Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed attendees and new members to the Planning Committee, congratulated Councillor Simon as new Labour lead member, and introduced Keith Trowell, Legal representative, who read a statement regarding the order and conduct of the meeting.

NOTED apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jonas Hall and Kieran McGregor.

Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda. Please refer to the guidance note attached to the agenda.

NOTED

1.            Councillor Buckland declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application TP/08/0804 – Public House, 56, Victoria Road, London, N9 9SU as she had been involved in consultation around the application, and left the room when this item was considered.

2.            Councillor Delman declared a personal interest in application TP/08/0804 – Public House, 56, Victoria Road, London, N9 9SU as he personally knew the applicant, and left the room when this item was considered.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2008.

AGREED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21 May 2008 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive the report of the Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise (Report No. 31)

(INF)

RECEIVED the report of the Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise (Report No. 31).

NOTED

1.         The comments of Dennis Stacey, Chairman of Conservation Advisory Group (CAG), including:

(i)  CAG and the Council had shared objectives to reward those who put up buildings of excellence in the borough.

(ii)  The budget was tightly managed, but it had been possible to produce a high quality awards brochure.

(iii)  He appreciated Planning Committee Members’ approval and guidance for the fourth event planned for 2009.

2.         The Interim Borough Planning Officer’s confirmation that the awards were an established part of Enfield’s calendar and would continue to be so.

3.            Planning Committee noted the review of the Enfield Design Awards 2007 and the proposals for the Enfield Design Awards 2009.

6.1            Applications dealt with under delegated powers.

            (A copy is available in the Members Library)

6.2            Planning Applications and applications to display advertisements.

6.3            Appeal information

            Section 1:  New Town Planning Application Appeals

            Section 2:  Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals.

RECEIVED the report of the Interim Borough Planning Officer.

NOTED that a copy of those applications dealt with under delegated powers was available in the Members’ Library and via the Council website.

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

NOTED

1.            Receipt of an additional letter of objection, from the occupier of no. 57, Victoria Road, raising concerns that the proximity of plant machinery would lead to noise and affect their health, that use of the parking area would cause noise and general disturbance, and that existing residents' ability to park their cars would be affected.

2.            Receipt of a letter of support from the Edmonton Green Town Centre Manager, on the basis that the proposal would support regeneration of the area.

3.         An amendment to Condition 12 in relation to required details of works and dedication of the footway to the Council.

4.         An amendment to Condition 16 in relation to the travel plan.

5.         The deputation of Mr Stuart Mager, including:

(i)  He was a chartered quantity surveyor, speaking on behalf of Mr and Mrs Bynoe, neighbouring residents, who were out of the country and unable to attend the meeting.

(ii)  Mr and Mrs Bynoe were senior citizens, had lived in their property for over 30 years, and had a number of concerns regarding this proposal.

(iii)  There would be a vent directly adjacent to their property.

(iv)  The driveway gate would be mechanised and may be noisy.

(v)  Parking in the area was already difficult.

(vi)  Concerns about the height and massing of the building adjacent to no. 57 and directly opposite a lovely park.

(vii)  The modern design would be out of keeping with the area.

(viii)  The building line would creep ahead of the line of no. 57 and exacerbate shadowing.  As well as loss of light there would be overlooking.

(ix)  Traffic, noise and fumes would increase.

6.         The response of Mr Ahmet Hussein, architect, including:

(i)  Full details in relation to the building line were set out in the design and access statement and in the officers' report.

(ii)  Issues in relation to plant and vent noise were addressed by Conditions 4 and 8, and there would be mitigating measures including an acoustic wall or fence on the boundary with no. 57.

(iii)  The plant room would be fully insulated, all machinery would have anti-vibration mountings, and there would be landscaping and trees.

(iv)  Any heat produced would be nominal and would dissipate before the boundary of no. 57, and plant would have built in filters to ensure good air quality for all surrounding residents.

(v)  The proposed surgery would close earlier and generate less traffic and disturbance than the previous use as a public house.

(vi)  The gates would stay open during surgery opening hours, and the gate machinery would be buried in the ground.

(vii)  There had been a traffic impact assessment and he believed there was adequate parking space availability in the area.  A travel plan also proposed 100% subsidised travel passes for staff and free pick up service for patients.

(viii)  The design had been amended further to negotiations with planning officers; the building had been reduced in height, and moved to the middle of the site.

7.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

NOTED

1.            Receipt of two additional letters of objection, including that over the last 25 years the road had suffered a change in identity, becoming very busy with numerous flats, that this proposal would generate even more traffic, cause loss of outlook and loss of family dwellings.

2.            Receipt of a letter of objection from Councillor Glynis Vince, ward councillor, that the proposal would be overdevelopment of the site and the area.

3.         The planning officer's clarification of previous planning decisions in relation to this site and advice regarding recent relevant appeals, and other flat developments approved in the area.

4.         The planning officer's confirmation that the relationship with the adjoining attached property at no. 25 had been satisfactorily addressed.

5.         The deputation of Mr Nick Powell, local resident, including:

(i)  His home was directly opposite no. 25 Waverley Road, which would abut the new development.  The proposal would have a significant effect on the enjoyment of his home.

(ii)  He, and surrounding neighbours, considered the proposal substantially the same as the application previously rejected, and the previous reasons for refusal remained valid.

(iii)  The density level of the flats would be too high.

(iv)  The flats would be four storeys high and in an elevated position.  Light would be blocked to the rear of nos. 17 and 25, Waverley Road.

(v)  The design was appalling, abutting half of a pair of semi-detached homes in an unsympathetic way, alien to the character of the road.

(vi)  The amenities and value of no. 25, which was occupied by an elderly widow, would be affected.

(vii)  The proposal would result in severe traffic and parking issues.  There would be extra traffic movements and on-street parking in an already congested road and potential for accidents.

(viii)  Much needed family dwellings would be replaced by flats, with the area becoming less varied and sustainable.

(ix)  ‘Garden grabbing’ such as this should be discouraged.

6.         The statement of Councillor Glynis Vince, Ward Councillor, including:

(i)  She had strong concerns about this application and supported residents’ objections.

(ii)  30 years ago this was a very pleasant road of detached houses, but over 200 individual flats had been added in the last 10 years.

(iii)  Waverley Road was fully parked during both daytime and evenings.

(iv)  Members were requested to make a site visit as they needed to fully appreciate the potential impact on residents.

7.         The response of Mr Richard Lotherington, a director of Chase Green Developments Ltd, the agent, including:

(i)  Chase Green Developments was a small company set up two years ago, which had completed several local developments to very high design standards.

(ii)  There was already planning permission for a block of 17 flats on this site.  The loss of houses on this site had already been accepted.

(iii)  The omission of no. 25 from the application was regrettable, but was a response to personal circumstances with the occupier.  Great care had been taken to minimise the impact on no. 25.

(iv)  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

NOTED

1.            Receipt of an additional ten letters of objection from residents of The Meadway and High Street, including that the proposal would lead to further traffic congestion and affect road safety, increases in noise pollution, litter, rodent numbers and cooking odours, that groups of students would be attracted, that the character of the conservation area and estate should be protected, that further loss of shops should be resisted and that there were enough cafes in the area.

2.         An amendment to Condition 6 to correct the word “rear” to “area” (end of line 2).

3.         The statement of Councillor Edward Smith, Ward Councillor, including:

(i)  He was representing local residents, especially in the Meadway Estate.

(ii)  Since the previous Planning Committee meeting, the level of take away business had been clarified, but there was still major opposition from local residents who continued to have a number of concerns.

(iii)  Another restaurant was not needed in the parade as there were several others nearby, and would cause loss of amenity and lower quality of life for Meadway residents.

(iv)  Residents’ concerns about the likely customer base; local students had a poor reputation and groups of youths could be intimidating.  Also many may come by car and exacerbate current parking problems.

4.            Councillor Fallart’s concern to ensure bins were secure and lidded.

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

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, for the reasons set out in the report.

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

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

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

NOTED

1.            Receipt of an additional letter of objection from the freeholder of Clockhouse Parade.

2.         The planning officer’s further advice in respect of shared access issues.

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

NOTED an alteration to the proposal to read “Installation of a 3 metre high powder coated weld mesh fence to eastern boundary”.

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

NOTED the appeal information in the agenda pack.

All business of Planning Committee thus being concluded, the meeting ended at 8.50 pm.