Agenda and minutes

Planning Panel - North Circular Road Applications, Planning Panel - Thursday, 28th February, 2013 7.30 pm

Venue: Trinity-at-Bowes Methodist Church and Community Hall, Palmerston Road, London, N22 8RA

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

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

 

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

 

3.   A decision on the applications would be made by the full Planning Committee at forthcoming committee meetings.

2.

OFFICERS' SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING ISSUES pdf icon PDF 92 KB

 

1.            Site 11: 244 - 262, BOWES ROAD, and, LAND REAR OF 194 - 242, BOWES ROAD, (known as SITE 11), LONDON, N11 2RA:

Demolition of 10 existing properties and erection of a total of 56 residential units comprising a 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey stepped block of 42 flats (15 x 1-bed, 22 x 2-bed, 2 x 3-bed, 3 x 4-bed); 14 x 3-bed mews houses and 225 sq.m. of D1/D2 use (non-residential institution / assembly and leisure) together with associated car and cycle parking, widening of existing vehicular access to Wilmer Way, play area, amenity space and landscaping.

 

2.            Site 14: 1-23, TELFORD ROAD, 233-237 BOWES ROAD, (known as SITE 14), LONDON, N11 2RA:

Demolition of 13 existing properties and erection of a total of 62 residential units within a part 4, part 5, part 6-storey block (comprising 21 x 1-bed, 26 x 2-bed, 13 x 3-bed, 2 x 4-bed) with access via Pevensey Avenue, associated car and cycle parking, play area, amenity space and landscaping.

 

3.            Site 6: 2 Planning Applications

 

3a:          1-5 Lynton Court, 80 - 98 Bowes Road, public open space adjacent to 80 Bowes Rd (SITE 6a, b, c BOWES ROAD), LONDON, N13 4NP:

Redevelopment of site to provide 3 blocks of 95 residential units comprising BLOCK A - part 2-storey, part 3-storey, part 5-storey block of 25 residential units (3 x 1-bed and 16 x 2-bed self contained flats, 3 x 3-bed and 3 x 4-bed single family dwelling houses), BLOCK B - part 2-storey, part 4-storey, part 5-storey block of 41 residential units (7 x 1-bed, 22 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed self contained flats and 9 x 3-bed single family dwelling houses) and  BLOCK C - part 2-storey, part 3-storey, part 4-storey block of 29 residential units (7 x 1-bed, 11 x 2-bed, 2 x 3-bed self contained flats and 9 x 3-bed single family dwelling houses) together with associated parking spaces, amenity space and landscaping.

 

3b:          102 - 118 and rear of 120 - 138 (known as SITE 6D), BOWES ROAD, LONDON, N13 4NP:

Redevelopment of site to provide a part 2-storey, part 3-storey, part 4-storey block of 30 residential units with balconies and terraces (comprising 8 x 1-bed, 13 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed self contained flats and 8 x 3-bed single family dwelling houses) with access from Bowes Road, under croft access and associated parking, landscaping and communal area.

 

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.   Andy Higham, Planning Decisions Manager, gave a brief outline of the proposals and the planning issues.

 

2.   This meeting was a further opportunity to express opinions on the proposed developments and was part of the ongoing consultation process. A large number of emails and comments had been received to date. Comments made at this meeting would be noted and would also form part of the overall assessment. A copy of the notes would be appended to the reports to Planning Committee. Residents would be notified of those Planning Committee meeting dates in advance.

 

3.   The sites were within the area of the North Circular Road Area Action Plan (AAP). The Local Plan and the Core Strategy had identified this wider area as suitable for 1300 homes to be provided (including Ladderswood Estate).

 

4.   Key planning issues raised were: height, design, internal standards, relationship to neighbouring properties, environmental impact, local infrastructure, access, traffic generation, parking, and sustainability.

 

5.   If people had further questions and comments these would be continued to be accepted up until Friday 8 March so that they could be taken into account and reported as part of the main assessment of the applications.

3.

PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT / AGENT

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.   Ken Barnett, Project Manager, Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) gave an introduction of the proposals:

?  He had been working with NHHT since April 2009, when discussions started with Enfield Council and other parties, and as they had moved forward in taking over properties from Transport for London (TfL).

?  There were a number of properties involved on a number of sites and there were four phases to the development. The first phase was refurbishment, which had now been completed for 257 homes, many of which were now occupied. The second phase covered smaller residential development sites: around 55 new homes had a resolution to grant consent. The third phase covered the proposals under discussion at this meeting – the larger residential development sites. The fourth phase would cover locations in Green Lanes / Ritz Parade, where there was more work to be done, taking the lead from the AAP, for mixed uses: no planning applications had been made yet on these.

?  In relation to consultation, NHHT had been holding regular meetings with officers, local councillors and various stakeholders.

?  There had been public consultation from July 2011 regarding Sites 11 and 14. A good response had been received and a lot of changes had been made in revising the proposals.

?  There had been public consultation from March 2012 regarding Site 6, and adjustments had been made to the submitted application. Subsequently, a number of points were being re-looked at, and the Planning Department would be re-consulting on Site 6 proposals.

?  The original aim in the Core Strategy was 2000 new homes, but a total of 1300 was included in the emerging AAP, and NHHT were providing some of that housing need.

?  NHHT were aware of concerns raised. In terms of density, the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) London Plan’s drive was to optimise use of land in London generally to provide more houses, and these proposals were within density levels set for this type of location.

?  NHHT recognised the need for infrastructure facilities for existing and new residents and had not pushed forward with phase 4 as those were locations which could potentially accommodate additional facilities. Otherwise S106 agreements would provide contributions for facilities. South West Enfield Partnership (SWEP) had also been involved in these aspects. Site 11 proposals also included 230 sq.m. for a community use.

?  The GLA policies set a minimum amount of new parking at less than one space per unit at this type of location. Where possible NHHT had created additional spaces, and a car club was also proposed.

?  Studies of increase in traffic generated by these developments, by TfL, indicated in the morning peak for all three sites there would be an additional 24 cars. It was also worth noting that in the 2011 census 39% of households in the area around Sites 11 and 14 did not own a car. This was new build and new residents moving in would be aware 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.   Members asked about the following issues:

a.  What would the child yield be from these development, and what proposals were there for additional school places for those children?

b.  What was the size of the proposed community hall referred to, in comparison with other local halls?

c.  In the London Plan, parking provision standards ranged from 1 to 2.5 spaces for three-bed homes: had the developer worked on lower or higher range figures?

d.  Considering that in Outer London, people were likely to want cars, would the developers consider raising the parking provision to at least 1 space per unit?

e.  How much total housing in volume would be for social housing?

f.  What was meant by ‘mews’?

g.  Were there sewage or flooding problems in the area?

 

2.   Responses were provided, including the following:

a.  Officers did not have precise child yield figures available at the meeting, but the Council had clear policies in respect of calculating contributions for education under S106 agreements. A formula set out in the Local Plan was used to set the financial contribution which the Council put towards education in the borough. There was currently significant expansion of primary schools (including Garfield School) to meet existing and projected demand including for expected yield from these developments.

b.  The applicants advised that the community hall in Site 11 would be equivalent to approximately 2/3 of the Trinity at Bowes hall being used for this meeting. There was potential in phase 4 to bring through such facilities which met people’s needs. More information was requested on the size of the community hall in comparison to the size of the development itself – to be added to the minutes.

ACTION:  NHHT

c.  At the upper end of their range, the maximum parking provision defined by the GLA was 1 space per one and two-bed property, and 1.5 to 2 spaces for four-bed homes.

d.  These developments were in an area which was highly accessible by public transport, with PTAL ratings of between 5 and 2. This was reflected in the parking ratios, which were higher for some of the sites than others. All properties three-bed and upwards were considered family units and each unit had a parking space. The lower parking provisions were for the smaller units. It was considered that first time buyers would be attracted to the one and two-bed units and many would not have cars. Discussions were also progressing on a car club, which would also discourage car ownership.

e.  The proposals were for mixed tenure schemes, including for social rent, shared ownership, and private sale, with a minimum of 40% in line with the borough target being affordable. Within affordable housing it was envisaged 60% rental and 40% shared ownership.

f.  A mews house was typically a small sized terrace, two or three storeys, with limited front garden, and accessed off a cobbled street. A characteristic of traditional mews  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

QUESTIONS BY WARD COUNCILLORS / MP

Minutes:

NOTED the following questions and observations from Ward Councillors and MP:

 

1.   Councillor Alan Barker (Southgate Green Ward Councillor) asked about the heights of the buildings on both sides of the road and potential for the tall buildings to cause a wind tunnel effect and push vehicle exhaust emissions up to high levels. He suggested that a 3D model be provided to assist consideration at Planning Committee.

 

In response it was advised that the landscaping proposals would break the transition from vertical to horizontal surface, eg. the line of trees alongside Site 14. Also, buildings had been designed so that clean air would be drawn to the backs of homes, away from the road. He did not envisage the problem to which the councillor referred.

 

2.   Councillor Alan Sitkin (Bowes Ward Councillor) made the following comments:

a.  There had been concerns from the outset at the way the developments were being done on a piecemeal basis.

b.  He would have liked to see an overall vision, and concrete plans in respect of social infrastructure, GP surgeries, etc.

c.  An adaption to the schedule so phases 3 and 4 were not so far apart would be preferable and to confirm that the social infrastructure needed would be in place to mitigate the numbers of new residents.

 

3.   Councillor Yasemin Brett (Bowes Ward Councillor) made the following comments:

a.  She agreed with points made by Councillor Sitkin, particularly regarding the phasing.

b.  There would be loss of jobs in shops and businesses in Ritz Parade, which was unfortunate in these economically difficult times.

c.  She shared residents’ frustrations at poor liaison and concerns about sewage infrastructure which was already inadequate and constant digging and works in the area. She urged consideration with TfL and Thames Water to minimise disruption to local people who have had to live with constant change in this area.

d.  She appreciated that there was money allocated to be spent by 2014 and that they were lucky to get new housing as people needed it, and officers had worked to improve sustainability.

e.  She re-iterated the request that a 3D model be provided.

 

In response it was confirmed that phase 4 would see additional facilities, and that the proposals tied in with the evolving AAP. Funding was controlled by the GLA and was part of the reason behind the phasing. The 55 units previously referred to involved money needed to be spent by March 2014. The affordable element involved money to be spent by March 2015, which meant construction should start on site at least by September this year. If phase 4 did not progress as envisaged, the Council would still gain S106 contributions.

 

A huge range of organisations and Council departments had to be consulted before and after a planning application was submitted. The applicant would have to resolve any issues raised or appropriate conditions would be added to any planning permission granted.

 

In respect of employment, it was advised the AAP brought out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

OPEN SESSION - QUESTIONS AND VIEWS FROM THE FLOOR

Minutes:

NOTED the following questions and observations from attendees:

 

1.   A Ritz Parade business tenant advised they were not aware of any recent meetings with the businesses, but that NHHT had served them with a notice to leave, and jobs would be lost as a result. She also asked for more information about Site 11, particularly the pathway serving the mews houses, no rear windows in those houses backing onto Broomfield School, and confirmation that there would be two way passing traffic, as drawings appeared unrealistic. A personal application for planning permission for a secondary access here in 2010 had been refused on grounds that it would lead to potentially dangerous vehicle stopping and slowing, and she did not feel such permission should be given to the developers.

 

In response, the JMP traffic consultant advised that there was sufficient width for vehicles to pass each other and still sufficient width for pedestrians to move. People using this shared space would effectively act as a traffic calming measure. The idea of shared space was equal use by a mixture of traffic and pedestrians. A detailed transport assessment had been submitted to back up the application, and there had been discussions with TfL, GLA and the Council’s Traffic and Transportation Team. Parking provision here was for 32 new parking spaces, so two vehicles meeting would occur once in a while, but movements would be mainly tidal. Access for refuse and emergency vehicles had been tested and verified.

 

It was also advised there was one small part of a business tenancy affected in Site 11, due to the impact on the yard area at the end of the proposed mews.

 

2.   A representative of Broomfield Home-owners and Residents’ Association advised that the association had circulated a sheet of nine questions for NHHT, and highlighted the following points:

a.  Broomfield Road at the back of Site 6 would be directly impacted as it would be used for access and there would be a significant increase in traffic.

b.  Broomfield Road was likely to experience overspill parking, and the proposals would take away around 50% of its existing on-street parking.

c.  A lot of the trees which characterised the street would be lost, and the setting of the 150-year old cottages would be destroyed by a development of this scale and density. The blocks overlooking Broomfield Road would have a huge impact. 95 of the 125 new units would have a direct impact on their street of 25 units and would be quite overwhelming. It was recognised that the derelict sites needed to be developed, but this should be done without alienating the community.

d.  Such proposals would not be considered acceptable in more affluent areas, and this scheme was out of character in this vicinity too.

e.  Residents considered the designs ugly and not in context in the area.

 

Applicants advised that the street parking was recognised as a potential issue, but this was informal parking now available due to the current situation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

CLOSE OF MEETING

Minutes:

NOTED

 

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’ reports to be considered by the Planning Committee when the applications were presented for decision at a future meeting.

 

3.   A full report for each application would be prepared by Planning Officers for Planning Committee. This would form part of the agenda for the meeting and would be published on the Council’s website at least a week before the meeting.

 

4.   There was a deputation procedure whereby involved parties could request to address the Planning Committee meeting: details on the Council website www.enfield.gov.uk 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.