Agenda and minutes

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

NOTED that apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bakir, McCannah and Pearce.

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. Councillors Hurer and Neville declared a personal interest in application TP/10/0972 - 8, Chaseville Parade, Chaseville Park Road, London, N21 1PG, as they were both Members of the Enfield Southgate Conservative Association located at 1, Chaseville Parade.

2. Councillor Simon declared a personal interest in application, TP/10/0818, 36 Walsingham Road, Enfield, EN2 6EY, as he lived nearby.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 28 September 2010.

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 28 September 2010 as a correct record.

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. 93).

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.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1. Receipt of an additional letter of objection from David Burrowes MP.- read out by the officer.

2. The request of Ward Councillor Glynis Vince that the application be deferred for a Members site visit.

3. The deputation of local residents, Peter Claxton and Noelle Skivington including the following points:

i. Local residents felt that the information presented to the Committee was heavily flawed.

ii. A drainage and water search showing a main sewer running across the proposed site had been circulated to Members. Thames Water had not been consulted and would not permit building over a sewer for new developments.

iii. The accuracy of statements 4.1.4 and 6.8.2 of the Planning Officers’ report was questioned.

iv. The gross internal area had been quoted incorrectly.

v. 97% of the building and amenity space is within the Conservation Area and felt that CAG comments had been misrepresented.

vi. Objectors felt that a clear and transparent decision could not be made regarding the proposed development on this plot of land due to the inaccuracies in the Planning Officers’ report and urged the Committee to investigate the application further or to refuse the application.

4. The response of Mrs Fitzgerald, the applicant, including the following points:

i. The proposed development was amended following consultation with Planning Officers.

ii. The design and scale does not detract from the character of the Conservation Area but helps preserve its setting.

iii. The proposed development would contribute to increasing London’s supply of housing and assist in meeting with the provision of family housing within the Borough, having regard to PPS3.

Iiv. In terms of PPS5 the site is not of any significance to the Conservation Area.

v. The proposed amenity space, layout and parking provision all meet the required standards and policies.

vi. In accordance with PPS9, planting will be protected during construction.

vii. The recent changes to PPS3 seek to promote such developments.

viii. With regards to consultation, 72 residents are registered on the Electoral Register.

5. In response to points raised, the Head of Development Management’s confirmation that Thames Water had advised that they had no objection to the development and that alignment of infrastructure would not be affected by the proposed development.

6. The Planning Officers’ acknowledgement that the proposed amenity space stated in paragraph 6.2.2 of the report had been misquoted. The proposed amenity space should have read approximately 174sqm, thus providing a ratio of 117%. On this basis, the level of amenity provision still exceeded the adopted standards. Comments that the test was whether the application preserved or enhanced the Conservation Area and that this is a subjective matter.

7. The Planning Officers’ advice I relation to the recent changes to PPS3.

8. Dennis Stacey spoke on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) to amplify their comments set out on page 114 of the agenda pack. CAG felt that the dominance of the buildings would impact on the view into the conservation area from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 413.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1. The introduction of the Planning Decisions Manager with particular advice in relation to the planning history.

2. Consideration had been given to health and wellbeing due to the close proximity to Eversley Primary School. Officers’ felt that this was not a material consideration of the application as hot food takeaway would not be available and the children attending the school would be under adult supervision.

3. In response to Councillor Hurer’s query as to whether 9 Chaseville Parade had submitted an application for change of use, the Planning Decisions Manager advised that he was not aware of any further applications and added that each application must be considered on individual merits.

4. Discussion of Members’ on merits of the application, weight given to past planning approvals of neighbouring properties on the parade and the impact of the proposed change of use on the street scene.

5. The proposal of Councillor Constantinides, seconded by Councillor Hurer that a decision be deferred to a future Planning Committee to enable Officers’ to provide Members with further information on the current retail occupation and an analysis of extant planning permissions.

6. With regard to the ancillary retail use, Members requested further information as to the nature and robustness of the retail element.

AGREED that a decision be deferred to a future Planning Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to S106 Completion

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1. Receipt of an additional objection letter from a resident of Woodvale Court, highlighting particular concern to the proximity to the rear boundary.

2. An amendment to the recommendation to read: That subject to the completion of the S106 agreement, the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions.

3. In response to Members’ queries, the Head of Development Management’s advice received to clarify the calculation of the financial contributions in respect of education.

4. The request of Members’ that the concerns raised by EDF Energy highlighted in paragraph 4.1.3 of the report be attached to planning permission as a directive.

5. Discussion of Members’ concerns with regards to the proposed parking provision.

6. The request of Members’ for the inclusion of an additional condition to be imposed to ensure the parking provided was allocated appropriately to minimise on street parking.

7. Members’ requested that all future applications incorporate a parking management plan where appropriate.

8. The unanimous support of the Committee to approve the application.

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

Additional Condition

That prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, details of a parking management plan be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The plan to include details of the allocation and management of the parking areas which following approval, is to be adhered to thereafter unless otherwise agreed.

Reason

In the interest of ensuring the parking provided is allocated appropriately to minimise on street parking giving rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highway.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Lower Edmonton

NOTED

1. Receipt of an additional letter from the Environment Agency maintaining their objection on the grounds of safe access and loss of flood plain storage. The recommendation that the applicant revisit their proposals and provide an updated Flood Risk Assessment. In addition, the Agency commented that if a robust and detailed Flood Evaluation Plan was prepared, it might be possible to overcome the first part of the objection, although not the second.

2. Members’ concerns with regards to the proposed residential mix and the level of amenity space, which they felt lead to an overdevelopment of the site and a poor residential environment.

3. Members’ comments that a 3 / 4 bedroom proposal was preferable to meeting housing needs of families but, to address the issues over the amenity space provision, a management plan could be included within the conditions attached to the proposal to ensure that the amenity space was a useful place.

AGREED that a decision be deferred to a future Planning Committee meeting.

Reason: Scheme not acceptable in present form and whilst residential use is not unacceptable, officers’ are instructed to resolve the Environment Agency objection and address the residential mix and poor level of amenity space which leads to an overdevelopment of the site and a poor residential environment. 

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Enfield Lock

NOTED

1. The introductory statement of the Head of Development Management, including the following points:

i. The application proposed the redevelopment of a vacant site for B8 purposes.

ii. The buildings would be occupied by Tesco’s to provide a Dot Com home deliveries centre and an express distribution centre.

iii. There would be no public access, as the proposed site would be a distribution warehouse.

2. Receipt of confirmation from the Greater London Authority that they have no objection in principle subject to:

-          Submission of detailed landscape plans which they suggest be secured by condition

-          The applicant should provide an estimate of the regulated emissions after cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, combined heat and power and renewable energy. The tonnes of CO2 per year reduced compared to a 2010 Building Regs complaint development should be provided, along with the overall percentage reduction in regulated emissions. The applicant is to provide this.

-          The Transport obligations set out be agreed and secured by either condition or S106 Agreement.

3. Due to time constraints for implementation of the development and the need to get on site by 15^th November if the development is to be constructed and delivered on time, the applicant prefers to commit to these obligations through a Unilateral Undertaking rather than a bi-lateral S106 Agreement. A draft Undertaking was submitted at the end of the day on Thursday 21^st October ad discussions are ongoing.

4. An Amendment to Condition 9 to read: That the biofuel boiler to be installed shall meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act 1993 and the boiler shall only be operated using sustainable sourced fuel types and comply with recognised fuel quality standards in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5. An Amendment to Condition 6 to reflect development must comply with Construction Management Plan.

6. An Amendment to Condition 3 to insert 23^rd September 2010 instead of 12^th September.

7. Discussion of Members’ on merits of the application, in particular the generation of approximately 500 jobs.

8. Members’ expressed concern about the developments appearance due to the close proximity to the M25. It was agreed that the applicant be asked to provide drawings of the proposed visual appearance of the northern elevation to Planning Officers’ by way of a Directive to avoid any delay for the schemes implementation.

AGREED that the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to determine, following the expiry of the consultation period, that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992. 

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED in response to Members’ queries, the Planning Decisions Manager clarified that permission had been granted previously for a temporary period of 12 months in which time no complaints had been received.

AGREED that the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to determine, following the expiry of the consultation period, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Tow & Country Planning General Regulations 1992.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992, 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:  Enfield Lock

NOTED

1. Receipt of an additional letter from the Environment Agency maintaining their objection on the grounds of flood risk.

2. Alteration to the recommendation to read: That subject to the Council issuing a decision in respect of the application for planning permission (Ref TP/06/2169/REN1), the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant Conservation Area Consent subject to the following conditions:

3. Concern from Councillor Bond regarding position/obstruction linked to hoardings

4. An additional Condition: That demolition shall not commence until such time as details of hoardings to secure the site during the demolition and construction works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall be secured in accordance with the approved details throughout the redevelopment of the site in accordance with planning permission reference TP/10/2169/REN1, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the buildings to be retained are appropriately protected throughout the redevelopment process.

AGREED as above.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Enfield Lock

Receipt of an additional letter from the Environment Agency maintaining their objection on the grounds of flood risk.

Condition 5 of report deleted to reflect duplication – Conditions renumbered subsequently.

AGREED that subject to the objection from the Environment Agency being satisfactorily resolved and subject to the completion of a deed of variation to the existing S106 Agreement to reflect the revised education contribution and to link it to the new planning permission, 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:  Chase

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:  Town

NOTED

An amendment to the recommendation to read: that following the expiry of the consultation period and no objections being received which raise new material consideration, the Head of Development Management be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions

AGREED that following the expiry of the consultation period and no objections being received which raise new material consideration, the Head of Development Management be authorised to issue planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report for the reasons set out in the report.  

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Enfield Lock

NOTED Lea Valley Regional Park Authority raised no objection.

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:  Chase

NOTED

1. Dennis Stacey spoke on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) to amplify their comments set out on page 153 of the agenda pack.

2. Amendment to Conditions

Condition 2

Notwithstanding the submitted information, the development shall not commence until details of the external finishing materials to be used including the use of cast aluminium for rainwater goods and a coloured profile sheet for the roof, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The information shall detail an alternative to the proposed Upvc guttering and the proposed colour scheme for the roof and wall cladding. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance having regard to the siting of the barn in a Conservation Area, in close proximity to listed buildings and within the Green Belt.

Condition 3

The development shall not commence until details of a robust and comprehensive scheme of trees and shrubs to be planted in close proximity to the replacement barn to screen the development have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or occupation of the development whichever is the sooner. Any planting which dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with new planting in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance and to further minimise any potential impact of the development on the surrounding Green Belt.

3. Inclusion of an Additional Condition:

The existing fire damaged barn shall be removed in its entirety within 2 months of the use of the barn hereby approved commencing. Prior confirmation in writing of the date when the use commences shall be provided to the local authority.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance and to further minimise any potential impact of the development on the surrounding Green Belt. 

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Chase

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Chase

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1. Receipt of an additional letter of objection from a resident of Cecil Road.

2. Inclusion Additional Condition: That development shall not commence until details of a bund to be installed beneath the proposed fuel tank have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bund shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the fuel tank being installed and shall thereafter be maintained until such time as the fuel tank is removed from the site.

Reason: To safeguard the existing trees.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report for the reasons set out in the report and the additional condition above.

</AI22>

<AI23>

To receive the report of the Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise, to inform Planning Committee of the introduction of a Section 106 management fee.

INF

NOTED the report of the Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise (Report No. 94).

Section 1 : New Town Planning Application Appeals

Section 2 : Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals

NOTED

1. The information on town planning appeals received from 09/09/2010 to 11/10/2010.

2. The suggestion of Councillor Simon that since appeal information is circulated to Members in the weekly lists and is available on the Council's website for public viewing, it need not be included in printed agendas.

3. Discussion of Members on whether to include this item in future sets.

AGREED that planning appeals information in agendas would be limited to a brief update, to highlight any key decisions and to monitor success rates.