Agenda and minutes

NOTED

1.    Councillor Boztas, incoming Planning Committee Chair, welcomed all attendees to the meeting, which was being broadcast live online. Committee members confirmed their presence and that they were able to hear and see the proceedings.

2.    Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bond and Lemonides.

3.    Due to IT difficulties, Councillor Anolue was slightly late in joining the meeting.

NOTED Councillor Boztas’ proposal seconded by Councillor Rye that Councillor Bedekova become Vice Chair of Planning Committee for the 2020-21 municipal year.

AGREED Councillor Bedekova was elected Vice Chair of the Planning Committee for the 2020-21 municipal year.

NOTED that Councillor Alexandrou would be making a deputation in respect of application ref 19/04345/RE4 – Tennis Courts, Broomfield Park, London 13, and would therefore take no part in the debate or vote on the application.

To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.

RECEIVED the report of the Head of Planning.

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and the completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED

1.    Councillor Anolue missed the introduction, and was therefore unable to discuss and vote on the item.

2.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues and additional information provided since the previous deferral.

3.   This application was reported to 21^st April Planning Committee when Members deferred consideration largely because of concerns relating to the impact of the proposed development on the Phase 4 site on the amenities of adjoining residents.

4.   Firstly, to refresh Members on the changes proposed through this application to the existing outline planning permission before focusing on the impacts of these changes on the amenities of adjoining residents.

5.   Outline planning permission was granted in 2017 for the redevelopment of the site to provide 993 homes in blocks ranging in height between 2 and 16 storeys. The development was to be taken forward on phased basis.

An outline planning permission sets the parameters within which the development can come forward identifying and key things like build zones, access routes, landscape strategy, the quantum and mix of development etc. It does not fix the detailed design and appearance of buildings.

6.   When the outline planning permission was granted, the Borough’s housing target was moving from 560-798 units per year. The 2019 Intend to Publish London Plan is suggesting a housing target of 1250 units/year. It is in the context of a significant increase in housing demand that schemes are being reviewed to ensure all sites are optimised.

7.   This application seeks to vary the parameters of the outline planning permission. The details of the proposed changes are set out on pages 11 and 12 of the report. Essentially, the proposal is to increase the number of dwellings proposed from 993 to 1086 and in so doing ament the building height parameters of development with Phases 2A and 4.

8.   Following deferral of the application, the applicant has not amended the scheme but has provided additional information to demonstrate the impact of the development now proposed on the amenities of adjoining residents in comparison with the development already consented through the 2017 outline planning permission.

9.   It is recognised that, as with any development, there will be an impact. This impact needs to be balanced against the benefits arising from the scheme. It is Officers view that the impact of the development now proposed has been minimised and this this limited additional impact is outweighed by the benefits that the scheme will deliver in terms of increased housing units , the bringing forward of affordable housing delivery and an overall improvement to the quality of the local environment and public realm.

10. The deputation of John Williams (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

11. The statement of Councillor Doug Taylor, Ponders End Ward Councillor.

12. The statement of Councillor Ayfer Orhan, Ponders End Ward Councillor.

13. The response of Greg Blaquiere, Terence O’Rourke (Agent).

14. Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

15. Members’ concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the S106 to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grantplanning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Ponders End

NOTED that further to the decision to defer the application above, this item was not considered and therefore no presentation was given.

AGREED that this item be deferred.

RECOMMENDATION:  That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed Granted subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.    Councillor Alexandrou withdrew from the Committee for this item.

2.    Councillors Anolue and Hasan were present from this point of the meeting.

3.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the additional information in the addendum report.

4.   The application site is located to the south of Alderman’s Hill. It falls within Broomfield Park which is a Grade II registered park, and consists of 9 sports courts. The site is also identified as local open space, metropolitan open land, and a site of archaeological interest.

5.   Planning permission is sought by the Council, for the refurbishment of 9 Sports courts, involving resurfacing and partial reconstruction of the courts, installation of low level footpath bollard lighting from the entrance at Alderman's Hill to the courts, and installation of floodlighting.

6.   The application was brought to Planning Committee on 21st May 2020. The application was deferred by Members to obtain more information regarding existing and projected usage of the courts, to demonstrate the need for the floodlighting on Metropolitan Open Land and within the historic park and the benefits of the proposal to the local community, and this additional information is clearly set out in the addendum report.

7.   With regard to the usage of the courts by local schools, there are a number of local schools within the borough such as West Lea School (N9) and Grange Park Prep School (N21) that use the courts as well as others schools that fall outside of the borough, which raises no planning concerns.

8.    The need for the improvements to the existing courts and proposed floodlights is clear and justified. The proposal would assist with increasing the participation of people playing netball and tennis in the Borough and meeting the Councils strategy and objectives for the sports courts at Broomfield Park and the wider community.

9.    Receipt of 443 representations in support of the application from residents, the wider netball community, and local councillors: many addressed to Bambos Charalambous MP, and a petition received today.

In summary, matters raised include:

·         Immediate and positive impact for maintaining netball in the park

·         Improved facilities including the provision of floodlights would increase the uptake in the usage of the courts for both tennis and netball for people across all age groups, abilities and ethnic backgrounds.

·         Provides income for the community café and other local businesses.

·         Without the floodlights and the refurbishment of the netball courts there would be a real danger that netball will no longer be played in the park and the viability of the North London Netball League.

·         There are football pitches, rugby pitches, tennis courts, basketball courts and skateboarding facilities in many parks around the Enfield area, but these are the only netball facilities in the borough. They are a central part of the netball community in Enfield and north London.

·         Important for health and well-being and social cohesion.

10.   The courts have been identified as requiring significant improvement. The proposal will include resurfacing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Ward: Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    Councillor Alexandrou re-joined the meeting.

2.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

3.      Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the vacant doctors surgery (D1 use class) into 1 self contained flat, with wheelchair access, involving the replacement of the existing doors and windows, together with associated landscaping.

4.      An application of this scale and nature would normally be determined under delegated authority, however the application is being reported to the Planning Committee because the application site, including the whole of Dover House, is Council owned.

5.     The application site consists of a vacant GP surgery on the ground floor of a 14 storey block of flats, located on the northern side of Bolton Road.

6.      The surgery has been vacant since October 2018. The surgery closed because it merged with the Angel Surgery on Fore Street, which is located approximately 0.4 miles from the site. A suitable replacement facility was found to cater for the local community that maintains the same level of public provision and accessibly which is in accordance with policy requirements.

7.      The proposal would provide an additional 3 bed family wheelchair accessible unit. The residential unit will form part of Enfield Council’s social housing provision and will be allocated to an applicant on the Council’s register with particular accessibility needs.

8.      The proposals would not have any detrimental impact on visual and residential amenity, or the highway network.

9.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Head of Development Management/the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grantplanning permission subject to planning conditions.

WARD: Town

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and the site’s planning history.

2.   This application relates to a planning proposal for: Two storey side and rear extension including roof extension and two front and three rear dormers, and relocation of front bay windows to existing House in Multiple Occupation to increase the accommodation from nine rooms with shared facilities plus one self-contained one bedroom flat to twenty one rooms over three floors with shared facilities at no 36 Holwhites Hill.

3.   The proposal is to increase the quantity of accommodation. Currently the site provides accommodation for up to 20 residents. Proposal is to extend to provide accommodation for up to 37 residents

4.   The facts in this case relate back to a decision of a Council to refuse planning permission for bulkier but relatively similar scheme at the site submitted in 2015 for:

·         Two storey side extension, two storey rear extension and roof extension to existing House in Multiple Occupation to increase the accommodation from nine rooms with shared facilities plus one self-contained one bedroom flat to twenty one rooms over three floors with shared facilities

Planning permission was refused by the Council for:

ii)    resulting in an over-intensive HMO use of  the site.

ii)    The overall size, bulk in particular in respect of the roof design would appear overly        dominant, visually intrusive and out of keeping in the street scene.

iii)   Over intensive use and density of development proposed, that would result in a level        of activity, noise and general disturbance which will have detrimental impact on        amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.

iv)   The proposed development fails to demonstrate adequate and safe access arrangements, adequate levels of parking provision, servicing and cycle parking arrangements commensurate with the more intensive use proposed, leading to an        unacceptable parking demand on the local highway network and conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic.

The applicants appealed against the Council’s decision.

5. Whilst the appeal was dismissed the Planning Inspector made it clear that they did not uphold the Council’s arguments in respect of:

i)  PP was refused by the Council for being an over intensive overdevelopment   of the    site

ii)  Over intensive use of the site for HMO purposes

iii)  Poor access arrangements in relation to highways safety

6.  However, the Inspector did uphold the Council’s concern in respect of the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, in particular, concerns with regard to the scale and bulk of the roof design.

7.   In 2017 a further planning application was made which sought to respond to the concerns that were raised by the Planning Inspector in respect of the roof design.  This scheme was granted planning permission.  This scheme is very similar to the scheme presently before Members.  However, that permission has now expired, and the applicants are now seeking permission again.

8.      So, in relation to the issues upon which we went to appeal from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Meeting dates for the 2020/21 municipal year will be approved at Annual Council on 1 July 2020.

NOTED

1.    Members agreed to making a site visit to two sites on Waggon Road where applications were due to be brought back to Committee.

2.    Members were invited to briefing sessions on two forthcoming major applications, to be provided virtually.

3.    The next meeting dates for the Committee would be 21 July, 4 August, 1 September and 22 September. An additional meeting may also be required in the last week of September.