Agenda and minutes

Redevelopment of Ladderswood Estate, Planning Panel - Tuesday, 20th November, 2012 7.30 pm

Venue: Garfield Primary School, Springfield Road, London N11 1RR

Contact: Metin Halil 020 8379 4091 Email: metin.halil@enfield.gov.uk / Jane Creer 020 8379 4093 Email: jane.creer@enfield.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

OPENING

(i)                 Purpose of the meeting.

 

(ii)               Introduction of Applicant’s representatives and Officers of the Council.

Minutes:

NOTED

 

  1. Councillor Constantinides as Chairman welcomed all attendees to the meeting and introduced the Panel Members, the applicant’s representatives and Council officers.

 

  1. The purpose of the meeting was to provide local residents and other interested parties the opportunity to ask questions about the application and for the applicants, officers and Panel Members to listen to all the comments.

 

  1. A decision on the application would be made by the full Planning Committee at a future date.

2.

OFFICERS' SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING ISSUES pdf icon PDF 512 KB

Please see the attached outline of the proposed development.

Minutes:

NOTED

 

  1. Andy Higham, Planning Decisions Manager, gave a brief outline of the application.

 

  1. The Planning Panel meeting forms part of the consultation period, which had now ended,  and should residents have concerns they could send representations in on the application. The Planning Department would also accept late representations up until 5:00pm on the day before the Planning Committee meeting to hear the application and these would be reported verbally to the Committee.

 

  1. It was intended to present the application to Planning Committee at its meeting on Tuesday  29 January 2013 and the Committee would also receive the notes from the Planning Panel meeting. The agenda for that meeting would be published on the Council’s web site on Friday 18 January 2013.

3.

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT/AGENT

Minutes:

NOTED

 

  1. Kaye Stout of Pollards Thomas Edwards Architects, gave an introduction of the proposals:

·        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.

4.

QUESTIONS BY PANEL MEMBERS

Minutes:

NOTED the following questions and observations from Members of the Panel.

 

  1. Councillor Savva asked questions in respect of additional pressure on school places, the Energy Centre, the Hotel location and allocation of car parking spaces. It was confirmed that there is a consultation process at present for an expansion of Garfield School to provide an additional 30 primary places for September 2013, which is part of a bigger programme for expansion of schools in the borough. Notices have been put up on the school gates regarding the proposed expansion of the school for residents to see and comment on. The expansion of the school would be the subject of a separate planning application. It was established that the Energy Centre will use gas fired boilers, which will have a bolt on kit to take waste and convert to energy and heat. The hotel location was sustainable, with good transport links for overground/underground trains and bus routes. The applicant had looked at current trends of hotel locations. The approach with car space allocation was based on current car ownership. The number of parking spaces to be provided would be similar to what is already in place and in line with the London Plan.

 

  1. Councillor Prescott asked questions in relation to, the level of residents car parking spaces, parking allocation for the hotel and housing mix. It was advised that the development area had been extensively surveyed with the results giving a ratio of 0.59 parking spaces per dwelling, which matches up with present parking facilities. The development was well placed for schools, shops and transport and residents could live there without owning a car. There would be 60 basement parking spaces available for the Hotel. In response to Councillor Prescott’s enquiries regarding the overprovision of one & two bedroom flats and the large imbalance of properties, it was advised that the provision  of more one & two bedroom flats is a reflection of the  existing 130 families who lived in these type of properties on the estate and that the developers were trying to viably deliver the scheme. Councillor Prescott, responded that a compromise should be made to the large imbalance of the housing mix, the parking proposals for the development were inadequate and that he liked most aspects of the development design but it needed “tweaking”.

 

  1. Councillor Chamberlain asked about the number of additional primary school places the development will create, density and what the comparison regarding volume of space between new and present units is. It was advised that the formula used for calculating the extra pupil places that the development will create, was a yield of 55-60 pupil places a year for 4 – 10 year olds which would create  about a third of the demand for Garfield School. Councillor Chamberlain was surprised that only 65 additional primary school places would be generated from the proposed 517 residential units. It was confirmed that the density figures came from the New Southgate Master Plan and The London Plan. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

QUESTIONS FROM WARD COUNCILLORS

Minutes:

NOTED the following questions and observations from local Ward Councillors.

 

  1. Councillor Alan Barker, Southgate Green Ward Councillor, asked the following questions:

·        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.

 

  1. Councillor Henry Lamprecht, Southgate Green Ward Councillor, made the following comments and observations:

·        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.

 

 

 

6.

OPEN SESSION - QUESTIONS AND VIEWS FROM THE FLOOR

Minutes:

NOTED the following questions and observations from attendees:

 

  1. In response to a resident’s query regarding the public notice advertised in the local papers about the enlargement and increase in admission numbers at Garfield School, from 420 to 630 and where the additional class rooms would be placed. It was advised that the Council were developing a scheme to look at the design & layout of the school which will be subject to a planning application for works within the school site, in the new year.
  2. A resident commented that as a panel member for residents, during consultations with the applicant, heating & parking issues were raised, no answers had been given to their questions about the provision of a  medical centre and that residents with dis-abilities could not use public transport easily. They would have to continue using a health centre in Edmonton, N9. The applicants were not realising resident’ expectations as regards the scheme.
  3. A resident raised concern about the density of the development and that the problem stemmed from the London Plan. The high rise, high density, traffic and parking issues of the development need to be taken back to the GLA to address.
  4. A resident asked questions in relation to parking on property front gardens, road routes/traffic/parking and the change in bus routes into the development. It was advised that the front gardens of the residential properties would not be big enough to park on, Station Road would be the main route into and out of the development and there would be no through route to the housing estate facing Millenium Green. It was also advised that the bus which services the Ladderswood Estate would be re-routed to run along Palmers Road. TFL have not yet made a decision on whether the bus route would run through the estate at a future stage and will be open for consultation.
  5. An attendee commented that at one of the meetings he attended, he had been told that a disabled parking space would be near his home, but was now concerned, he would have to walk some distance from the disabled parking spaces to his home. It was advised that the disabled parking areas would be located near properties, for both on street parking and basement area parking.
  6. An attendee commented on the widening of the North Circular Road and that many accidents were happening along Telford Road. The development would bring more road users onto a road that is highly congested. It was advised that the applicant had a number of discussions with Transport for London about the congestion on the North Circular Road. TFL confirmed that they were happy with the applicant’s proposals. Councillor Prescott commented that traffic engineers based the North Circular Road Improvements on traffic flows at the time. They were not projected to what the traffic flows may be. There are a lot of issues with congestion and a combination of factors would cause problems. The applicant should address these congestion issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

CLOSE OF MEETING

Minutes:

NOTED the closing points, including:

 

  1. The Chairman thanked everyone for attending and contributing to the meeting.
  2. Notes taken at this meeting would be appended to the Planning Officers’ report to be considered by the Planning Committee when the application was presented for decision.
  3. There was a deputation procedure whereby involved parties could request to address the Planning Committee meeting (details on the Council website or via the Planning Committee Secretary 020 8379 4093/4091 jane.creer@enfield.gov.uk or metin.halil@enfield.gov.uk and residents could also ask ward councillors to speak on their behalf.
  4. Full details of the application were available to view and download from the Council’s website www.enfield.gov.uk (Application Ref: P1202202PLA).