Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.  The two applications in respect of the site were discussed together, but voted on separately.

2.  Two adjoining residents had written to advise that, notwithstanding their objections to the massing and scale of the development, the increasing gentrification of the area and inadequate provision of car parking, they had met with the developer and would be prepared to waive their objections if matters which they had agreed with the developer could be secured through planning condition.

3.  Confirmation of the Planning Decisions Manager that further conditions would be added in consultation with local residents to cover the points raised.

4.  The deputation of Mrs Margaret Redman on behalf of Monken Hadley Conservation Advisory Committee, including the following points:

a.  This application was changed very little from the previous one.

b.  The property fitted well into the area, together with the cottages opposite, on one of the oldest roads in England.

c.  This development would be too big for the site, its height and depth would be detrimental to other properties, and there were concerns about how long the features would remain as fitted.

d.  There would be a loss of garden space and trees which made the area delightful.

e.  The Planning Inspector appeared to ignore the views of local residents and the developer had done nothing to lower the scheme’s height and bulk.

5.  The deputation of Mr Philip Redman on behalf of Chalk Lane Area Residents Association, including the following points:

a.  They objected to the demolition of the property and replacement with a vast bulky building 2.5 times greater in footprint.

b.  There may be 16 people living in the development and potentially at least 16 vehicles and visitors’ cars. Parking provision would be inadequate, there was no parking availability in Games Road and the extra traffic would result in blockages and pollution.

c.  The single exit/entrance was a potential hazard for emergency vehicles.

6.  The response of Mr Colin Bull, neighbouring resident of Fairgreen East, including the following points:

a.  He was speaking on behalf of residents of nos. 14, 16 and 18 Fairgreen East and no. 1 Games Road; the four properties that had boundaries with the development site.

b.  They had concerns regarding the scale, parking provision and effect on visual amenities and views, but recognised the Planning Inspector’s conclusions.

c.  If approval was granted, he would want the plan agreed by residents and Banner Homes to be implemented and the suggested conditions to be followed through on, including screening by evergreens and not permitting floodlighting at the rear.

7.  The response of Mr Neil Cottrell, Planning Manager, Banner Homes Ltd, including the following points:

a.  He confirmed there had been very positive discussions with Mr Bull and the other neighbours and Banner Homes had no objections to their requests.

b.  The appeals were dismissed on the unacceptable effect of the coach-house on 18 Fairgreen East. The Planning Inspector fully accepted the principle of demolition and replacement of the property.

c.  The design and setting of the coach-house had been amended, and the development would preserve the character of the conservation area.

d.  There was satisfactory parking provision and the proposals were acceptable from a highways viewpoint.

8.  The Planning Decisions Manager’s assurance that conditions would cover refuse storage and tree protection and consultation with local residents would take place in respect of the landscaping and external lighting.

9.  The statement of Mr Dennis Stacey, Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) advising that the group had considered the site on a number of occasions and consistently advised that the side and rear elevations were too big. Though not locally listed, this was a charming building, appropriate in scale and setting in the area. The proposal would be out of keeping and should be rejected.

10.  Members’ discussion commending the developer and neighbouring residents for working constructively together, and recognising the principles established by the Planning Inspector’s report.

11.  Officers’ confirmation that the emergency service access, the extra traffic generation, and the density were considered satisfactory, and distance from the electricity substation was sufficient.

12.  Councillor Simon’s request for additional detail to break up the expanse of blank wall.

13.  Councillor Delman’s continuing concerns that the new proposal was only marginally different, would not enhance the conservation area and that the Council had strong grounds for rejecting this application.

14.  The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation; 10 votes for and 3 votes against.

AGREED that Conservation Area Consent be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.