Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.  Introductory statement by the Head of Development Management confirming the change of recommendation since the previous meeting of the Planning Committee. He explained that the issues involved were subjective and therefore subject to differing opinions. However the department felt that having visited the site the original case officer recommendation could not be sustained and therefore the department took the exceptional action to change the recommendation to that of refusal as it is felt that the proposed loss of garden space and erection of a dwelling did neither enhance nor preserve the setting of the conservation area.

2.  A number of objectors had raised additional issues in relation to the outlook from properties, but these were not considered sufficiently strong to be recommended as a reason for refusal.

3.  The deputation of Mr Ian Wood, IWPS Planning, the agent, including the following points:

a.  The borough had a shortage of family accommodation; within this application he could provide such a family home which would be sustainable and comply with all necessary standards.

b.  There had been no objections from other statutory consultees; and Planning officers had been satisfied previously, with the application being recommended for approval at the last Planning Committee.

c.  Members were being asked to make difficult decisions and they were not being helped by contradictory reports.

d.  Not all parts of a conservation area contributed the same significance; and any proportionate loss was against the benefit to the borough as a whole.

4.  The deputation of Mrs Tracey Fitzgerald, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  She had lived in Enfield all her life, did not want to change the conservation area, and had submitted this application in good faith.

b.  The planning process had not been transparent.

c.  Unlike objectors, she had received no home visit.

d.  The land concerned was no longer garden land.

e.  Any views would be from restricted vantage points and the development would not be within the eyeline of Essex Road properties.

f.  She questioned whether the proposal would genuinely degrade the area.

5.  The response of Mr Richard Berndes, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a.  He thanked officers for arranging the site visit in response to genuine concerns.

b.  The proposal was in a conservation area, in a lovely location, and the residents’ and wider community’s response to the plan was that it would damage the area’s beauty.

c.  The report rightly highlighted the importance of the gardens and the views, which were an essential part of the area.

d.  There were objections to the size, height and dominance of the building.

e.  Conservation areas were created to preserve unique areas of the borough. This proposal would do nothing to enhance the area.

6.  The response of Mr Tom Meadows, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a.  People living in a conservation area did so with full acceptance that along with the benefits came restrictions beyond those on average home owners.

b.  The proposal would have an impact on residents’ parking, many of them did not have driveways but relied on bays and would find it harder to park.

c.  There would be a loss of trees and landscaping currently enjoyed by residents and visitors, exacerbated by the safety stipulations in para 4.1.1, and neighbours would be forced to look at a side aspect of a garage and a naked driveway.

d.  Residents hoped that having seen the plot in context, Members would share their objections.

7.  Members’ discussion and comments in support of the officers’ recommendation, including the following points:

a.  This would be over-development on a cramped plot.

b.  The proposal would not enhance or preserve the conservation area; there would be a loss of important garden space which was a vital aspect of it.

c.  Parking space would be affected, with two existing spaces being lost, and pedestrians’ access to the park would be made more difficult and dangerous.

d.  It was observed on the site visit that the street was fully parked and the site was on a dangerous bend and at an access to Town Park.

e.  Concern that Traffic and Transportation department had made no comments or set out a reason for refusal on traffic and parking grounds.

8.  The Head of Development Management’s recommendation, if Members were minded to refuse planning permission, that officers be given delegated powers to add a second reason for refusal, based on highway matters and loss of car parking.

9.  Members’ unanimous support for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in the report and the additional reason below.

Additional reason for refusal:

The proposed development due to the position and design of the access arrangements, would result in vehicle movements crossing the footway which as a result of poor sight lines, would give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of pedestrians and vehicles using the adjoining highways. This would be contrary to Policies (II)GD6 and (II)GD8 of the saved Unitary Development Plan.