Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Nawshad Ali and Cllr Elif Erbil (Vice-Chair). Cllr Ali was substituted by Cllr Eylem Yuruk.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest received regarding any items on the agenda.

To agree the minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday 7 March 2023 and Tuesday 21 March 2023.

AGREED the minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday 7 March 2023 and Tuesday 21 March 2023 as a correct record.

To receive and note the covering report of the Head of Planning.

Received the report of the Head of Planning, which was NOTED.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Head of Development Management be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed within the report.

WARD: Cockfosters

Dino Ustic, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

Updates and clarifications to the report had been circulated to the committee.

A deputation was received from Cllr Alessandro Georgiou, Cockfosters Ward Councillor, who spoke against the officers’ recommendation. Cllr Georgiou asked that if Members were not minded to refuse the application, they at least defer it, in order to give the applicant and officers time to review the details of the application, and address the concerns.

The agent, Mr Graham Fisher, spoke in response.

Officers responded to comments and questions, and confirmed that the additional updates/clarifications which were made to the report were circulated to Members on Friday. They acknowledged that some inaccuracies remained, notably the mention of two as opposed to one building footprint.

Officers confirmed that this was an outline application, and referred to site access and the quantum of development only. They advised that no category A or B trees would be lost, and a condition would be added to require the same number of trees to remain on the site. Officers emphasised that a qualified arboriculture consultant had raised no objections to the proposal, that a planning condition would be sufficient, and that reserved matters could come back to the committee at that later stage.

Officers provided further advice on TPO designation, and on parking space.

The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted:

7 FOR

0 AGAINST

4 ABSTENTIONS

and so, it was AGREED:

That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:

In accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the Head of Development Management be authorized to Grant full planning permission subject to planning conditions.

WARD: Upper Edmonton

This item was withdrawn from the agenda. Officers would review the proposals with the applicant, before bringing it back to committee.

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 finalise the wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD: Town, Whitewebbs, Southbury

Karolina Grebowiec-Hall, Principal Planner, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

Deputations were received from Patricia McAdden and from Meral Sonmez, both local residents, speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

Sarah Whitehouse, of Norman Rourke Pryme Ltd, spoke in response, on behalf of the applicant/ agent.

The officer responded to comments and questions, and advised that the New River corridor was a public amenity and a newly designated cycle route. Secure by Design officers at the police, had raised no concerns. She provided further details in respect of lighting, use of the public footpath, and screening. 

Cllr Rye expressed disappointment that the application had not been submitted in two parts, suggesting he had few concerns regarding the section of the path already open to the public. He agreed with the concerns of residents of Ladysmith Road and Sinclare Close. Cllr Rye had previously met with officers to raise issues. He would prefer the potential alternative path. He encouraged Members to visit the site, to understand the concerns for themselves.

Officers confirmed that the proposals had been submitted as one application, and officers had considered it as such throughout. The applicant had assessed the alternative route, and found the traffic, safety, and cost implications were prohibitive.

In response to Member’s queries regarding a section of land controlled by St Ignatius College, officers advised that conversations were ongoing, and increasingly positive; and that this section of the path had an alternative route for those who cannot access it. Officers confirmed that the proposed route was chosen as it maximised the benefits of cycle safety and the healthy streets initiative.

In response to Members’ queries regarding consultation, officers advised that the applicant had hosted a number of webinars to residents in December. A following three webinars were conducted in March, targeting sections of the route where concerns had been raised, with invitations sent by post to residents, and had attendances of one and two.

Members had ongoing concerns in respect of the issues raised by residents, the proposed route, the consultation process, loss of privacy, light spill, and screening.

The Director of Planning and Growth provided further advice, including that an additional condition could be included in respect of further planting as a means to reduce privacy concerns, and on the consideration of any alternative route.

In response to Members’ further queries, officers confirmed that CCTV had been included in the proposals. The applicant had tried to ensure the benches were not adjacent to residential properties, that other locations could be considered, and the details of these could be a condition.

Cllr Rye proposed that a decision on the application be deferred until a Member site visit could take place. This would also allow time to find out if St Ignatius College were prepared to sell the land and facilitate access to that section of the application, as well as get clarity on the potential of the alternative route. This was seconded by Cllr Chamberlain.

Cllr Taylor suggested an update on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive and note a Summary of Appeal Decisions from the Head of Planning. ‘To Follow’

Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects for noting.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions. It was confirmed that, with regards to the Arnos Grove application, the Inspector had considered the new London Plan, and the Council’s own Local Plan in their review, which had not been adopted when Members made their decision. Brett Leahy advised that officers sought to provide Members with their interpretations through the weightings given to key considerations, and to advise on future national policy changes when they presented reports. Officers confirmed there was no update on the Cockfosters application: this was still being considered by the government for call in, and there could not be an appeal during this time.

To note the dates of the future meetings will be confirmed following Annual Council on Wednesday 10 May 2023.

NOTED that the dates of future meetings would be confirmed following Annual Council on Wednesday 10 May 2023.