Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor During.

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 24 November 2015.

AGREED the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 24 November 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. 145).

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:  Bush Hill Park

NOTED

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

2.    The proposal involved a change of use of a strip of land at the south of Salmons Brook running between Bury Lodge Park and Little Bury Street for use a public open space. The length of the area under consideration for the change of use is 262m in length and a width of approximately 3m. As part of the wider scheme of cycle route construction under the cycle Enfield programme, the Council proposes to construct a Cycle Enfield/Quiet way path along the southern bank of Salmons Brook.

3.    A letter from the Headteacher of Edmonton County School was circulated to the planning committee on 14 December 2015. The main points of the letter included the following:

a.    Concern about the close proximity of the proposal to the school boundary.

b.    The change from private to public open space would put children at risk.

c.    This could compromise the schools ability to prevent unwanted contact.

d.    The construction of a larger, robust fence along the path could deal with the issue but would obstruct views of the brook and trees may not prevent unwanted contact from members of the public.

4.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding:

·         The proposed/type of fence between the school and pathway regarding the height and mesh of the fence.

·         The path would be publicly maintained by the Council and would be lit including CCTV.

·         The pathway would be shared by cyclists and walkers.

·         Request by members for shrubs to be planted for privacy purposes. This would limit the risk of unwanted interaction with people whilst still providing a green view. Officers recommended an additional condition could be attached to cover this option.

·         Concern why Parks were not consulted and why this application was not included in the Cycle Enfield programme. Kevin Tohill (Planning Decisions Manager) clarified that 28 surrounding properties had been consulted with 2 letters of objection received. As detailed at 6.3.1 of the report, the proposed change of use would not adversely impact on the amenities, privacy or security of adjoining neighbours including Edmonton County School.

·         Safeguarding issues and concerns raised by the Head of Edmonton County School. The Head’s letter had raised issues not in the planning report

·         It was suggested that the application should be deferred.

5.    The Chair recommended that the Committee delegate authority to officers to grant, providing the landscaping, fencing and lighting issues can be resolved. If agreement with the school cannot be reached then this application should come back to Committee.

6.    The officers’ recommendation, including delegating authority to officers was supported by a majority of the committee: 8 votes for and 3 abstentions.

AGREED that subject to the satisfactory resolution of these issues, the Head of Development Management or a Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to notify the deemed grant of planning permission in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

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

2.    Members’ discussion and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding privacy in relation to prevent overlooking from adjoining balconies and terrace and the retention of trees on the site.

3.    The inclusion of an additional condition as reported and the amalgamation of conditions 15 and 21, as detailed below.

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

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report once:

1.  The following additional condition has been added:

The development shall not commence until details of a privacy screen to the sides of the ground floor terrace and first floor balcony have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The privacy screens shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the buildings and shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

    Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

2.  Conditions 15 and 21 are amalgamated as follows:

The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. No works or development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals, incorporating the retention of existing trees, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Soft landscape details shall include:

·         Planting plans

·         Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment).

·         Schedules of plants and trees, to include native and wildlife friendly species and large canopy trees in appropriate locations (noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities) along with the retention of existing trees.

·         Implementation timetables.

All landscaping in accordance with the approved scheme shall be completed/planted during the first planting season following practical completion of the development hereby approved. The landscaping and tree planting shall set out a plan for the continued management and maintenance of the site and any planting which dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of completion of the development shall be replaced with new planting in accordance with the approved details or an approved alternative and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To screen, preserve and enhance the development and ensure adequate landscaping in the interest of amenity as well as to minimise the impact of the development on the ecological value of the area, to ensure the development provides the maximum possible provision towards the creation of habitats and valuable areas for biodiversity and to preserve the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policies CP30, CP31, CP33, CP34 and C36 and Policies DMD 80 and DMD 81 of the DMD, the Biodiversity Action Plan and Policies 7.19 & 7.21 of the London Plan 2011.

3.     Additional Informative:

The applicant’s attention is drawn to the contents of condition 20 requiring details of tree protection to be agreed with the Council prior to any works taking place.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and a deed of variation to the existing s106 to reflect the subject consent.

WARD:  Highlands

NOTED

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

2.    This is the Chase Farm complex. The main hospital is located to the north and is contained within a series of 3-4 storey healthcare blocks, ad-hoc temporary structures, single storey buildings and a multi-storey car park. The site is adjacent to designated Green Belt to the north and east of the site.

3.    The proposal is a Section 73 application for a minor material amendment to an outline planning consent granted under ref: 14/04574/OUT for the redevelopment of the site for mixed use as detailed at paragraph 2.1 (page 45) of the report.

4.    In refining the detailed design, it became apparent that some aspects of the physical parameter plans were too restrictive to enable the delivery of the development. The scheme, therefore has evolved to such an extent that minor amendments to the original outline parameters are required to accommodate these changes. The amendments are detailed at paragraph 2.6 -2.7 (pages 46-49) of the report.

5.    Members were advised that the development parameters outside of those stated in the table at paragraph 2.6 -2.7 (pages 46-49) of the report, remain completely unchanged from the parent application under ref: 14/04574/OUT as detailed at paragraph 2.8 (page 50) of the report.

6.    Comments received from concerned residents fell outside the consideration of this application as regards amending or altering elements of the scheme referred to in those representations.

7.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding changes to the main hospital entrance, the consultation process and who would be directly affected, the significant drop in proposed hospital parking, from 1,444 to 900, the clock tower.

8.    The officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the Committee: 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the issue of a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 to reflect the subject consent and subject to the conditions set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Bush Hill Park

NOTED

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

2.    There had already been a planning approval on the site in 2015 for the creation of the Firs Farm Wetlands Phases 3 and 4 which essentially allowed for the creation of the 4 wetland cells and the associated earthworks and paving around the site.

3.    The application proposed a fifth phase which involves the creation of a watercourse from the wooded area to the south west of the site to the Wetlands Cells.

4.    Further public consultation and tree survey work was required before the route of the woodland water course could be finalised. This was why the proposal was not included on previous planning applications.

5.    One letter of support was received stating that the proposed wetland will improve the visual amenity and attractiveness of an area of the park that is underutilised.

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

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

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

To receive the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment providing an update on the monitoring of Section 106 Agreements (S106) and progress on Section 106 matters during the period 1 April 2015 to 31 September 2015.

RECEIVED the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment providing an update on the monitoring of Section 106 Agreements (S106) and progress on S106 matters during the period April 2015 to September 2015.

NOTED

1.     Apologies were received that no Planning Policy officers were in attendance, with the Chair’s agreement, to present the report. The report was presented by the Head of Development Management.

2.     Acknowledging the difficulty of reproducing the Annexes in the A4 size agenda, an Excel version of the spreadsheet had been circulated to Members by email, and larger printed copies were made available in the Members’ Library. The Head of Development Management would take the S106 monitoring sheet back to planning policy for the production of a basic summary to show how S106 monies are spent and time frames for this spending.

3.     Table 1 (page 94) of the covering report gave an overview of S106 monitoring. As of 30 September 2015, the total available balance of S106 monies was £8,164,766.73. This figure would come down over the next 3 months.  Since 1 April 2015, the Council had received £2,643,927.05 in S106 financial contributions from schemes where planning permissions were implemented. This figure was higher than the whole amount received in 2014/15 financial year, due a number of large developments triggering larger payments as detailed at Para 3.4 (page 94) of the report.

4.     More information on individual schemes could be obtained from the contact officers listed on the report.

5.     Members’ discussion and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding the length of time it takes to use the monies, most was money that needed to be spent in Edmonton.

6.     The Chair enquired about a bus shelter that was to be built outside 28A Slades Hill using S106 monies. Planning to look into this enquiry as well as S106 money received from the Highfield Road development.

ACTION: Andy Higham (Head – Development Management).

AGREED that Planning Committee noted the contents of this report and its Annexes.

NOTED

1.    Dennis Stacey (CAG Chair) reported on progress in updating the Local Heritage List.

2.    Councillor Savva’s concerns regarding the number of meetings. The Chair said that the need for the scheduled second meeting each month is reviewed 6 weeks ahead in the light of applications coming forward. It was important that sufficient time be allowed for proper debate and he sought to avoid having >3 deputations at one meeting. Officers drew attention to the Government’s insistence on LPAs meeting deadlines. The Committee agreed to retain the present practice.

NOTED

1.    The next meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Tuesday 26 January 2016 in the Conference Room at 7:30pm.

The Chair wished all Members and officers a Happy Christmas.