Agenda and minutes

Councillor Aksanoglu, Chair, welcomed all attendees.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Boztas, Ozaydin, Hassan and Uddin.

Apologies for absence were also received from Dominic Millen (Group Leader Transportation).

Councillor Savva, in the absence of Councillor Boztas (Vice Chair), acted as the deputy chair.

Councillor Bond questioned why the minutes for the 25 September 2018 had not been attached to the agenda and had not been agreed prior to hearing the Broomfield Park (18/00633/RE4) application. Jeremy Chambers (Director of Law & Governance) clarified that the 25 September 2018 minutes had been amended and tabled before the committee this evening.

Council Bond had one query on the 25 September 2018 minutes regarding Item No.759, point 4 on page 583 whereby ‘position’ should be replaced with ‘opposition’. The minutes of the 25 September 2018 were agreed subject to the above amendment.

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 there were no declarations of interest.

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

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

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Kevin Tohill (Planning Decisions Manager) clarifying the reporting procedure back to the Planning Committee and outlining the benefits associated with the proposal.

2.    Officers reported additional conditions to cover tree protection, archaeology, landscaping, details regarding re-use of spoil from excavation and a revised updated plan.

3.    The statement by Councillor Daniel Anderson (Deputy Leader) in support of the officer recommendation.

4.    The statement by Dennis Stacey (Chair of the Conservation Advisory Group - CAG). The CAG asked if Section 106 monies could be allocated towards other issues in Broomfield Park i.e. Broomfield House.

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

6.    Members concerns and support of the application:

·         That this application was an abuse of process and needed a further public consultation. This application should be rejected and a new application made. That the committee were not in a position to determine this application.

·         That concerns raised by from Historic England and CAG, objections raised by London Park & Garden Trust and Conservation had not been fully addressed.

·         Heritage and archaeological concerns.

·         Why members were not taken on a site visit of the proposal especially as this was an important heritage site.

·         That this was a good quality project and that the benefits outweigh the concerns.

·         That the proposal would bring communities together and benefit wildlife in the area as had other wetlands projects in the borough.

·         That the proposal would protect 300 local residential properties from flooding.

7.    The support of the majority of the committee for the officers’ recommendation: 4 votes for and 3 against and 1 abstention.  

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to conditions and with additional conditions.