Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.  The deputation of Mr V. F. Carpenter, local resident of Hoppers Road, including the following points:

a.  The site had a history of numerous unsatisfactory developments.

b.  The proposed flats would not offer the same amenities as the bungalows, particularly for disabled access, and seemed to represent a change of use.

c.  There were concerns about affects on foundations of the adjacent cottage at no. 86 Hoppers Road.

d.  This development would disfigure the attractive row of cottages and would be out of keeping in the street scene.

e.  The school should stay in its current boundary with no further expansion.

2.  The deputation of Ms Katie Donouzjian, local resident of Hoppers Road, including the following points:

a.  She lived directly opposite and was affected by high levels of traffic, and inconsiderate and dangerous parking linked to the school.

b.  Conditions on use of the proposed school hall were not strict enough. Use outside school hours would exacerbate the parking difficulties around the site. Parking space availability in the evenings was already affected by on-street parking by customers of the Dog and Duck pub.

c.  Use of the hall for noisy activities such as music and rehearsals would affect local residents, especially in summer.

d.  The proposed flats were not a like for like replacement for the bungalows: they were not family homes and lacked amenity space.

e.  Committee Members should visit to see the site themselves.

3.  The response of Mr David Cooper, the agent, including the following points:

a.  The school had an urgent need for the hall. The number and frequency of formal assessments for GCSE had increased. The school currently had only one large space available to accommodate a large group under exam conditions, and this was also used for assemblies, PE and drama, which were therefore disrupted by exams and assessments. This development would allow PE and drama to be delivered properly without interruption.

b.  There would be no increase in the numbers of pupils or staff, so no extra traffic generation or parking requirements.

c.  The two-storey development would give a ground floor space for exams and two single one-bed flats, which would have their own access and would not have windows that overlooked adjacent roads.

d.  No part of the development would be for outdoor play, there would be modern heating, toilets and kitchen facilities and all measures would be taken to minimise disturbance.

e.  He highlighted a recent ‘Enfield Advertiser’ press article which had contained inaccuracies.

f.  The hall would be commensurate with surrounding properties.

g.  The effects on no. 86 Hoppers Road were shown in the report. There would be no reduction in daylight to that dwelling.

h.  There would be no overlooking issues.

4.  Receipt of a letter from Councillor Bambos Charalambous, objecting to the application for the following reasons:

a.  Size and massing – the proposal is overly dominant and visually intrusive and will have an adverse impact on no. 86 Hoppers Road.

b.  Parking and access – the expansion and development will lead to increased parking and traffic in the local area and affect local residents by having more congestions and potentially a loss of parking spaces.

c.  Local heritage – the demolition of the two cottages will have an adverse impact on the appearance of the local area in particular the properties that make up the historic part of Hoppers Road.

5.  Receipt of three additional objections from local residents, raising points including that use of the hall outside school hours would lead to more parking problems, dominant and unsympathetic addition to the street, concerns the residential part of the school was expanded without consent and consequent effect on parking.

6.  In response to concerns raised, Condition 8 would be amended to restrict use of the school hall so that it should not be occupied beyond 6.00pm.

7.  An omission at para 6.3.2 of the officers’ report – distance of existing wall to boundary is 0.9m increasing to 1.6m.

8.  The Planning Decisions Manager’s advice in response to Members’ queries, including confirmation of distances of flank walls from the boundary, clarification of material planning considerations, confirmation that conditions were robust and enforceable, clarification that the eaves level was consistent with the present bungalows but the ridge height would be 1.2 metres higher. There was a prevailing terraced form, but also a large school building of three to four storeys so the development would have a context in the street scene.

9.  Councillor Prescott’s concerns regarding effectiveness of conditions and potential rise in pupil numbers if the school had a larger physical capacity.

10.  In response to Councillor Hurer’s queries, the advice of the Schools Organisation and Development Officer confirming this was an independent school and not under the direct jurisdiction of the Council, but would still be subject to Ofsted inspection which may have picked up general inadequacies in the school’s accommodation, particularly for the holding of public examinations.

11.  Planning officers’ advice that the application had been assessed on its physical merits and that they considered the scale, bulk and design were acceptable and it would not have a detrimental impact.

12.  The advice of the Legal representative that a remark made by Councillor Constantinides was not specific to this application and did not amount to predetermination.

13.  The proposal of Councillor Hurer that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in Councillor Charalambous’ objection, which was not supported by a majority of the Committee. On request the votes were recorded as follows:

Votes for:  Councillors Hurer, McCannah, Pearce and Prescott.

Votes against:  Councillors Simon, Anolue, Cicek, Hasan, Keazor, Lemonides, Savva and Bakir.

14.  Councillor Prescott’s request that the Chairman’s remark that the Labour Party were against private schools be recorded.

15.  Councillor Constantinides’ response that the voting showed Labour Members were not constrained by party policy on independent schools and were voting on the planning merits.

16.  The support of the majority of the Committee to accept the officers’ recommendation: 8 votes for and 4 against.

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

Amended Condition 8

The school hall hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the operation of the school and at no time after 18:00 unless written approval is otherwise obtained from the local planning authority.

Reason:  To ensure the use of the hall remains appropriate and is not occupied as a separate unit and / or for purposes which would give rise to conditions through an increase in on street parking, that would be prejudicial to the free flow and safety of vehicles using the adjoining highway.