Venue: Garfield Primary School, Springfield Road, London N11 1RR
(i) Purpose of the meeting.
(ii) Introduction of Applicant’s representatives and Officers of the Council.
Please see the attached outline of the proposed development.
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT/AGENT
· The proposed redevelopment of the site includes the Council owned Ladderswood Housing Estate to the north and a small industrial area to the south. Adjacent to the site is a locally significant industrial area. The site is bounded to the north by Upper Park Road, to the east by Palmers Road, to the west by Weld Place and to the south by Station Road.
· The proposed development will see the estate demolished to make way for 517 new residential units which includes 149 units marked for social housing. With an allocation of 300 residential parking spaces, which would be a mix of basement and on street parking.
· As present, the site is quite unnerving with limited activity. To create more residential activity, the exterior of the site would be lined with property front doors to increase the perception of personal safety. Upper Park Road, would have 3 bed town houses to maximise the number of front doors.
· There would be a mix of housing types, including some 3 bed and 4 bed properties, and 1,2,3 & 4 bed flats. A table of the complete housing mix was shown in the slide presentation.
· An 80 bed hotel would be situated to the south of the site and would act as an acoustic shield to the residential properties to the north.
· Provision of a new Community Centre, to be run by One Housing Group. This had been consulted on with residents and information fed back to the housing group.
· Presentation of a diagram showing the development’s street formation, as a traditional street pattern, and the main routes. The street pattern would be pedestrian led and has been designed for residents to drive to and from home.
· The site would benefit from direct access to existing local amenity provision:
i) High Road open space to the north.
ii) Millenium Green to the west.
· Developer has tried to integrate taller buildings by locating them in one area, where they would have the least impact on the development and neighbouring properties.
· Consultations were held with residents from Sept – December 2011 and there had been an exhibition of the development at a local church hall. They had tried to express the progress of the scheme by showing what the footprint of the buildings would be. Residents views were heard including window & balcony style, use of the community centre and where residents wanted to live.
· There had been regular monthly meetings with Enfield Planning Department, showing them what was presented to residents and constructive feedback from the Department.
· The Enfield & GLA consultation was also held last year (2011). The GLA wanted to reduce the impact of the development on local roads, thought the hotel was a good idea and were happy with its location and that the mix of homes had met requirements.
· Concerns had been made by residents regarding the ‘eye shape’ amenity space to the south of ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
QUESTIONS BY PANEL MEMBERS
NOTED the following questions and observations from Members of the Panel.
QUESTIONS FROM WARD COUNCILLORS
NOTED the following questions and observations from local Ward Councillors.
· As there is no right turn available for drivers along the NCR, coming from Edmonton, how would customers drive into the hotel?
· Are there any plans for a back up site for the Energy Centre should it break down or suffer sabotage?
It was advised that the applicant would have to liaise with Transport
for London regarding the NCR issue. However, a signage strategy would be
used to route hotel customers to drive through Arnos Grove and
Colney Hatch Lane to access the hotel. The approach with the
Energy Centre was that there was no back up site, but that there were
several boilers within the Energy Centre that could be used, in case of
any break downs.
· The applicants had previously promised less residential units, but had upped the quota to make more profits. There had been a big mis-conception.
· There was no provision for any commercial units. The development site needed shops to service the 517 residential units, as the nearest shops were in Arnos Grove & Bowes Road and a small Sainsbury’s in Friern Barnet. Residents would need to drive outside the development for shopping purposes.
· There were no real plans how health provision would be provided.
· It is a very dense and high development. Family houses would be situated at the top of the development with 7/8 storey blocks built in front, which will cause shadows over the family homes.
· There was no provision of parking spaces for the ‘eye shaped’ open area and inadequate plans for residential parking. The allocation of 292 parking spaces for residents would not be enough to meet demand. Councillor Lamprecht would like to see more spaces added before the plans are presented to the Council’s Planning Committee at a future meeting.
· The development would give rise to private landlords buying flats & houses to let under shorthold tenancy agreements, which would blight the area and lead to anti social behaviour, especially the ‘eye shaped’ open space area. Shops are needed within the development to counter this. House and flat front rooms overlooking the ‘eye shaped’ open space will not make a difference to anti social behaviour.
The Senior Planning Case Officer, Robert Singleton stated the following in response:
· He would be commissioning Council own parking surveys as part of the assessment of the application.
· The gas holder site located to the west of the development had been identified as an area for shop/commercial development.
OPEN SESSION - QUESTIONS AND VIEWS FROM THE FLOOR
NOTED the following questions and observations from attendees:
CLOSE OF MEETING
NOTED the closing points, including: