Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. No apologies were received.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relating to items on the agenda.

Cllr Bedekova declared a non-pecuniary personal interest on item 7, application reference 21/01140/FUL, as she had used the agent’s services on an application for her property previously. It was confirmed that this was not a sufficient interest to prevent Cllr Bedekova from taking part in discussions and voting on item 7.

To receive and agree the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4 June 2024.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 4 June 2024 were AGREED.

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

Received the report of the Head of Planning and Building Control, which was NOTED.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That subject to (i) a Shadow S106 Agreement being agreed to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice and (ii) a Memorandum of Understanding being entered into to secure the obligations contained in the Shadow Section 106 Agreement and (iii) the Stage 2 Referral to the Mayor of London and no objection being received, that delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2.That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development Management to finalise the conditions and the Shadow Section 106 Agreement to cover the matters identified in the report.

Ward: Upper Edmonton

Joseph Aggar, Planning Decisions Manager, introduced the report and highlighted the key aspects of the application. Members were updated that a clarification in relation to population modelling had been received, which showed a move from beneficial to minor adverse, due to an increase in the anticipated number of early years children, which was expected to exceed the provision by 11 spaces, but this didn’t fundamentally alter the assessment of the application.

In response to Members’ queries regarding heritage, officers advised that they had worked with the applicant and were confident that the scheme could better the existing situation at Fore Street conservation area. The blocks being demolished as part of the scheme were 20^th century, low value and not making a positive contribution; the quality of detailing of those replacing them was far superior, and a section 106 contribution was being provided very early in the scheme to provide public realm enhancements. In terms of St James’ Church, there was some concern/risk given the developments proximity, but the church was towards the lower end of heritage value, a design code had been provided to mitigate harm as best as possible and there would be a public facing civic building of some architectural merit next door. There would be a slight urbanising impact to Angel Place but the design quality inherit within those buildings would help mitigate this harm resulting in an overall very low level degree of ‘less than substantial’ harm.

In response to Members’ questions and comments relating to the housing mix, officers responded that 19% or 386 units were 3 or more bed, and more than half of these would be in the social rent tenure, where there was significant need. The unit mix had been driven by the need to decant existing residents and viability process. Policy supported the provision of a higher proportion of 1 & 2 bed units when located near a station, as the site was, which could help to reduce pressure on the existing housing stock.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of tall buildings, officers replied that the GLA supported the height as part of their Stage 1 response and the plans had gone through 6 independent design review panels which were generally supportive. The parameter plans did not allow any further height and the proposal followed the spirit of the guidance, focusing height towards the North of the site, closer to the commercial centre. The applicant had done a lot of work to ensure the design was of a high quality and the scheme had many public benefits, such as the East-West link, which it was felt on balance allowed it to exceed the policy threshold.

In response to Members’ questions in relation to day/sun light and overlooking, officers advised that the nature of a dense regeneration scheme such as this meant there would inevitably be some transgression. 60% of the units achieved the appropriate level of day/sun light, and the units provided satisfactory accommodation in all other respects, so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RECOMMENDATION:

That, following the decision to defer consideration of this application at the Planning Committee meeting of 4th June 2024 to enable officers to draft reasons for refusal reflecting concerns raised concerning overlooking and privacy and quality of accommodation and internal layout and amenity space provision, that Members confirm agreement to the reasons for refusal set out in the report.

WARD: Town

Sharon Davidson, Planning Decisions Manager, introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the report.

In response to Members’ questions and comments relating to fire safety, officers advised that there had been a discussion around fire safety at the previous planning committee, but this wasn’t referenced in the reasons for deferring the application. The issue that the council could consider as local planning authority was slightly different to those it considered through building control process, and some of the issues around fire safety were about internal space, and its capacity to accommodate users. It hadn’t been included as a reason for refusal as drafted but if Members wanted clarity on this point officers could include language around the standards of fire safety to be achieved, which Members welcomed/ asked for. 

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

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1      The proposed development, by virtue of the quality and quantity of internal and external space, failure to achieve inclusive access and the highest standards of fire safety, poor quality of outlook, and insufficient provision of and poor access to private/communal amenity space would  result in substandard accommodation and be harmful to the amenities of future occupiers, contrary to Policies D5, D6 and D12 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8 , DMD9 and DMD15 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014), which seek amongst other things to ensure that development delivers housing development of high quality, which meets the required standards for quality and quantity of internal and external space.

2      The provision of 9 side facing windows in the side elevation of the proposed block, in close proximity to No.28 Churchbury Lane, taken with the increased intensity of use on the premises compared to the building it replaces, would give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy and perceived loss of privacy to the occupiers of No.28, detrimental to their amenities and contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) and Policies DMD8 and DMD10 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014), which seek amongst other things to ensure development provides appropriate living conditions, standards and privacy.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That planning permission be REFUSED

2. That the Head of Planning & Building Control be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the reasons for refusal as indicated in the Recommendation section of the report, subject to:

I. The inclusion of any changes requested by the GLA in their stage 2 referral and/or government body.

II. Prior to the decision being issued after consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition lead on the materiality of any changes arising from any other development plan document or any new/altered other material planning consideration.

Ward: Brimsdown

Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, introduced the report and highlighted the key aspects of the application. Members were updated that since publication of the report, the independent viability consultant’s response had been received which agreed the development would produce a deficit, but this was greater than what had been presented by the applicant, at £3.38m. Following this clarification, a further reason for refusal had been added relating to viability and the ability to pay for certain contributions. A small amendment had been made to the second condition relating to flooding, to tweak the wording to align the elements of harm outlined in the report with the reason for refusal. 

A deputation was received from Murat Aydemir and Salvio Daniele, agents representing the applicant, who spoke against officers’ recommendations.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of design/appearance, officers responded that the scheme was taller than the policy provision and did not demonstrate the required additional benefits to balance in its favour. The area didn’t have many tall buildings; the plans did not provide views of the buildings impact on the area; there were no details as to materials to be used, the window reveal depths, the design didn’t feature a crown and officers weren’t confident that it would be of the exemplary quality desired. Officers had given advice to the applicant as to downdrafts, the lack of setback, overly complex massing and silhouette.

In response to Members’ questions in relation to safety, officers replied that they were not persuaded by the information provided to them that the rooftop amenity spaces lended themselves to suitable play spaces for children, so had recommended a financial contribution to offsite child play provision.

In response to Members’ queries regarding the reasons for refusal, officers advised that the third reason had not been included because input from the independent viability assessor was not received until after publication of the committee report, but it had been a reason for refusal on the two previous iterations of the application.

Cllr Boztas proposed a countermotion, to grant the application; that the design be accepted as it was and flood risk be conditioned. This was seconded by Cllr Bedekova.

Officers advised that the conditioning of a flood risk assessment had not been deemed appropriate, and this was a more technical than judgement-based reason for refusal. There were fundamental differences between the application and the site located next door, particularly the heights of the finished floor levels. Flood storage in the basement would not effectively resolve the problems, and potential solutions to the flood risk issues may require reducing the building footprint, or lowering ground levels around the site. Cllr Rye suggested that there was great danger in the motion proposed; that approving an application which was not flood risk compliant would undermine the responsibilities of the planning committee, and recommended deferral instead so that the reasons for refusal could be properly addressed.

Cllr Boztas amended his countermotion, to defer a decision on the application, so that the flood risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To note that the dates of future meetings are as follows:

Tuesday 6 August 2024 (provisional)

Tuesday 17 September 2024

Wednesday 9 October 2024 (provisional)

Tuesday 15 October 2024

Tuesday 5 November 2024 (provisional)

Tuesday 19 November 2024

Tuesday 17 December 2024

Tuesday 21 January 2025

Tuesday 11 February 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 25 February 2025

Tuesday 4 March 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 18 March 2025

Tuesday 1 April 2025 (provisional)

Tuesday 22 April 2025

These meetings will commence at 7:00pm and will be held in the Conference Room at the Civic Centre.

Members NOTED the dates of future meetings as set out in the agenda. It was confirmed that the provisional meeting date on 6 August would not be used.

The Chair thanked Members and officers for their time and contributions, and the meeting ended at 21:20.