Agenda for Planning Committee on Tuesday, 18th January, 2022, 7.30 pm

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions

Contact: Jane Creer Email: (jane.creer@enfield.gov.uk 020 8132 1211) / Metin Halil Email: (metin.halil@enfield.gov.uk 020 8132 1296 

Note: To view the livestream of the meeting - https://bit.ly/3Fh3eGW 

Items
No. Item

1.

WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    Councillor Boztas (Chair) welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

2.    Apologies received from Councillor Mahym Bedekova.

3.    Apologies received from Councillor Daniel Anderson (substituted by Councillor Derek Levy).

2.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Minutes:

NOTED there were no declarations of interest.

3.

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 2021 & TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2021 pdf icon PDF 199 KB

To agree the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 26 October 2021 and Tuesday 2 November 2021.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 26 October 2021 and Tuesday 2 November 2021 were agreed.

4.

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING pdf icon PDF 69 KB

To receive the covering report of the Head of Planning.

 

Minutes:

RECEIVED the report of the Head of Planning.

5.

19/01988/FUL - St Monicas Hall, 521 Green Lanes, London, N13 4DH pdf icon PDF 12 MB

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.That subject to the finalisation of a Section106 to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD: Winchmore Hill

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Interim Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Updates to the report had been published and circulated to Members.

3.    The deputation of Tom Clarke from the Theatre Trust.

4.    The deputation of Rebecca Gediking from Save the Intimate Theatre Group.

5.    The response of Jenny Harries, Agent, and Father Mehall Lowry, Applicant.

6.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

7.    Cllr Boztas enquired about the difference between the application in 2020 and now and whether the hall area was the same. Officers clarified that there was no change, just additional information provided. The proposal provided an uplift of floor space in the hall. It would be a flexible space and more capable of being used for a variety of community uses. It was important to consider this proposal as new and decide based on that information.

8.    Cllr Rye commented that there was nothing in the proposal to allow performances of quality and the marketing on the church website was not sufficient. The design of the proposal added little value and was less attractive than the current one.

9.    Cllr Yusuf commented that he voted against the proposal as he considered it a vandalism against the arts, heritage, and culture of Enfield. The proposal added nothing to the area and the new building was hideous, did not fit into local designs and did not do much for housing needs.

10. Cllr Levy commented that the proposal was policy compliant, and he would like to see articulation of how space would be used rather than just flexible use.

11. In response to Cllr Erbil’s query regarding the application being approved by the committee and the notice not being issued, officers confirmed that following committee when the resolution to grant was made, there was an indication from the Secretary of State that the Theatres Trust called in the application and so we withheld.

12. Cllr Taylor commented that the Parish should be allowed to do things on its own land for its own interest. It was disappointing that the applicant gave little regard to the heritage of the site. If the committee agreed, then the historic assets should be removed and reserved.

13. Cllr Rye suggested it would be useful for officers to explain how the loss of facilities could be made in exceptional circumstances. Officers clarified that the building was not designated as a heritage asset, and retaining features was difficult to do. Section 9.54 in the report clarified what was required and how applications were assessed.

14. In response to Cllr Levy’s question, officers confirmed Members were free to decide based on the information available to them in the updated report. The demolition relates to the community hall rather than the theatre hall. If the committee proceeded with a refusal, we will look at the reasons.

15. Cllr Taylor expressed concerns regarding loss of heritage assets in the borough and officers offered an assessment if there were specific elements they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

20/01742/FUL - 50-56 Fore Street, London, N18 2SS pdf icon PDF 9 MB

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.    That subject to the completion of a Section106 Agreement to secure the obligations set out in this report, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

 

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Updates to the report had been published, and circulated to Members.

3.    Updates to the provisions of the S106 agreement.

4.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

5.    Cllr Rye commented that it looked attractive but was still too tall and bulky. Residents felt it would loom over the public street and dwarf the area.

6.    Cllr Alexandrou commented that this proposal would not deal with overcrowding or the need for family housing.

7.    Cllr Levy commented on the improvements in the proposal since the deferral; the 100% affordability rate was good, and it offered better family housing options. The views of the Design Review Panel have not been fully accommodated; the narrative and conclusions do not match. Officers explained they had been transparent in the report, it was a unique offer with 100% LAR which the borough needs. Improvements have been made. It was a finely balanced judgement.

8.    Cllr Yusuf suggested the building should be shorter and wider rather than tall as there could be an effect on sunlight to surrounding houses.

9.    Cllr Erbil agreed it would be preferable to be shorter and wider rather than tall. Officers confirmed there was no grounds for refusal in terms of the impact on daylight or sunlight.

10. Cllr Steven stated the pictures did not represent the area.

11. Cllr Anolue recognised that we need accommodation for residents, but this proposal was monstrous. Silver House close by is just 9 stories high and this is double. She also agreed that the building should be wider and shorter.

12. MEETING TIME EXTENSION

AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10:00pm) be suspended for a period of 15 minutes to enable the item to continue to be considered.

13. Councillor Rye’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Alexandrou, that planning permission be refused due to the bulk, mass and height of the building and the impact on heritage assets, and inappropriate in the location.

14. The unanimous support of the Committee for Councillor Rye’s proposal.

 

AGREED that planning permission be refused on grounds relating to the effect on the setting and appearance of the Conservation Area and the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

Draft reasons for refusal to be prepared and agreed by Chair / Vice Chair and Opposition Leads (in attendance).

7.

21/01816/FUL - The Royal Chase Hotel, The Ridgeway, Enfield, EN2 8AR pdf icon PDF 243 KB

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.   That subject to the finalisation of a Section106 to secure the matters covered in this report the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Chase

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by James Clarke, Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.

3.    Cllr Levy supported the application and asked if there had been consideration to a crossing point for the bus stop as The Ridgeway is a very busy road. Officers confirmed there was a draft design for an entrance gateway scheme; a white picket gate which enhances drivers to slow down, and a crossing point in consideration.

4.    Cllr Rye welcomed the application and suggested that the crossing point should be safe for children to cross to be able to get the school across the road.

5.    Cllr Alexandrou commented that she was pleased to see more three bedroom houses than one bed flats and supported the application.

6.    Cllr Yusuf explained he was happy with the application but would like to see more dementia rooms in the plan.

7.    The unanimous support of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation.

 

AGREED

 

1. That subject to the finalisation of a S106 to secure the matters covered in the report the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of the report.

8.

FUTURE MEETING DATES

Future meetings of the Planning Committee will be:

 

·         3 February 2022 – Provisional

·         22 February 2022

·         8 March 2022 – Provisional

·         22 March 2022

·         5 April 2022 – Provisional

·         26 April 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Future meetings of the Planning Committee will be:

 

·         3 February 2022 – It was agreed to start the meeting at 19:00 and for introductions to items be kept short.

·         22 February 2022

·         8 March 2022 – Provisional

·         22 March 2022

·         5 April 2022 – Provisional

·         26 April 2022