Agenda and minutes

1.    Councillor Simon, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2.    Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Levy and Hurman.

3.    Councillor Savva acted as Vice Chair for the meeting.

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 22 July 2014.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 22 July 2014.

Subject to noting apologies for absence for Councillors Chamberlain, Hurman and Simon.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    Introduction by Sean Newton, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.    A scheme was previously refused under delegated powers for the reasons set out in section 3 of the Officer report. It is considered that the revisions made adequately address those reasons for refusal:

·         The dwelling has been set 2m away from the common boundary, when 1m was previously proposed.

·         It achieves the same building line as No.24 and is marginally in front of No.20.

·         Whilst the whole building has been shifted further back into the plot, it does not compromise the 45- and – 30-degree angles taken from the nearest affected windows – ground and upper floors respectively.

·         The terrace at the rear is no higher than the existing.

3.    The deputation of Mr Roger Twohey, neighbouring resident, against the officers’ recommendation.

4.    The statement in response of Mr Alan Cox, the agent.

5.    Response of the Head of Development Control and Principal Planning Officer to issues raised.  These included the following points:

·         Construction management plan to include mitigation of noise, dust, large machinery and vibration.

·         Basement concerns associated with excavation and flooding.

·         Party wall concerns regarding neighbouring properties.

·         The application was not an over development.

·         The footprint of the development had increased by 319m2.

6.    Following a debate, a vote was taken and members resolved to accept the officers’ recommendation by 7 votes to 3.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to an additional condition for a construction management plan and to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Jubilee, Ponders End

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Principal Planning Officer.

2.    The applicant would like Condition 13 (Restriction of open Storage) to be amended to allow for open storage outside of the racking area and is willing to limit the size of this area and its location within the site to an area to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and to also limit the height of any open storage to no more than 3m. It is therefore recommended that Condition 13 is amended to reflect the suggested amendment:

‘No plant, machinery, goods, products or articles of any description shall be stored on any open part of the site unless within the approved racking area located on the eastern part of the site as indicated on Drawing No.34903/LON/CVD/001/E or within any other area to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any storage within the approved racking area shall not be to a height exceeding 2.5m above ground, and that stored within the area, to be agreed, shall not be to a height exceeding 3m’.

3.    Drainage condition (18) details of the kerbing at the entrance. The use of the site for flood storage purposes is generally acceptable, however additional information was required for kerbing at the entrance.

4.    Response of the Principal Planning Officer to issues raised.

5.    Following a debate the officers’ recommendation was unanimously approved.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to amendment to the Open Storage condition (13) as reported and details of the kerbing at the site entrance and the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Town & Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, Planning Permission be deemed to be granted subject to conditions.

WARD: Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Principal Planning Officer.

2.    The following was highlighted:

·         The height of the weld mesh fence would in fact be 2.4m and not 1.8m as referred to in the report (the railings are proposed to be 1.8m).

·         The Council’s Heritage Officer had now commented on the application and had advised that “the proposal was discussed with the heritage team at the pre application stage and we have no objection in principle in terms of impact on the setting of the two listed buildings”.

·         The Council’s Heritage Officer has advised that there is no objection to green for the weld mesh.

3.    Following a debate the officers’ recommendation was unanimously approved.

AGREED that in accordance with regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Bowes

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Principal Planning Officer.

2.    The response of the Principal Planning Officer to issues raised.

3.    Following a short debate, the officers’ recommendation was unanimously approved.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Grange

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Principal Planning Officer.

2.    Planning permission was only required because the dwelling is covered by an Article 4 (2) Direction which removes permitted development rights for developments visible from the public highway. In this instance, the extension would project 1.08m to the side of the dwelling and therefore would be visible from the public highway.

3.    The existing raised patio will be extended over to replace the garage. Without adequate boundary screening, this could have a potentially detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupiers of No.85. It is noted that the proposed ground floor plan does appear to show a wall along that boundary. An additional condition is therefore proposed to seek details of the boundary treatment  to ensure a minimum height of 1.8m above the finished patio level to protect the privacy of the adjoining occupier.

4.    Following a debate the officers’ recommendation was unanimously approved.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to an additional condition for details of the boundary treatment to protect the privacy of the adjoining occupier and subject to conditions set out in the report.

Additional Condition

“Development shall not commence until details of the boundary treatment between Nos.83 & 85 Old Park Ridings in the area of the extended raised terrace has been provided to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The boundary treatment shall be no less than 1.8m in height above the finished terrace level and permanently retained”.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring occupier”.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Principal Planning Officer.

2.    Following a debate, a vote was taken and members resolved to accept the officers’ recommendation by 9 votes and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to expiry of consultation date on 20^th August 2014 and subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions

WARD: Highlands

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Principal Planning Officer.

2.    The application would normally be considered under delegated powers, however the applicant is a member of staff of the Regeneration & Environment Directorate.

3.    One further letter to report, from the occupier of No.18 Drapers Road, advising that there were no objections to the development.

4.    Following a debate, the officers’ recommendation was unanimously approved.

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