Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 26th April, 2022 7.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions

Contact: Marie Lowe, Governance and Scrutiny Officer 020 8132 1558 

Items
No. Item

1.

WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Councillor Boztas (Chair) apologised for arriving late at the meeting.  He had been unavoidably detained by a family emergency.  He then welcomed all attendees to the meeting and confirmed the meeting procedures.

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bedekova.

2.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Minutes:

Councillor Doug Taylor declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 - 22/00004/RE4 - Carpark, 291 High Street, EN3 4DN, and stated that, following careful consideration of the advice he had received from the Interim Director of Law and Governance, he would not participate in this item at all.

3.

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON: 23 November 2021; 7 December 2021; 4 January 2022; 18 January 2022; 3 February 2022; 22 February 2022; 8 March 2022; 29 March 2022 pdf icon PDF 158 KB

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 23 November 2021; 7 December 2021; 4 January 2022; 18 January 2022; 3 February 2022; 22 February 2022; 8 March 2022; 29 March 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

AGREED that:

 

1.    Subject to the amendment of the minutes of 23 November 2021 to note that Councillor Peter Fallart was in attendance;

2.    The dissatisfaction of the Members regarding the delay and the view that the shorter minutes did not fully reflect the discussion which had taken place at the meetings be noted;

3.    A joint strategy between all services was being developed to provide fuller but not verbatim minutes, was welcomed and noted; and

4.    On being put to individual votes, the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on: 23 November 2021; 7 December 2021; 4 January 2022; 18 January 2022; 3 February 2022; 22 February 2022; 8 March 2022; 29 March 2022 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

4.

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING pdf icon PDF 68 KB

To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.

 

Minutes:

NOTED the report of the Head of Planning.

5.

20/03530/FUL - Land End, 18 And Bush Hill Cottage, 20 Bush Hill, London, N21 2BX pdf icon PDF 24 MB

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That subject to the finalisation of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

Ward: Grange

Minutes:

The introduction by James Clarke, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals and updates following the publication of the agenda.

 

It was confirmed that additional conditions would be included to cover:

·         Yellow lines/ TMO on Bush Hill (subject to legal agreement and s278)

·         Cycle Storage (sitting/appearance)

·         Ramp access to Block B

·         Privacy screens to ground floor units

 

The statement of Councillor Andy Milne, Grange Ward Councillor, spoke against the officers’ recommendation.

 

The response of Michael Calder, the agent on behalf of the applicant.

 

Members, during the debate, raised concerns in relation to the feasibility, ease and likelihood that future residents would be able to increase the properties from two to three bedrooms; the loss of trees; the design and character of the proposed development, which some considered to be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and neighbouring properties; the lack of provision of a children’s playground facilities; the housing mix of the proposal compared to the housing needs of the Borough.

 

Officers responded as follows:

 

Principal Planning Officer:

1.    It would be possible to convert the use of the study room to a third bedroom without a new planning application having to be made.

2.    In total, there would be a net gain of four trees, 16 trees would be removed and replaced with 20 trees. This would be secured by condition.

3.    The concerns regarding the design and character of the proposed development were recognised.  Buildings of this design had been built in other parts of London.  Although the previous, more traditional design had been viewed favourably, there were several reasons why it would not have worked, such as rooms adjacent to the top floor would only have roof lights, which were not the most practical for modern living. 

4.    With regards to the character and appearance of the building, whilst it was different, it was not considered to be harmful to the surrounding area. The development site was sufficiently divorced from the neighbouring properties to provide an opportunity for a contemporary design, which Officers did not consider to be unattractive.

5.    Provision had not been made in the proposal for children’s’ playgrounds within the site.  Should a number of families move into the properties and a real need was identified by the management company a suitable area would be developed.  There was no other mechanism to install such a facility on the site.  Officers had not seen the need make such a provision at the application stage.

6.    It was acknowledged that compromises have had to be made in the consideration of the proposal’s height and massing of the development.  This was not considered to be harmful in the wider sense and would bring benefits to the local community.

7.    It was also acknowledged that Enfield’s Core Strategy (2010) and Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update (2015) were out of date and attracted less weight when compared to the London Plan.

8.    A view had been taken of the housing mix contained in the proposed development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

21/03247/OUT - Garages Meyer Green Enfield EN1 4NG pdf icon PDF 7 MB

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

Ward: Chase

 

Minutes:

The introduction by Lap Pan Chong, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals and updates following the publication of the agenda.

 

Written representations against the officer’s recommendation received separately from residents, Nick Churcher and Sarah Rickard had been circulated ahead of the meeting.

 

The response of Simon Chouffot (Applicant) and Nour Sinno (HTA Design LLP, Agent).

 

Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers:

 

General statements:

1.    Although the proposal was acceptable in planning terms it was back land development.

2.    There were issues regarding the proximity of the site to the existing neighbouring properties.

 

Trees:

1.    The number of trees to be planted compared to those to be removed was insufficient. 

2.    Although the trees which were to be removed were not of great value, they enhanced the environment and provided greenery to a non-designated heritage asset (i.e. New River) located next to the proposed development. 

3.    A condition to increase the number of replacement trees should be required.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded:

4.    Twelve, category U and C trees would be removed, and nine replacement trees would be planted.  The landscaping condition (condition 13) could be amended to secure additional replacement trees and specify the minimum number of replacement trees (12).

5.    The Ash tree is protected by a Tree Protection Order.

 

Traffic:

1.    The proposed parking layout, in a very heavily parked area, when alternative spaces were at least a five-minute walk away where inadequate.

2.    The number of parking spaces would not work. 

 

The Head of Traffic and Transportation reported that:

3.    Vehicle tracking had confirmed that fire appliances were able to access the site in the event of an emergency.

4.    Although the site was a back land development, access and parking had been assessed and found to be safe.

5.    London Fire Brigade had confirmed that access for emergency vehicles was acceptable and had confirmed that the proposed layout with six parking spaces was satisfactory.

 

Construction Materials:

1.    It was difficult to gain a clear image of the finished development in context with the existing surrounding properties from the presentation slides. 

2.    The slides showed examples of other developments and did not clearly show the exact materials which would be used at this site. 

3.    Physical samples of the building materials, particularly the colour of the exterior finishes, such as the bricks to be used would enable members to make an informed decision should be brought to the meetings of the Planning Committee at the appropriate time.

 

The Principal Planning Officer responded:

1.    The proposed masonry blocks are mainly terracotta-coloured and had been selected considering a basket of factors. Officers have reviewed the samples of the proposed masonry blocks. Given the architectural styles in the area varies, the proposed masonry would not harm the character of the area. The details of the construction materials to be used and samples had been conditioned and would be selected carefully.

 

Communal Refuse Store:

1.    The location of the communal refuse store, at approximately 30 metres,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

21/04651/HOU - 33 Willow Walk, London, N21 1NG pdf icon PDF 1 MB

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

Ward: Southgate

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers recommendation.

 

AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as set out in the report of officers.

8.

22/00004/RE4 - Carpark, 291 High Street, EN3 4DN pdf icon PDF 5 MB

RECOMMENDATION:

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

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

Ward: Ponders End

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Members questions responded by the Head of Traffic and Transportation:

a.    The carpark would remain for the use of the library.

b.    Temporary consent had been in place for some time and there were no concerns regarding continued community use or loss on car parking.

3.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers recommendation.

 

AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as set out in the report of officers.

 

Councillor Doug Taylor, having declared a non-pecuniary interest remained in the room but did not participate in either the discussion or vote of this item.

9.

22/00640/RE4 - 11 and 11B North Way, London, N9 0AD pdf icon PDF 1 MB

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management be authorised to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions as set out in this report.

Ward: Lower Edmonton

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Members’ questions responded to by officers;

                    i.      The facility would accommodate only Enfield residents, there would not be any guests from other London Boroughs.

                   ii.       Residents, in the existing accommodation, now had enclosed pods with doors which had replaced the curtains shown in the photographs during the presentation.  This ensured that residents would always have private space available for their own use.

                  iii.       This layout would be used in the proposed development.

3.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers recommendation.

 

AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

10.

FUTURE MEETING DATES

Future meeting dates of the Planning Committee will be confirmed at Annual Council on 25 May 2022.

Minutes:

Noted that the future meetings of the Planning Committee would be agreed at on 25 May 2022 at Annual Council.

 

The Chair announced that the date of the next meeting of the Planning Committee would be in June 2022 and would be confirmed at Annual Council. He went on to thank all Members for their contribution to the meetings throughout the year and wished everyone well in the future.

 

Members unanimously thanked Councillor Sinan Boztas for his work as Chair of the Planning Committee during the last year.