Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.  Receipt of an additional consultation response from Environmental Health advising they had no objection.

2.  The deputation of Mr David Cooper, the agent, including the following points:

a.  The description in the report incorrectly described the premises as a petrol filling station, which had not been the case for at least three years.

b.  As part of the 2007 planning permission, a S106 Agreement was entered into and £23,000 paid to provide a pedestrian cross-over and road markings considered imperative at the time. This money had not been spent, the Council had failed to meet its part of the undertaking and it was wrong for this application to be resisted on highways grounds.

c.  The business had functioned successfully during its period of operation; it managed a sequential flow of vehicles through the bays and there had been no accidents or road blockage. Members were welcome to visit and see the operation.

d.  Noise levels had been checked by Environmental Health who confirmed there was no problem.

e.  The applicant would provide barriers to restrict access when the site was full, and an electronic board could be installed if necessary.

3.  The response of Mr Denis Mayer, local resident, including the following points:

a.  There were outstanding issues regarding land ownership and boundaries.

b.  The kiosk, garage and storage had gone and the site looked ugly in what was a beautiful residential area.

c.  From his garden, the hoovers and power washers could be heard operating non-stop, and spray came over the walls.

4.  The response of Ms Pauline Monaghan, local resident, including the following points:

a.  Every morning when she walked by she was unable to pass this site easily because of the number of cars there and she had to wait for them to move.

b.  Soaping and pressure hosing spray went over the pavement and operators had to stop the hoses to let people pass.

c.  Drying of cars took place on the pavement area because of the restricted space.

5.  Members’ concern in respect of the unspent S106 monies and advice of the Traffic & Transportation officer regarding an ongoing review of traffic issues in the wider area and that the Council had not wanted to bring the S106 scheme forward in isolation before this review was concluded.

6.  Members’ discussion regarding the business operation, ways of mitigating effects on local residents, traffic conditions in the area, and suggestions that the application may offer some improvement on the current situation.

7.  Planning officers’ advice, if Members were minded to approve the application, regarding conditions, which could be delegated to officers for rewording to take into account the residents’ concerns. Officers agreed to amend conditions appropriately to deal with water spillage and noise.

8.  Planning officers’ confirmation that Environmental Health had raised no objection and the Public Health Team had received allegations but none were substantiated, and advice in respect of boundary walls.

9.  The proposal that planning permission be approved, with reworded conditions, supported by a majority of the Committee, 9 votes for and 5 votes against.

10.  Councillor Neville’s request that concern regarding the S106 Agreement be referred to the appropriate Cabinet Member.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions delegated to Officers.