RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

WARD:  Town

NOTED

1.    The meeting resumed after a brief adjournment to allow those members of the public who wished, to leave the meeting.

2.    Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

3.    Receipt of six further letters of objection. The objections were summarised as:

- Height of the development is out of keeping with the character and street scene of this part of Baker Street, a key route into Enfield Town.

- Detrimental impact on light to neighbouring properties.

- Balconies will lead to an intrusion of privacy.

- Two shop units will create further congestion and dependent on the type of business that will occupy – noise, disruption, litter, extended hours, etc.

- Long established businesses will be forcibly pushed out of the area, businesses that provide a valuable service to the locality.

- Plant on the roof of the building will further increase its height and emit continuous noise and pollution.

- Parking provision is inadequate.

- Congestion and road safety – any deliveries would increase congestion and create further hazards for road users and pedestrians.

- Increase in traffic noise.

- Measures should be put in place to protect adjacent properties during building works.

- Adjacent properties will be vulnerable to burglary/vandalism during the build and afterwards.

- A drain running across the site and Thames Water will be made aware to ensure the development does not contravene building byelaws.

- Cctv camera does not prevent people parking illegally.

- No need for an additional convenience store in this area.

- Opening hours – 7 days per week up to 11pm will mean a constant flow of traffic. Existing shops in the area already have extended opening hours so not necessary here.

4.    Correction to the report: para 6.35 should refer to Condition 34, not 24 as stated.

5.    The deputation of Mrs Christine English and Mr Michael English, including the following points:

a. They represented residents of Churchbury Road and Ivinghoe Close.

b. The development would be much higher than other buildings in the vicinity and would cause loss of light, and overlooking.

c. Balconies would overlook a private play area.

d. Loss of the current garage boundary would leave residences open to theft and vandalism.

e. Concerns remained in respect of unsurveyed drains on site.

f. Parking was already problematical in the area. There was no parking provision for customers or staff or ATM users.

g. There were many local schools, and this development would increase the traffic and hazard levels.

h. The size of the proposed development was inappropriate.

i. The density would be greater than London Plan standards.

j. The roof plant would make the development five storeys equivalent.

k. Piling would damage adjoining residential properties.

l. A 24/7 operation would increase noise.

m. Unloading of deliveries would cause chaos and force families to use the highway to pass.

n. Refuse and recycling collections would involve obstruction on the road.

6.    The statement of Councillor Joanne Laban, Town Ward Councillor, including the following points:

a.  She had been contacted by many constituents who opposed this application.

b. The main objections were height, design and massing, inadequate parking provision, and invasion of privacy from overlooking, and there would be a significant change in views from Ivinghoe Close.

c. The proposals were not compliant with many national and regional policies including DMD 9, 2H9 and LP 3.2.

d. There should be communal amenity space for children’s play.

7.    The response of Mr Gerry Wade, the agent on behalf of the applicant, including the following points:

a. There had been many months of discussions with officers.

b. This was a brownfield site, and there would be provision of much needed housing, in accordance with national and local policies.

c. There had been amendments from previous proposals, including reduction from 12 to 10 flats, and the mass had been significantly altered.

d. This was a four storey development, with recess to all elevations at upper storeys. The plant room was not additional height, but at third floor level. The street scene elevation followed heights of buildings to the south.

e. Windows and balconies were positioned so as not to cause overlooking.

f. It was intended to retain boundary wall conditions to a similar height as presently.

g. Additional landscaping had been introduced, and a green roof.

h. The proposals were consistent with virtually all planning policies and the London Plan.

8.    Debate and questions from Members, including the following:

a. The advice of the Planning Decisions Manager in respect of the building line, policy compliance, and clarification in respect of siting of balconies, that minimum distancing standards were exceeded, and details of heights and storeys of other properties in the vicinity.

b. Confirmation there was existing retail on site without dedicated parking.

c. Members had found the site visit useful and noted potential advantages from the development.

d. Responses to Members’ concerns regarding amenity space. This was met through balconies. The scope for green landscaping had been improved, and that communal amenity space was not characteristic of frontages to Baker Street.

e. Officers’ clarification of viability considerations.

9.    The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 13 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.