Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Edmonton Green

NOTED

 

1.         Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Hasan left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

 

2.         The Chairman agreed to Councillor Bakir’s request to remain in the meeting to speak then to leave the room and take no part in the discussion or vote.

 

3.         The introduction of the Planning Decisions Manager. The key point was highlighted as the relationship with the adjacent residential property site already granted planning permission and where construction was underway.

 

4.         Receipt of an additional letter of objection from Councillor Stafford, emphasising the inward investment. Though there were parking issues, the development was needed for active engagement with the community. Councillor Stafford had queried the lack of Police comments, but it was clarified that those would normally be picked up in the licensing process rather than planning.

 

5.         The deputation of Mr David Snell and Mr Ian Dix, acting for the applicant, including the following points:

a.  There was a recognised demand for such a facility, but the report made no reference to the social and economic contribution the development would make.

b.  The development would be mixed use, would be highly sustainable, and would provide valuable employment opportunities.

c.  The facility would make use of the existing ramp. If that use was considered to have a detrimental impact on residents it would seem to preclude any re-use of the building.

d.  There had been no assessment of the residential development in respect of this application site, or of the amenities of future residents.

e.  At the time of approval of permission for the adjoining residential site, this site was vacant.

f.  The proposals had been substantially amended to address parking issues, and one banqueting hall had been removed and the number of customers reduced.

g.  The residential impact was not raised as a concern until July 2010. In order to address it, the applicant was willing to consider solutions such as moving the access ramp or entering into a S106 agreement and an offer had be made in relation to a valet service, but officers had not accepted further amendments to the application.

h.  Technical matters could be addressed and dealt with by condition.

i.  Ian Dix spoke as the advisor on highways and transport issues.

j.  Discussions had been held with officers and additional information provided in support of the proposal. The only objection from transportation officers now concerned the level of parking.

k.  There was a mix of uses proposed and the parking concerns were only in respect of the banqueting hall.

l.  The maximum capacity was limited to 400 for all uses on site.

m.  The café would be modest, and parking provision would be in accordance with the UDP; across the borough many cafes had no parking at all.

n.  There were 92 spaces on site, which equated to 1 space for 4.3 guests if at full capacity. This was comparable to other similar examples, and no standards were set out in the UDP or London Plan.

o.  The applicant had now secured a lease on a nearby property to provide a further 30 parking spaces and was negotiating to secure a further 33 spaces.

p.  Their surveys showed that within 5 minutes’ walk there were 71 parking spaces that could be safely used.

 

6.         The statement of Councillor Bakir, including the following points:

a.  He was aware of local demand from his constituents for such a facility.

b.  He dealt with similar venues many times a year when organising events and many of them did not provide that many parking spaces.

c.  He did not agree that parking would be insufficient as the facility would be used mostly by local people from the Turkish/Kurdish communities for family events and they would walk or travel 4 or 5 people per car, or if drinking would prefer to take taxis.

d.  He had looked on the internet at similar venues for comparison across London and seen that facilities with a similar amount of parking provision had been granted a licence.

e.  Current economic times were tough, and he could not see a good reason to refuse this proposal when it would provide employment to maybe 60 people.

 

7.         Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Bakir then left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

 

8.         The Planning Decisions Manager’s confirmation that officers had acknowledged the demand for such a facility, and the Planning Committee had approved a number of such developments, some on industrial estates.

 

9.         The Planning Decisions Manager highlighted that there was an existing level of use associated with the former car sales and service workshop, but of a different pattern. The main use of the proposed development would be in the evenings and night time.

 

10.       The advice of the Section Manager Transportation Planning, including:

a.  There was not a lot of hard evidence available of parking demand for such uses, but they were clearly better located where there was more parking / town centres.

b.  It was inevitable that parking would happen on surrounding residential streets, where there was not a surplus of on-street parking.

c.  There was already considerable pressure in surrounding streets; at the local Area Forum residents had called for a CPZ.

d.  There was public transport on Fore Street, but not to the extent to make a meaningful contribution to deal with large numbers leaving at midnight.

e.  Officers were happy to explore solutions with the applicant, but were still dealing with a venue with a capacity for 400 customers and up to 50 staff.

f.  He confirmed that the figures quoted in para 6.4.5 of the report were based on the information provided by the applicant.

 

11.       In response to Members’ request for clarification, the Planning Decisions Manager confirmed that three responses were received from the public, from three adjacent properties. There had been adequate consultation and the correct number of people were informed.

 

12.       In response to Councillor Hurer’s queries in relation to the planning permission approved for the adjacent residential site, the Planning Decisions Manager advised that it was not possible to impose conditions that would affect a neighbouring site. When assessing the residential scheme, at the time there was a level of use associated with the car showroom and workshop, but officers’ concern related to the rooftop car parking area, and that use would change with much more activity likely in the evening, at the time when residents would expect to enjoy less noise in the area.

 

13.       In response to Councillor Hurer’s queries regarding the applicant’s willingness to secure additional off-site parking spaces, the Section Manager Transportation Planning confirmed that there was discussion of off-site valet parking, but officers had concerns about its endurance for the facility’s lifetime, and its enforceability and whether people would be happy to use such a service. It may be possible to impose a legal agreement rather than a condition, but customers could not be forced to use the valet parking.

 

14.       Councillors Anolue, Constantinides and G. Savva’s concerns that local residents would suffer noise and disturbance from customers of the facility, in what was a residential area. It was highlighted that local people already suffered parking problems, particularly on Tottenham Hotspur match days, and at the end of events if people also had to walk some distance to their cars, noise nuisance was almost inevitable.

 

15.       Councillor Cicek’s comments that in his experience he understood this facility would serve families and host wedding parties and could not be compared to a nightclub. He calculated that the parking provision would be sufficient for its use. He also believed that many customers would leave before 10.00pm.

 

16.       Councillor Delman concurred that the facility would be used by local families who would travel together and would be likely to leave earlier than midnight. He also highlighted that the housing development site used to be a public house so there was a precedent.

 

17.       The Planning Decisions Manager confirmed that the figures quoted that 60% of guests would arrive by car and 20% by taxi were provided by the applicant. It was also recorded that at the local Area Forum, local residents raised on-street parking as a severe issue, and it would be a concern if that was exacerbated.

 

18.       In response to Councillor Delman’s assertion that noise and disturbance could not be assessed or be a material consideration as the facility had not yet been built, the Planning Decisions Manager confirmed that there was a need to safeguard the amenities of future residents.

 

19.       Councillor E. Savva’s comments that there had previously been a banqueting hall nearby which had operated for some time. He also drew attention to the local continuous traffic noise and late opening shops from the North Circular Road to Hertford Road.

 

20.       Councillor G. Savva highlighted the anti-social behaviour linked to other banqueting halls, and the concerns of the local Area Forum attendees.

 

21.       In response to Councillor Lemonides’ queries about any potential appeal, the Head of Development Management advised that a Planning Inspector would balance the issues, but it would be very unlikely that economic issues would outweigh amenity problems.

 

22.       In response to Councillor Hurer’s further queries in relation to potential screening to lessen noise and headlight disturbance from the car park, Planning officers confirmed that the car park was on the roof area and there would be some degree of disturbance associated with this application. Any mitigation would have visual implications. This application had been with the Authority for nearly a year and negotiations had been held with officers to try to mitigate concerns. He would suggest the best course of action may be for the applicant to put in a new application and if it was re-submitted within six months no fee would be payable.

 

23.       Councillor E. Savva’s opinion that the proposal would enrich and develop Edmonton and make it a better place to live.

 

24.       Councillor Delman’s proposal, seconded by Councillor E. Savva, that the officers’ recommendation be rejected, which was not supported by a majority of the Committee, with 5 votes for and 6 against.

 

25.       A vote to accept the officers’ recommendation was supported 6 to 5 by the Committee.

 

AGREED that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report.