Agenda and minutes

Councillor Simon, Chair, welcomed all attendees and explained the order of the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor’s Savva and Erbil.

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.    Councillor Don McGowan declared a personal interest in application 17/01161/FUL – 1-3 Chalkmill Drive, EN1 1TZ as he was a governor of the Royal Free Hospital appointed by the Council.

2.    Councillor Nick Dines declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 17/01771/FUL – Garages to the rear of, 164-206 Bramley Road, London N14 4HX as his Sister in Law lived not far from the application site. However her property was sufficiently distant from the site as not to be affected by the application.

3.    Councillor Nick Dines noted that he had been involved as Ward Councillor in discussions relating to application 17/01966/RE4 – Bulls Cross Field, Bullsmoor Lane, Enfield, EN1 4RL.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 18 July 2017.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 18 July 2017 as a correct record.

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

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director, Regeneration and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions.

WARD: Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Liz Sullivan, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

No plans had been attached to the officers’ report and these were tabled at the meeting.

2.    The deputation of Mr Robert Jones, local resident.

3.    The response by Martin Harradine, agents (AZ Urban Studio).

4.    The statement by Dennis Stacey, Conservation Advisory Group Chair (CAG). Objections were raised by the CAG, as detailed at para 4.1.5 (page 11 of the agenda).

5.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers including the following points:

a.    CAG to be consulted as regards detailed design drawings and materials to be used.

b.    No parking provision for the development.

c.    overdevelopment.

d.    Application not complete.

6.    The support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation, with 7 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and subject to the condition for detailed drawings being agreed by the Conservation Advisory Group. If they were not agreed the application for discharge of conditions should be referred to the Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Southbury

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Kevin Tohill, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

2.    The deputation of Craig Blatchford, Partner, Montagu Evans LLP.

3.    The deputation of Olu Johnson, Head of Property (North / East London) at LiDL.

4.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers including the following points:

a.    Irrespective of outcome, the application could be called in by the GLA.

b.    The officer view that marketing of  the site had not been robust enough; some members considered that this did not seem justified in the light of the submitted marketing report.

c.    Proposed change of use (retail) would cause traffic and transport implications.

d.    Retention of Strategic Industrial Land (SIL). Application is for retail use and not industrial use.

e.    The application related solely to unit 1 of the site, however, members requested that the applications relating to the  whole site (including units 2 & 3) should be considered together if possible

5.     The Chair established that the committee were not minded to agree the officer recommendation for refusal on grounds relating to SIL, though traffic issues remained a concern. He suggested that  deferral of the application would be the best way forward, pending further evidence about marketing and traffic implications, and discussion with the GLA about SIL policy considerations.

6.    The unanimous agreement of the committee to defer the application.

AGREED that the application be deferred.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions.

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Kevin Tohill, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

2.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers.

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.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions.

WARD:  Chase

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Liz Sullivan, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

2.    The statement of Dennis Stacey, Chair – Conservation Advisory Group, raising concerns about the application, as detailed at para 4.1.8 (page 77 of the agenda.

3.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers including the following points;

a.    Proposals for the management of the sports field.

b.    Noise and flood lighting issues regarding local residents.

c.    Concern regarding the replacement of existing poplar trees with semi-mature oak trees.

4.    The unanimous support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation, subject to reconsideration of the need to replace the poplar trees

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report and subject to the question of removing/replacing trees being agreed by the Conservation Advisory Group. If agreement could not be reached at the proposed site meeting a further report should come to Committee.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement.

WARD:  Cockfosters

1.    The introduction by Liz Sullivan, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

2.    Members’ debate, and questions responded to by officers including the following points;

a.    Concern that there were no 3 bedroom properties within the development.

b.    What the offsite contribution for affordable housing equated to.

3.    The majority support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation with 8 votes and 2 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions set out in the report.