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 Paul McCannah and George Savva.

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 Anolue declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/10/0339 – North Middlesex Hospital, Sterling Way, London, N18 1QX as she worked at the hospital as a midwife.

2.  Councillor Hurer declared a personal interest in application TP/10/1761 – land at Wellington Place, Whitewebbs Lane, Enfield, EN2 9HH as he was a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur FC.

3.  Councillor Constantinides declared a personal interest in application TP/10/1761 – land at Wellington Place, Whitewebbs Lane, Enfield, EN2 9HH as he was a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur FC.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 29 March 2011.

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 29 March 2011 as a correct record.

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 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. 242).

NOTED

1.  The reports listed on the agenda had been circulated in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Amendment Regulations 2002 with the exception of the reports in respect of applications TP/10/0972 – No 8 Chaseville Parade and TP/07/1795/REN1 – No 9 Chaseville Parade. These requirements state that agendas and reports should be circulated at least 5 clear days in advance of meetings.

2.  The Chairman’s agreement that the above reports be considered as urgent items in the light of the correction in the number of extant but unimplemented permissions for food and drink uses on the Parade.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.  The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, advising that the report had been re-produced as the original version omitted reference to the Grade II listed Clock Tower.

2.  Receipt of a letter of objection from David Burrowes MP on behalf of the users of the facility, that the loss of the facility would be contrary to Core Policy 11 of the Core Strategy as he considered that it had not been demonstrated that the facility was no longer required or would be provided elsewhere. He expressed concern at the effect on the local community and the needs of local sports users would not be met, and that there was also no evidence of a full equalities impact assessment before entering the contract with Fusion.

3.  Three additional conditions in respect of ecology / biodiversity; sustainability; and a new Grampian condition regarding details of access.

4.  The deputation of Mr Leslie Cohen, on behalf of Bramley bowls club members, including the following points:

a.  The bowls club was important to its members’ lives, providing social gatherings, friendship and support as well as sport. The loss of this facility would disrupt a lot of senior citizens.

b.  Members had been told they could use Picketts Lock as an alternative facility, but this was costly and difficult to reach by public transport.

c.  The bowls club had at least 300 members, but the Council did not consult them until the contract had been signed with Fusion.

d.  Access to the site could be unsafe, especially at times when there were around 200 boys playing rugby at the neighbouring Saracens ground.

e.  This was a thriving bowls club. A decline in indoor bowls was not evident.

f.  Schools needed an indoor bowls facility as it was now on the school curriculum.

5.  The response of Mr Kerry White, Archer Architects (Agent), including the following points:

a.  Further information was being provided in relation to biodiversity, sustainability and highways issues.

b.  He offered to respond direct to any queries.

6.  In response to Members’ queries, the Planning Decisions Manager advised that Leisure Services officers had provided a list of local short mat bowls and other bowls facilities: at Edmonton and Southgate Leisure Centres, in N11 and N12, at Picketts Lock and in Cheshunt. These were all a fairly short distance away, though all over two miles. Leisure Services officers had also advised that there was a higher demand for multi-use games areas. The pitch would have synthetic turf and be used predominantly for five a side football, and hockey. He confirmed that notices advertising this planning application were put up outside the site, and adjoining occupiers had been consulted.

7.  Members expressed ongoing concern in respect of availability and accessibility of alternative comparable facilities, lack of consultation with current bowls club members, the need for the proposed development, and the lack of detail, evidence and justification within the report.

8.  Councillor Hurer’s proposal that a decision on the application be deferred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 942.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.  Receipt of two additional letters of objection, summarised by the Planning Decisions Manager, including concerns that Condition 18 was not comprehensive enough, an additional condition should be imposed in respect of pedestrian linkages to Silver Street, determination of this application was premature in the current circumstances, there was no need for these services, the future of the 491 bus route was not agreed with TfL, there was insufficient car parking, sealed windows, rainwater collection, and inadequate materials.

3.  Advice of the Planning Decisions Manager that discussions were ongoing with regard to buses circulating round the site, and that determination of the application must be on planning considerations.

4.  The deputation of Mr Kieran McGregor, on behalf of Save Chase Farm campaign group, including the following points:

a.  Consideration of the application was premature as the Barnet Enfield and Haringey (BEH) clinical strategy was currently on hold and approval could prejudice the review.

b.  As there was no decision on reconfiguration of health services there was no masterplan and the application should not therefore be determined.

c.  Maternity services were more in need in the parts of the borough where birth rates were high which were Enfield Town, Chase and Grange wards.

d.  There would be excessive density on the site: facilities should be developed on sites that were not already cramped and over-developed.

5.  The deputation of Mr Donald Smith, on behalf of Enfield Transport Users Group, including the following points:

a.  Condition 18 was too prescriptive. Amended proposed wording had been submitted to cover on-site bus services.

b.  The applicant was already offering cosmetic improvements to the pedestrian walkway to Silver Street station: it was proposed this be legalised via a S106 agreement.

c.  He would be happy to go along with the establishment of a transport working group and would follow up on that with the applicant.

6.  The response of Mr Kevin Howell, Director of Environment, North Middlesex Hospital, including the following points:

a.  The proposal was for replacement of buildings. It was not associated with the BEH clinical strategy. It would be funded under normal procurement routes from the NHS.

b.  Use of a greenfield site would go against the requirements to improve facilities.

c.  The proposals were in line with current thinking on maternity services.

d.  The application had been put forward as part of the ongoing management of the hospital and to enhance the services provided, the building was required at this site.

e.  He would welcome a site visit by Members if they so wished.

7.  Members’ discussion focussing on density, visual impact and public transport issues, and the benefits of making a site visit with officers and examining the plans on site.

8.  The proposal that a decision on the application be deferred to enable Members to make a site visit, supported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 943.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.  Receipt of an update letter of objection from Frank Stocks, Pearson Associates, distributed to all Planning Committee Members.

2.  The deputation of Mr Antoine Christoforou, Fusion Residential (the agent), including the following points:

a.  The justification by Planning officers of the recommendation of refusal was inconsistent and flawed.

b.  There were material considerations which supported approval of planning permission.

c.  The single stated concern was that the development would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area and not in keeping. The applicants considered this spurious and without basis in the context of the area.

d.  The report referred to two other sites in the immediate surroundings in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, but failed to mention a further seven sites in the area involving subdivision of properties, all of which were approved. All were on backland plots, had access roads and were entirely appropriate in the area.

e.  The nearest precedent was Oak House which was larger than this proposal but was allowed.

f.  This development would have no detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and would result in no demonstrable harm to the area.

3.  The response of neighbouring residents Mr Davis and Mr Sainsbury, including the following points:

a.  The follow up objection letter from Pearson and Associates set out the concerns, particularly at the narrowness of the vehicle access.

b.  A fully loaded builders lorry would have very little clearance, and access would be potentially dangerous.

c.  The development would be close to No 5 Corbar Close, giving rise to overlooking and loss of privacy and sunlight.

d.  They supported the recommendation of refusal.

4.  In response to the Chairman’s query, the Planning Decisions Manager provided a comparison with the recent application granted at No 63 Camlet Way.

5.  In response to Councillor Simon’s query, the Traffic and Transportation Officer advised on the sufficiency of the vehicle access to the site and that there would be little impact on the highway, and that any impact on trees was not a Transportation issue.

6.  The unanimous support of the Committee to accept the officers’ recommendation.

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.  Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager to clarify the application, its history and context.

2.  The unanimous support of the Committee to accept the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, and authority delegated to the Assistant Director to issue the decision subject to no additional consultations being received that raise issues that had not been contained within the report or brought to the attention of Members at Committee, for the reason set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.  The receipt of three additional letters of objection from residents.

2.  The deputation of Mr Cuneyt Cimen, the agent, including the following points:

a.  As far as they were concerned, approval had been granted by Planning Committee on 29/3/11 and a decision notice should have been sent, but had been delayed by the Planning Department.

b.  The applicant was trying to comply with conditions. Discussions with the neighbour had not paid off and the flue had now been removed and a new system would be installed. A retail element had been introduced in the shop.

c.  He believed there was no intention to operate No 9 Chaseville Parade for café use, but that permissions were sought simply to raise the lease.

d.  Consultation letters had been sent on two occasions and the Committee should not make a decision before the consultation period ended.

3.  The response of Ms Jean Sayers, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a.  Local residents supported the recommendation of refusal.

b.  Residents did not understand how the leaseholder could put up a flue without any permission.

c.  The leaseholder must not be allowed to carry out A3 trading.

d.  The operator was currently in breach of an enforcement notice.

4.  The advice of the Planning Decisions Manager in respect of the planning decision notice and enforcement actions.

5.  Members’ discussion focussing on the mix of A1 and A3 use and robustness of conditions and the vitality and viability of the shopping parade.

6.  The majority of the Committee did not support the officers’ recommendation of refusal: 4 for and 7 against.

7.  Members’ discussion and officers’ advice on reasons for approval and appropriate conditions.

8.  The unanimous support of the Committee that planning permission be approved as the mixed use A1 and A3 restaurant would be complementary to existing uses in the area and would not detract from the vitality and viability and retail character of the shops along Chaseville Parade, subject to conditions to be delegated to officers subject to consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Lead Member.

AGREED that planning permission be approved for the reason above, subject to conditions delegated to officers subject to consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Lead Member.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Enfield Highway

NOTED

1.  A schedule of suggested conditions had been distributed to Members.

2.  Receipt of suggestion from Environmental Health that an acoustic report be submitted before development took place.

3.  Thames Water had no objection.

4.  Councillor Simon’s request that landscaping details seek to improve the area between the Centre and the existing development to the south.

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

AGREED that subject to the receipt of no new material considerations following the expiry of the consultation period, planning permission be deemed to be granted in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule, for the reasons set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Edmonton Green

                                                                                                SENT TO FOLLOW

NOTED that the application had been withdrawn by the applicant and was not considered by Planning Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Chase

NOTED

1.  Confirmation of Natural England’s position.

2.  The Planning Decisions Manager’s advice in respect to weight to be attached to loss of the cricket ground.

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

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.  The Planning Decisions Manager’s confirmation that conditions would be sought in respect of:

-  Approval of Materials

-  Landscaping

-  Methodology for Works in proximity to Trees

-  Tree Protection

-  Energy Statement

-  Review of Existing School Travel Plan

2.  Confirmation by Dennis Stacey of the Conservation Advisory Group’s position that CAG had no objection in principle but had concerns about the design and resulting bulk which detracted from overall appearance, and requested additional planting along the western and southern boundaries.

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

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

Monthly decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals.

NOTED the information on town planning appeals received from 16/03/2011 and 07/04/2011, summarised in tables. Full details of each appeal were available on the departmental website.

NOTED that, with the Chairman’s agreement, the Head of Development Management recommended that two Planning Panel meetings be set up in respect of two planning applications with a high level of public interest.

AGREED

1.  That a Planning Panel be held in respect of application LBE/11/0009 – Merryhills Primary School, Bincote Road, Enfield, EN2 7RE.

2.  That a Planning Panel be held in respect of the application for the proposed new Oasis Academy Hadley at the Former National Grid Gasworks at Ponders End.

3.  The dates and venues of the meetings and membership of the panels to be agreed in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Lead Member.

NOTED that this was the last meeting of the Planning Committee in the 2010/11 municipal year and the Chairman asked that his thanks be recorded to the current Committee Members and the officers for their support.