor Simon, Councillor Lemonides acted as Vice Chairman.

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda. Please refer to the guidance note attached to the agenda.

NOTED

1.         Councillor Hasan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/09/1826  -  293-303, Fore Street, London, N9 0PD as he knew the applicant very well through business and fundraising activity.

2.         Having received advice from the Legal representative, Councillor Bakir declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/09/1826  -  293-303, Fore Street, London, N9 0PD as he had submitted a letter supporting the application.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 31 August 2010.

NOTED that Councillor Keazor had been mistakenly recorded as absent though she had been present at the meeting.

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on 31 August 2010 as a correct record, subject to the above amendment.

To receive the covering report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection.

5.1       Applications dealt with under delegated powers.

            (A copy is available in the Members’ Library.)

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Environmental Protection (Report No. 74).

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

AGREED that the order of the agenda be varied to accommodate the members of the public in attendance at the meeting. The minutes follow the order of the meeting.

To receive the report of the Head of Development Services.

NOTED

1.         The three applications concerning the site at 110-112, Aldermans Hill listed on the agenda for this meeting would be discussed together, then considered in sequence.

2.         The introductory statement of the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following points:

a.  Apologies for the late item TP/07/1560/NM1 circulated on Supplementary Agenda No. 2, with the agreement of the Chairman. Due to the level of interest in the two applications reported on the main agenda, it was felt that this item should also be considered by Planning Committee in the interests of openness.

b.  In October 2007 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing nursing home and erection of a 2-storey block of 10 x 2-bed self-contained flats with accommodation in roof space, front, side and rear dormers and parking to the rear.

c.  The first reason for the decision to grant permission was that “the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a block of ten self-contained flats, by virtue of its external design and siting and the internal layout, would be in keeping with the existing street scene and the residential character of the surrounding area”.

d.  Neither the permission or conditions formally specified the plan numbers.

e.  The site previously contained a pair of 2-storey semi-detached Edwardian style buildings. The Character Appraisal for the Conservation Area described the original buildings as having a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

f.  When the Conservation Area was designated in February 2010 the requisite notices were published and letters sent out by recorded delivery, the letter for this site being returned undelivered.

g.  A Section 80 counter notice under the Building Act was served to the Council and demolition took place in April 2010 and the site was now vacant.

h.  The designation of the Conservation Area had placed a statutory requirement on the developer to secure Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the original building.

i.  The design of the replacement building accepted in 2007 was not of the standard required had the Conservation Area designation been in place at the time.

j.  Amendments had been proposed to the design which significantly improved the development and which officers considered to have an acceptable form and appearance which would make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment.

k.  Concerns had been raised in relation to the Council’s failure to prosecute the developer over the breach of planning control. Officers wished to advise that the issue had not been ignored and no decision had been taken at this time. There was no evidence that the breach was a deliberate act and it was important to take all factors into account, including the willingness of the developer to enter into dialogue with the Council.

l.  The Conservation Area designation did not invalidate the planning permission granted in 2007, and that permission carried considerable weight.

m.  Legal Counsel had confirmed that the gain in the replacement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 316.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.         The verbal introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following points:

a.  The application sought to change the elevations and external appearance of the scheme approved by the 2007 planning permission.

b.  Since the publication of the report, an additional 10 letters of objection had been received. These raised all or some of the following points:

Impact on Conservation Area

- outrageous plans that should be rejected because of the damage they would inflict on the amenity and enjoyment of adjoining house and garden;

- development should never have been approved when designation of Conservation Area was imminent;

- the developers existing consent should be rescinded and new plans submitted which are more appropriate to 1 Derwent Road and the wider Conservation Area;

- original building contained “all original features in tact”;

- the design of the building is like a pastiche of Edwardian style;

- the replacement building must look exactly like the original building;

- there is inadequate detail on the elevations including projecting brick panels around windows, inappropriate rendering, the absence of original oriole windows;

- design involves an oversized caricature of original turrets, the eaves of which do not respect eaves of original building and absence of sloping roof to dormer windows which remain of poor design;

- there should be greater use of leaded lights and stained glass windows;

- front door detail should reflect original and the proposed ground floor units should have their own front doors off the street in the original positions rather than via a communal hallway;

- strong objections to unacceptable parking and refuse storage arrangements are unacceptable as both elements could have been moved well away from the boundary;

- the proposals fall significantly short of replicating the original design of the facades of the houses that stood on this important site within the Conservation Area;

- Planning Committee must halt this outrageous degradation of the Conservation Area;

- the development will harm the Conservation Area;

- object to any development on the site which does not include restoration of a front elevation facsimile of the original;

- replacement proposals should bring characteristics to the Conservation Area to at least match the quality of the original especially those elements that were strong identifiable features of the original building;

- it is important that the block between Ulleswater Road and Derwent Road has a complete row of large houses with consistent scale and detailing which make a coherent period composition and a distinctive view from Broomfield Park;

- replacement development should not go ahead without strict criteria being applied;

Process

- how can it be a minor amendment when the proposals involve a new elevation with a completely different façade and on a completely different footprint;

- Council officers have shown bias in favour of the developer against the Conservation Area and have not followed proper procedures in dealing with these changes;

- no design and access statement has been submitted;

- plans do not show sufficient  ...  view the full minutes text for item 317.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.         Receipt of an additional 61 letters of objection, making a total of 108 letters of objection. The additional comments raised all or some of the following concerns:

- demolition occurred without first obtaining the necessary consent;

- all breaches should be penalised. Failure to do so undermines the Conservation Area and credibility;

- establishes precedent for developers not to adhere to regulations;

- wholesale demolition should not be permitted;

- all alterations should be strictly controlled;

- all developers are out to make a profit;

- identified as making a positive contribution to the Conservation Area in the Character Appraisal;

- loss of architecturally interesting Edwardian buildings;

- existing buildings important to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;

- contrary to advice in PPS5;

- amended scheme does not represent acceptable development for the Conservation Area.

2.         Receipt of a petition of 128 signatures objecting to the demolition and the fact that the architectural design of the 2007 scheme is out of keeping with and detrimental to the appearance of the Conservation Area.

3.         An amendment to the Condition to insert at the end of the first sentence “unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority”.

4.         Members voted in support of the officers’ recommendation, 7 for and 1 against, with 4 abstentions.

AGREED that conservation area consent be granted subject to the condition set out in the report, for the reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Edmonton Green

NOTED

1.         Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Hasan left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

2.         The Chairman agreed to Councillor Bakir’s request to remain in the meeting to speak then to leave the room and take no part in the discussion or vote.

3.         The introduction of the Planning Decisions Manager. The key point was highlighted as the relationship with the adjacent residential property site already granted planning permission and where construction was underway.

4.         Receipt of an additional letter of objection from Councillor Stafford, emphasising the inward investment. Though there were parking issues, the development was needed for active engagement with the community. Councillor Stafford had queried the lack of Police comments, but it was clarified that those would normally be picked up in the licensing process rather than planning.

5.         The deputation of Mr David Snell and Mr Ian Dix, acting for the applicant, including the following points:

a.  There was a recognised demand for such a facility, but the report made no reference to the social and economic contribution the development would make.

b.  The development would be mixed use, would be highly sustainable, and would provide valuable employment opportunities.

c.  The facility would make use of the existing ramp. If that use was considered to have a detrimental impact on residents it would seem to preclude any re-use of the building.

d.  There had been no assessment of the residential development in respect of this application site, or of the amenities of future residents.

e.  At the time of approval of permission for the adjoining residential site, this site was vacant.

f.  The proposals had been substantially amended to address parking issues, and one banqueting hall had been removed and the number of customers reduced.

g.  The residential impact was not raised as a concern until July 2010. In order to address it, the applicant was willing to consider solutions such as moving the access ramp or entering into a S106 agreement and an offer had be made in relation to a valet service, but officers had not accepted further amendments to the application.

h.  Technical matters could be addressed and dealt with by condition.

i.  Ian Dix spoke as the advisor on highways and transport issues.

j.  Discussions had been held with officers and additional information provided in support of the proposal. The only objection from transportation officers now concerned the level of parking.

k.  There was a mix of uses proposed and the parking concerns were only in respect of the banqueting hall.

l.  The maximum capacity was limited to 400 for all uses on site.

m.  The café would be modest, and parking provision would be in accordance with the UDP; across the borough many cafes had no parking at all.

n.  There were 92 spaces on site, which equated to 1 space for 4.3 guests if at full capacity. This was comparable to other similar examples, and no standards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 319.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Jubilee

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED the support for the project from the Education Department.

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Jubilee

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Turkey Street

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

To receive the report of the Head of Development Management in relation to Probity in Planning.

SENT TO FOLLOW

NOTED

1.         The Head of Development Management had prepared guidance as a reference document to help Members and set out procedures and protocol.

2.         Members were invited to forward any comments to Aled Richards.

3.         The guide would be considered further by the Governance Working Group and recommended to full Council for agreement.

Section 1 : New Town Planning Application Appeals

Section 2 : Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals

NOTED the information on town planning appeals received from 18/08/2010 to 08/09/2010.