Agenda and minutes

Councillor Simon, Chair, welcomed all attendees and explained the order of the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor During.

The Chair also welcomed the new Planning Decisions Manager (North Area) Mr Andy Bates.           

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 20 October 2015.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 20 October 2015 as a correct record.

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

4.1       Applications dealt with under delegated powers. (A copy is available in the Members’ Library.)

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director, Planning, Highways and Transportation (Report No. 124).

AGREED that the order of the agenda be varied to accommodate members of the public in attendance at the meeting. The minutes follow the order of the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval of delegated powers to officers to negotiate an appropriate level of off-site affordable housing contribution together with the various obligations as outlined in the report. Subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions. Should no agreement be reached within 12 weeks, officers be granted delegated powers to refuse the application.

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Sean Newton (Principal Planning Officer) clarifying the development site. Members also attended a site visit of the development area on Saturday 21 November 2015.

2.    Redevelopment of the site includes the demolition of three existing detached dwelling houses. No.s 18 and 20 Bush Hill and Lane End and the erection of 4 x 3 storey blocks of 20  self-contained flats comprising 8 x 2-bed, 8 x 3-bed and 4 x 4 –bed with basement car and cycle parking.

3.    The development complied with national guidance and local policy on design, as set out in the report from paragraph 6.2.4 to 6.2.15. The development would represent a significant change to the street scene but change itself was not a material planning consideration.

4.    The scheme would meet or exceed all of the criteria of adopted policy as regards sustainable design and construction. Parking provision had met with London Plan standards.

5.    The receipt of an additional letter which had been circulated to Members. The points raised were considered to have been addressed within the officer report. However, it should be noted that at the top of page 3 (4 lines down) of the report officers contended that the report at para 6.2.9 was not misleading in its reference to the development on Cunard Crescent and Princessa Court. What officers are describing is that there is no singular architectural style in the area. There are large 2 storey dwellings of various styles and design, bungalows, townhouses and flatted developments. As detailed at para 6.2.9 and 6.2.10 of the report, there is sufficient variety in the built form to allow for a more contemporary style development.

6.    There was one additional letter to report, from the London Fire Brigade. The Brigade had advised that they were not satisfied with the proposal and of the need to provide adequate turning facilities for fire appliances and recommending the use of sprinkler systems.  The applicant had been in discussion with the Fire Brigade and had confirmed the location of a proposed fire  dry riser to serve each apartment and a 1 hour minimum protected escape route. The Brigade has verbally indicated that they are satisfied with the proposals.

7.    The deputation of Roy Conway (Local resident).

8.    The statement of Councillor Terry Neville, Grange Ward Councillor, against the application.

9.    The views of Dennis Stacey speaking in an individual capacity.

10.  The response by Michael Calder (Agent).

11.  Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding building quality, lack of amenity space for two of the properties, that the development did not preserve or enhance the area, speeding vehicles and the potential for accidents due to a blind bend in road, that the development size impacted on density/changes character of area, and design should be sympathetic to street scene. Other members felt the development would be beneficial in the light of the housing shortage in the Borough.

12. The officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager clarifying the application site.

2.    The application was reported to Planning Committee given the objections raised by the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG). The Group considered that the proposed side extension would be highly visible in the street scape particularly given the steep rising topography of the site. They considered that the massing was not subordinate to the existing building and the ridge height should be set below the canopy to the main façade.

3.    The applicant had now provided details of the proposed garden shed. This would be 1.55m in height to eaves, 2.12m to ridge, the width is 2.4m and the depth is 3.6m and would be a conventional timber garden shed at the very end of the garden. The details and location were considered acceptable. There would be no impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation or on the amenities of adjoining residents. No further conditions were required.

4.    The comments of Dennis Stacey, Chair of CAG.

5.    The comments of Mr Yavuz Kazim (applicant).

6.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

7.    The officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the committee: 8 votes for and 3 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Lower Edmonton

NOTED

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Kevin Tohill (Planning Decisions Manager – South) clarifying the application site.

2.    The planning application had been submitted for works in the south part of the site, involving the erection of 3 new buildings as part of the Deephams enhanced ‘sludge’ digestion facility.

3.    The proposal involved the erection of three new buildings as part of the Enhanced Sludge Digestion Facility at the Sewage Works:

·         A new combined CHP (Combined Heat & Power) & THP (Thermal Hydrolysis Plant) low voltage motor control building.

·         A new steam generation building.

·         A new sludge cake dewatering building which is the largest building.

4.    Following discussions with the applicant, officers would like to amend a number of conditions slightly:

·         Condition 4 (Archaeology) to change to the wording to read the same as approved on the original 2014 permission ref: 14/02612/FUL

·         Condition 6 (Landscaping), condition 8 (Ecological Enhancements) and condition 11 (Sustainability/Energy) to include: “unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.

·         Condition 9 (Odour Management) to change trigger to prior to first operation.

·         Condition 10 (Construction Logical Plan): Typo in the first line the first “and” should be “an”.

5.    Members’ discussion and questions responded to by officers.

6.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation, which should further mitigate the works’ odour

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

WARD:  Town

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager clarifying the site.

2.    The application proposed the use of 2 of the ground floor units as a medical centre.

3.    The key issues were:

·         The loss of the retail unit.

·         The impact on the Conservation Area.

·         Impact on the amenities of residents above.

4.    No external alterations were proposed to the property, other than window signage.

5.    Amendment to condition 3 as reported. To remove the word “except the use of the premises attached to the residence of the consultant/practitioner” and insert “and for no other purpose”.

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

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

AGREED that planning permission be deemed to be granted in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 subject to amendment to condition 3 and conditions set out in the report.

Amendment to condition 3 to now read:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any amending Order, the premises shall only be used purposes within Use Class D1 (a) for the provision of any medical or health services and not for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure the premises are used only as Use Class D1 (a) purpose and for no other Use Class D1 purposes that may result in adverse traffic or noise impacts in Burleigh Way.

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

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manage; both items 9 and 10 would be heard together as the sites adjoin each other, the proposals are essentially the same for each site as are the issues arising.

2.    Due to their former uses, the sites are contaminated and require remediation before they can be developed. These applications seek to deal with the remediation of contaminated soils and shallow groundwater, together with the removal of buried structures on the sites.

3.    TfL had suggested a control of lorry movements in peak hours. However, since the report was written and given the low volume of traffic generated by these works, it was not considered necessary to control the movements in the hours they identified and therefore condition 7 is to be amended to remove the sentence “No HGV movements to and from the site shall take place between 0700-0800 and 1700 to 1800 Monday to Friday”.

4.    No objections had been raised by the Environment Agency to either application, subject to conditions which are set out in the reports.

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

AGREED that planning permission be deemed to be granted in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Amendment to condition 7 to remove:

1.    “No HGV movements to and from the site shall take place between 0700-0800 and 1700 to 1800 Monday to Friday”.

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

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, Clarifying that both items 9 (15/04050/RE4) and 10 (15/04173/RE4) would be heard together as the sites adjoin each other, the proposals are essentially the same for each site as are the issues arising.

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

AGREED that planning permission be deemed to be granted in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Amendment to condition 7 to remove:

1.    “No HGV movements to and from the site shall take place between 0700-0800 and 1700 to 1800 Monday to Friday”.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Chase

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager clarifying the site.

2.    St John’s Prep School is located within the Green Belt.

3.    The application sought planning permission for an alteration to a scheme that was granted planning permission in 2010 for extensions to the building. The differences between the scheme approved and that now proposed are set out at para 2.2 of the report.

4.    The scheme would have no further impact on the Green Belt than the scheme already approved.

5.    The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 10 votes for, and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

NOTED

1.    The next meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Thursday 17 December 2015. The venue will be the Conference Room, Civic Centre.

2.    There will also be an additional Planning meeting on Tuesday 12 January 2016.