Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be deemed to be granted in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 subject to conditions.

WARD:  Bush Hill Park

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager clarifying the application site.

2.    The proposal involved a change of use of a strip of land at the south of Salmons Brook running between Bury Lodge Park and Little Bury Street for use a public open space. The length of the area under consideration for the change of use is 262m in length and a width of approximately 3m. As part of the wider scheme of cycle route construction under the cycle Enfield programme, the Council proposes to construct a Cycle Enfield/Quiet way path along the southern bank of Salmons Brook.

3.    A letter from the Headteacher of Edmonton County School was circulated to the planning committee on 14 December 2015. The main points of the letter included the following:

a.    Concern about the close proximity of the proposal to the school boundary.

b.    The change from private to public open space would put children at risk.

c.    This could compromise the schools ability to prevent unwanted contact.

d.    The construction of a larger, robust fence along the path could deal with the issue but would obstruct views of the brook and trees may not prevent unwanted contact from members of the public.

4.    Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding:

·         The proposed/type of fence between the school and pathway regarding the height and mesh of the fence.

·         The path would be publicly maintained by the Council and would be lit including CCTV.

·         The pathway would be shared by cyclists and walkers.

·         Request by members for shrubs to be planted for privacy purposes. This would limit the risk of unwanted interaction with people whilst still providing a green view. Officers recommended an additional condition could be attached to cover this option.

·         Concern why Parks were not consulted and why this application was not included in the Cycle Enfield programme. Kevin Tohill (Planning Decisions Manager) clarified that 28 surrounding properties had been consulted with 2 letters of objection received. As detailed at 6.3.1 of the report, the proposed change of use would not adversely impact on the amenities, privacy or security of adjoining neighbours including Edmonton County School.

·         Safeguarding issues and concerns raised by the Head of Edmonton County School. The Head’s letter had raised issues not in the planning report

·         It was suggested that the application should be deferred.

5.    The Chair recommended that the Committee delegate authority to officers to grant, providing the landscaping, fencing and lighting issues can be resolved. If agreement with the school cannot be reached then this application should come back to Committee.

6.    The officers’ recommendation, including delegating authority to officers was supported by a majority of the committee: 8 votes for and 3 abstentions.

AGREED that subject to the satisfactory resolution of these issues, the Head of Development Management or a Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to notify the deemed grant of planning permission in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, subject to the conditions set out in the report and any additional conditions required to address the school’s concerns.