NOTED

1.    Councillor Boztas (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.      There were no apologies for absence.

3.      Councillor Ergin Erbil substituted for Councillor Doug Taylor. Councillor Taylor stated that he was not aware of the substitution as he had not been notified.

4.      Councillor Dinah Barry substituted for Councillor Daniel Anderson. The substitution was only granted by the Monitoring Officer (Director of Law & Governance) after the first agenda item had commenced, so neither Councillor Barry nor Councillor Anderson could vote on this item.

NOTED

1.    Councillor Bedekova declared a non-pecuniary interest against item 5 as she was the ward councillor for Edmonton Green.

2.    Councillor Ergin Erbil declared a non-pecuniary interest against item 5 as he was the ward councillor Edmonton Green.

3.    Councillor Susan Erbil declared a non-pecuniary interest against item 6 as she was the ward councillor for Ponders End.

4.    Councillor Anolue declared a non-pecuniary interest against item 7 as she was the ward councillor for Upper Edmonton.

5.    Councillor Anderson declared a declared a non-pecuniary interest against item 4 as he was the ward councillor Southgate Green.

6.    Councillor Hasan declared a non-pecuniary interest against item 8 as he was the ward councillor for Enfield Highway.

To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.

RECEIVED the report of the Head of Planning.

AGREED to vary the order of the agenda. The minutes follow the order of the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: Notwithstanding any direction from the Mayor of London to the contrary, that planning permission be Granted, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement.

WARD: Enfield Highway

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals. This application had been deferred by the Committee at the 3 November 2020 Committee meeting for further consultation with residents.

2.    The deputation of Yusuf Osman (local resident).

3.    The deputation of Sam Nanji (local resident).

4.    The statement of Cllr Christine Hamilton, Enfield Highway Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation.

5.    The response by Gill Eaton (agent) and Jamie Narborough (Transport Consultant).

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

7.    The committee’s concerns and comments included the following:

·         The site was not designated for buildings of this nature and the height of the development is a very significant issue. The development would have an overbearing and over dominant impact on housing in the surrounding area and is not acceptable.

·         High density developments have the lowest education outcomes and the worst health and income outcomes which can be traced back over time.

·         The Housing team had said that the mix of units is not appropriate and more 3 bed units would have been sought. The unacceptable mix of units against Council policy, not meeting housing demand and is an overdevelopment. Only 15% of 3 bed units were being provided but the demand in Enfield for 3 bed units was 47%.

·         Issue with the comments of the GLA upon the amount of commercial space that survives as a result of the application.

·         In terms of parking, admitted in the report, there is a displacement of 30% onto the surrounding residential roads and would inconvenience residents as a result by causing disharmony between residents competing for parking spaces.

·         The London Fire Brigades comments expressing concern about units being built that are over 35m in height following the fire at Grenfell. Two of the buildings are above 35m in height.

·         lack of parking.

·         The development was out of character and was an eyesore. This was one of the reasons that the application had previously been deferred. The developer had not looked at local buildings in the area.

·         Enquiry regarding local employment, including apprentice opportunities and sustainable sourcing of materials for the development.

8.    The majority of the committee supported the officers’ recommendation with 6 votes for and 5 against.

Councillor Barry had not applied to substitute for Councillor Anderson before this agenda item commenced. Councillor Barry’s substitution was granted by the Monitoring Officer (Director of Law and Governance) for Councillor Anderson whilst this item was part-heard, as a result neither Councillor could vote on this item.

AGREED that notwithstanding any direction from the Mayor of London to the contrary, that planning permission be Granted, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a legal agreement, the Head of Development Management /Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD: Southgate Green

NOTED

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

2.     The proposal seeks to accommodate an Aldi food store and a B&M retail store and provide 110 car parking spaces.

3.     It is important that development on the site does not prejudice the long-term aspiration for comprehensive redevelopment of the Western Gateway. The Section 106 legal agreement will therefore secure the temporary duration of the development to enable the unit to be vacated and the planning permission terminated for the comprehensive redevelopment to take place.

4.     In terms of transportation matters, the current site comprises 340 parking spaces. Officers have worked with the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces on site to 110 given the current policy direction compared to decades past. The spaces will include 8 disabled parking bays, 2 active electric charging points and 2 passive electric charging points. A financial contribution of £10,000 will also been secured through a S106 to go towards pedestrian access improvements along Station Road.

5.     The prosed external changes to the building would not impact on the character and appearance of the area or neighbouring residential amenity and in fact improve the appearance of the existing building.

6.     The proposal would be a meanwhile use that will bring a currently vacant retail unit back into use, provide enhanced landscaping and cycling facilities, secure a financial contribution for pedestrian improvements, contribute to the local economy and generate jobs.

7.     Condition 3 has been amended as shown on the screen. This is to ensure that in the event that Aldi cease trading, retail sales on the site would revert to those approved under the previous permission reference 14/04636/VAR.

8.  The statement of Councillor Anne Brown, Southgate Green Ward Councillor, in support of the application.

9.  The statement of Councillor Daniel Anderson, Southgate Green Ward Councillor, in support of the application.

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

11. The unanimous support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: That temporary planning permission and advertising consent be Granted subject to the conditions.

WARD: Upper Edmonton

Please see the links below to the public register for item 7 – drawings will be amongst the documents

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QELIENJNI5O00

https://planningandbuildingcontrol.enfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QELIFFJNI5P00

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Joseph McKee, Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals for both applications for a temporary redevelopment of the site for as a film studio’s and the temporary installation of 3 externally illuminated signs and one internally for a period of 2 years.

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

3.    Members concern regarding condition 22 and to limit the sound to 110 dB.

4.    The unanimous support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation regarding both applications.

AGREED that temporary planning permission and advertising consent be Granted subject to the conditions.

NOTED

1.    The committee would not reasonably be able to consider the remaining two applications on the agenda this evening due to the late hour, but was recommended to progress Agenda Item 5 (17/05384/FUL – Edmonton Methodist Church, 300 Fore Street, London, N9 0PN) and Agenda Item 6 (20/03070/FUL – Falcon Road Spur, EN3 4LX).

2.    The recommendation to extend the meeting and consider Items 5 and 6 was supported by a majority of the committee: 11 votes for and 1 vote against.

AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10pm) be suspended for a period of 30 minutes to enable Items 5 and 6 to be considered.

RECOMMENDATION: That subject to the recommendations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement be authorised to Grantplanning permission subject to conditions.

WARD: Edmonton Green

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposal.

2.     This application seeks planning permission for the redevelopment of site including the erection of a 5 storey block of 24 self-contained flats with parking at ground floor and partial demolition of existing church for the erection of a new 3 storey Church building involving vehicular access off Brettenham Road.

3.      It has been concluded by an independent viability consultant that the scheme is unable to viably provide an affordable housing contribution. It is proposed to secure a review mechanism within the s106 legal agreement to ensure where viable, an affordable housing contribution is secured. The s106 will also secure that the church is delivered to avoid the residential units being provided and sold without the delivery of the new church.

4.     The proposal would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. It would not impact on neighboring residential amenity or result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the free flow of traffic. The scheme would provide a community facility on the site that is modern and accessible for members of the local community and the church. Furthermore, the scheme would provide additional residential units for the borough which would meet minimum space standards.

5.     The scheme would be CIL liable which would result in a Mayoral CIL contribution of £86,653.72 and an Enfield CIL contribution of £173,307.44.

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

7.    Members concern with the application regarding the lack of affordable housing, the housing mix of too many 1 & 2 bedroom units, lack of larger accommodation and more blue badge spaces and electric charging points,

8.    The majority support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation with 10 votes for and 2 abstentions.

AGREED that subject to the recommendations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management/the Planning Decisions Manager, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: That subject to 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.    The introduction by Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The statement of Councillor Doug Taylor, Ponders End Ward Councillor, to defer the application as no consultation had taken place with the three Ponders End Ward Councillors regarding the changes to the existing car park layout.

3.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

4.    The Chair moved to defer the application, seconded by Councillor Kate Anolue, for further consultation to also include the three Ponders End Ward Councillors.

5.    The majority of the committee supported deferment of the application with 11 votes for and with councillor Elif Erbil who was unable to vote due to technical difficulties with her electronic device.

AGREED that the application be deferred for further consultation and to also include the three Ponders End Ward Councillors.

The next meeting of the Planning Committee will be Tuesday 5 January 2021.

NOTED

1.    The next meeting dates for the Committee would be Tuesday 5 January 2021.