Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed attendees to the Planning Committee and introduced Nathalie Boateng, Legal representative, who read a statement regarding the order and conduct of the meeting.

NOTED

1.            Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hayward, McGowan, Pipe and Simon.

2.         In the absence of Councillor Hayward, Councillor Pearce assumed the role of Vice Chairman.

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 there were no declarations of interest in respect of any items on the agenda.

Planning applications and applications to display advertisements.

RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation).

AGREED the order of the agenda be varied to accommodate the members of the public who wished to make deputations.  The minutes follow the order as set out in the agenda.

NOTED

1.         The receipt of a written representation in objection from Mrs Sally Demetriou, local resident of Spring Court Road, distributed to Members.

2.         The receipt of a written representation in support from Mr Domenic Padalino, the agent, distributed to Members.

3.            Members’ concerns regarding the size of the proposed building and that it would be out of character with neighbouring properties, and potential parking problems.

4.         The advice of Planning Officers in respect of parking provision and public highway issues.

5.            Further advice of Planning Officers in respect of the site’s planning history, Planning Inspectorate decisions, and subsequent amendments to the scheme.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.  The proposal, by virtue of its size, scale, height, bulk and massing and its relationship to site boundaries, represents an over-development of the site that would constitute a dominant and intrusive form of development in the street scene, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development and thus detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.  In this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policies (I) GD1, (II) GD1 and (II) GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

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.         The deputation of Mr George Stow and Miss Faith Read, new owners of Flat 5, Chapel Court, Enfield, EN1 1DT, read aloud by the Planning Officer, including:

(i)  The extension would impose over their flat, causing a shadow.  They would require another window at the other end of the lounge to add extra daylight, at great expense.

(ii)  The communal garden would not get enough daylight or sunshine.

(iii)  The Members’ site visit did not fully investigate their point of view.

(iv)  The extension would overlook their flat and reduce their privacy.

(v)  The environment would be affected if trees were cut down.

(vi)  If permission was granted, they would object to the owner of 51 St Marks Road carrying out works on their side of the boundary.

2.         The response of Mr Anderson Armstrong, architect, including:

(i)  The officers’ report was very clear in its analysis and conditions.

(ii)  There was a great disparity of scale, with Chapel Court being four times larger in size than this ordinary suburban house.

(iii)  The shadow would be gable to gable and no overshadowing would affect the courtyard.

(iv)  The proposals had been reduced as a concession to neighbouring residents.

3.            Members’ concerns regarding the two trees adjacent to the boundary with Chapel Court, and the request for an additional condition to be imposed to safeguard them from damage during construction of foundations.

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

Additional Condition

Prior to any development commencing, details of the proposed foundation together with a methodology covering the excavation and construction in the vicinity of the two trees in the curtilage of Chapel Court adjacent side extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  in the interests of safeguarding visual and residential amenities.

NOTED

1.         The Planning Officer’s introduction and revised recommendation, further to the receipt of a letter from the owner of the adjoining semi confirming the intention to proceed with their development as soon as arrangements could be made with a builder.

2.         The concerns of the Chairman of Conservation Advisory Group that a precedent should not be set in relation to gable ended extensions.

3.         The views of Councillor Constantinides that he welcomed the recommendation of approval of planning permission irrespective of the neighbouring development.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the following conditions.

1.         CO8                Materials to match

2.         C51A              Time limit

For the following reason:

1.  The proposed roof extensions, due to their design, size and siting do not unduly affect the amenities or privacy of adjoining or nearby residential properties nor do they detract from the appearance of the dwelling or the surrounding area having regard to Policies (I) GD1 and (II) H15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

NOTED

1.         The deputation of Mr Dorab Mistry, neighbouring resident, including:

(i)  He was speaking on behalf of his own family and other neighbours, who were old and disabled.

(ii)  His plot was smaller and, once extended, no. 63 would finish almost level to where his garden ended.

(iii)  He requested Members to make a site visit to enable them to fully appreciate the impact that the development would have on his garden and on neighbours’ properties.

(iv)  This would be the third time this property had been extended in 12 years.

2.         The response of Mr Seumas Moran, on behalf of the applicant, including:

(i)  Objections made had been taken into account, and the proposed side extension had been reduced.

(ii)  There had been negotiations with Planning officers, drawings had been revised, and the overshadowing concerns had been resolved.

(iii)  Other properties in the vicinity were of similar scale and the development would blend into the road.

3.         The advice of officers in respect of impact on surrounding properties.  In response to objections from the resident of no. 77 Crescent West, confirmation that officers did not consider there would be undue impact on that property as distances were considerable and there would not be any more overshadowing.

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 reason set out in the report.

NOTED the Chairman’s proposal that Members make a site visit, as concerns being raised were not immediately obvious from the street.

AGREED that consideration of this application be deferred pending a Member site visit.

To agree to make a member site visit, at a date to be arranged.

AGREED that a site visit be arranged for Members at a date to be arranged, but to be between the date of publication of the agenda and the date of the next meeting.

All business of Planning Committee thus being concluded, the meeting ended at 8.20 pm.