Agenda and minutes

Councillor Simon, Chair, welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained the order of 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.

NOTED

1.    There were no declarations of interest.

2.    In respect of application ref 14/02821/FUL, Councillor Pearce had advised neighbouring residents about the planning process and viewed the site, but not entered dialogue, and came to the meeting with an open mind.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 23 September 2014.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 23 September 2014 as a correct record.

To receive the covering report of the Assistant Director, Planning, Highways & Transportation.

4.1       Applications dealt with under delegated powers. (A copy is available in the Members’ Library.)

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director, Planning, Highways and Transportation (Report No.100).

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager.

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

AGREED that subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager.

2.    Updates since publication of the officers’ report.

3.    Amendment to the recommendation.

4.    A revised list of conditions had been circulated to members today. An additional condition was also recommended that will require the submission of access road and junction details for all internal estate roads for each phase of the development.

5.    The deputation of Mr Roy Cook on behalf of Pointbid plc, owner of the adjoining site at 102 East Duck Lees Lane.

6.    The response of Ms Caroline Dawson on behalf of Planning Potential Ltd, agent for the applicant.

7.    Members expressed concern about the issues that officers had identified in the report relating to access to neighbouring sites and design/scale of buildings and asked that if the reserved matters come forward and they do not satisfactorily address these issues then the applications must be referred back to Planning Committee for consideration.

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

AGREED that subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the following obligations, and the resolution of the outstanding sustainability matters, that the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the revised conditions circulated and the additional condition below.

For clarity the Section 106 Agreement obligations are as follows:

•  The provision of a riverside walk along the western banks of the Navigation to enhance pedestrian access to the employment area and to provide an amenity for those who work in the area. The obligation would require: the construction of the riverside walk for public use (but not dedicated as highway) and to be not less than 8m in width from the top edge of the riverbank; provision of landscaping and ancillary features such as litter bins, benches, signage; any remedial work to the riverbank as a result of the provision of the riverside walk; the riverside walk and landscaping to be maintained in perpetuity at the applicant/owner’s expense, in accordance with details to be agreed with the LPA.

•  A financial contribution, the level of which is to be agreed with the applicant, to the delivery of a new pedestrian bridge over the River Lee.

•  An employment and skills strategy.

•  Securing the principles and the delivery mechanism of mitigations to highway network at Jeffreys Road / Mollison Avenue, East Duck Lees Lane / Mollison Avenue, Northampton Road / East Duck Lees Lane and associated changes to parking restrictions via a Section 278 Agreement (under the Highways Act 1980).

•  A scheme for the public adoption via a Section 38 Agreement (under the Highways Act 1980) of the access route into the site to the north in order to provide the opportunity for vehicles to turn at the end of the publicly adopted highway.

•  Details of safeguarded routes for future DEN connection (the precise wording of which to be agreed with the applicant).

Additional Condition

Each phase of the development shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.  Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager.

2.  The deputation of Mr John Overs, neighbouring resident.

3.  The statement of Councillor Michael Lavender, Cockfosters Ward Councillor.

4.  The response of Mr Tim Palmer, Director, Turquoise Noise Ltd, agent for the applicant.

5.  Advice of the Planning Decisions Manager in respect of issues raised.

6.  Apologies that plans were omitted from the agenda pack, but drawings were projected on screen.

7.  Following a debate, a vote was taken and the officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the committee: 7 votes for and 4 against and 1 abstention.

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

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED that a decision was deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to enable outstanding issues to be resolved.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

SENT TO FOLLOW

NOTED

1.  The three applications relating to Stonehill Estate were discussed simultaneously but voted on separately.

2.  Introduction by the Head of Development Management.

3.  Updates since publication of the officers’ report.

4.  Environment Agency had stated that their objections remain and should be reflected as a reason for refusal on each application. It had acknowledged the additional information provided by the applicants in response to the outstanding issues and stated that it will provide further advice once the evaluation has been completed. Until the Environment Agency confirm this additional information is acceptable, it was proposed to retain the reasons for refusal.

5.  In respect of sustainability, the applicant has committed to incorporate safeguarded routes for the Lee Valley DEN and will provide the necessary infrastructure. It expects this to be secured by S106. Reason 5 to be deleted.

6.  Following a debate, a vote was taken and the officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the committee: 9 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report as amended above.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

SENT TO FOLLOW

NOTED that the officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the committee: 9 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report as amended above.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

SENT TO FOLLOW

NOTED that the officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the committee: 9 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report as amended above.

Monthly decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals.

(The update will be provided at the meeting.)

NOTED that Appeal information would be circulated to Members.