Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Tuesday, 25th September, 2018 7.30 pm

Venue: Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions

Contact: Jane Creer Email: (jane.creer@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 4093) / Metin Halil Email: (metin.halil@enfield.gov.uk 020 8379 4091) 

Items
No. Item

753.

WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Councillor Aksanoglu, Chair, welcomed all attendees.

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Savva, Hasan and Dominic Millen (Group Leader Transportation).

 

754.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

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

Minutes:

NOTED there were no declarations of interest.

755.

REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, REGENERATION AND PLANNING (REPORT NO.74 ) pdf icon PDF 68 KB

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

Minutes:

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

 

756.

ORDER OF THE AGENDA

Minutes:

AGREED to vary the order of the agenda to accommodate those in attendance. The minutes follow the order of the meeting.

757.

17/04704/FUL - 301 THE RIDGEWAY, ENFIELD, EN2 8AL pdf icon PDF 1 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Chase

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.         The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager.

2.         The deputation against the officers’ recommendation of refusal from

            Darren Blackwell, the agent.

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

4.         Andy Higham (Head of Development Management) confirmed the weight to be assigned to green belt policy and the test to be applied before departing from it.

5.         Confirmed properties on opposite site of road existed prior to current           green belt policy.                       

6.         Noted personal circumstances but officers explained public v private           benefits as very special circumstances.

7.         Andy Higham highlighted previous appeal decision as a material      consideration.

8.        Andy Higham confirmed officers view regarding impact on openness of green belt from two storey building

9.         The proposal that planning permission be refused was supported by           the majority of the committee: 1 vote for and 9 abstentions.

 

AGREED that planning permission be refused.

 

758.

18/03009/FUL - GENOTIN ROAD CAR PARK, GENOTIN ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 2AG pdf icon PDF 631 KB

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

WARD:  Grange

Additional documents:

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    There was a 5 minute adjournment of the meeting so as to allow committee members to view a scale model of the development.

2.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager.

3.    Request by officers for:

·         delegated authority to address/update planning conditions.

·         Confirmed resolution of SuDs (Sustainable Drainage System)

·         Confirmed Secure by Design to be covered by additional condition..

4.    The statement by Dennis Stacey (Chair of the Conservation Advisory Group).The Conservation Advisory Group were generally supportive of the proposal.

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

6.    Andy Higham (HoDM) spoke on the weight to be assigned to the Enfield Town Framework Master plan and its purpose to guide future development.

7.    Officers spoke on how the scheme responded to the Master plan despite being a solely office development including potential to adapt the building in the future

8.    Andy Higham advised on the potential future redevelopment / development of neighbouring sites including current Metaswitch premises. Confirmed latter was not material to current assessment

9.    Discussion on design having regard to comments of Place &Design Review Panel and Conservation groups / officer

10. Discussion on parking available within town centre following redevelopment of existing car park.

11. Andy Higham advised on why the level of parking provision was considered acceptable referring to needs of applicant, the relationship to the wider town centre and the weight  assigned to relevant adopted policies

12. Andy Higham spoke about the status of the trees and the weight could be given when assessing this application.

13. Members raised concern regarding:

a.    Compatibility of the proposals to the adopted Master Plan.

b.    Lack of mixed use to the development.

c.    Oversupply of car parking contrary to London Plan policy

d.    Future Management of car park.

e.    Design – Need for a Landmark building.

f.     Use of existing site.

g.    Impact on trees along southern boundary.

h.    Number of outstanding points in the report.

i.      Relationship to the conclusion of Place & Design Review Panel.

j.      CCTV within the development.

k.    Against London Plan Policy

 

14. The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation with 3 votes for, 6 against and 1 abstention

15. A proposal to defer the decision on the application was agreed unanimously by the committee so that the above issues are addressed.

 

AGREED that a decision be deferred.

759.

18/00633/RE4 - BROOMFIELD PARK, BROOMFIELD LANE, LONDON, N13 4HE pdf icon PDF 219 KB

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

Additional documents:

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager.

2.    Officers reported the additional Archaeological condition.

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

4.    Members noted the opposition of Historic England, CAG and The London Park and Garden Trust.

5.    Andy Higham (Head of Development Management) explained the legislative context and the relationship to any identified public benefits

6.    Officers set out the heritage context for the proposal in terms of the harm to the settings and identified the public benefits to offset this. Discussion on this point

7.    Officers explained management would be for the relevant Service within the Council to arrange but could be covered by a condition if minded.

8.    The majority of the committee did not support the officers’ recommendation with 7 against and 3 abstentions.

9.    A motion to defer was not agreed – 2 for / 8 against.

10. The proposal that planning permission be refused was supported by the majority of the committee: 8 for refusal / 2 against

 

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

 

The proposed wetlands area, given the absence of information to identify sufficient public benefit to offset the potential harm, the proposal, due to its size, skiting and form are considered to result in harm to the special character and appearance of the designated heritage assets of the Grade II listed Broomfield House and registered Broomfield Park. This would be contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 7.8 of the London Plan, Policy CP1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DMD 44 of the Development Management Document.