Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Upper Edmonton

NOTED

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

2.  Receipt of two additional letters of objection, summarised by the Planning Decisions Manager, including concerns that Condition 18 was not comprehensive enough, an additional condition should be imposed in respect of pedestrian linkages to Silver Street, determination of this application was premature in the current circumstances, there was no need for these services, the future of the 491 bus route was not agreed with TfL, there was insufficient car parking, sealed windows, rainwater collection, and inadequate materials.

3.  Advice of the Planning Decisions Manager that discussions were ongoing with regard to buses circulating round the site, and that determination of the application must be on planning considerations.

4.  The deputation of Mr Kieran McGregor, on behalf of Save Chase Farm campaign group, including the following points:

a.  Consideration of the application was premature as the Barnet Enfield and Haringey (BEH) clinical strategy was currently on hold and approval could prejudice the review.

b.  As there was no decision on reconfiguration of health services there was no masterplan and the application should not therefore be determined.

c.  Maternity services were more in need in the parts of the borough where birth rates were high which were Enfield Town, Chase and Grange wards.

d.  There would be excessive density on the site: facilities should be developed on sites that were not already cramped and over-developed.

5.  The deputation of Mr Donald Smith, on behalf of Enfield Transport Users Group, including the following points:

a.  Condition 18 was too prescriptive. Amended proposed wording had been submitted to cover on-site bus services.

b.  The applicant was already offering cosmetic improvements to the pedestrian walkway to Silver Street station: it was proposed this be legalised via a S106 agreement.

c.  He would be happy to go along with the establishment of a transport working group and would follow up on that with the applicant.

6.  The response of Mr Kevin Howell, Director of Environment, North Middlesex Hospital, including the following points:

a.  The proposal was for replacement of buildings. It was not associated with the BEH clinical strategy. It would be funded under normal procurement routes from the NHS.

b.  Use of a greenfield site would go against the requirements to improve facilities.

c.  The proposals were in line with current thinking on maternity services.

d.  The application had been put forward as part of the ongoing management of the hospital and to enhance the services provided, the building was required at this site.

e.  He would welcome a site visit by Members if they so wished.

7.  Members’ discussion focussing on density, visual impact and public transport issues, and the benefits of making a site visit with officers and examining the plans on site.

8.  The proposal that a decision on the application be deferred to enable Members to make a site visit, supported unanimously by the Committee.

9.  The Chairman’s statement that if there were material differences when the application was re-considered at Planning Committee, then deputees would be permitted to address the Committee again if they so wished.

AGREED that a decision be deferred for a site visit to take place to enable an assessment of the visual impact of the 6 storey building on the visual amenities of the North Circular Road in response to concerns about its presence on the frontage. It was also noted that the deferral would enable discussion on the amendments to the bus routings through the site.