Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions. 

WARD: Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by David Gittens, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues.

2.    The application site comprises number 20 Waggon Road and parts of the rear gardens of numbers 18 and 22 Waggon Road. Number 20 Waggon Road is a 2 storey detached single family dwelling located on the southern   side of the road. The site has a single point of vehicular access and parking        for a number of 4 cars on the front driveway.

3.    The surrounding area is residential in character, mainly characterised by large detached dwellings. Warner Close is located to the east of the application site and contains 4 dwellings to the rear of numbers 10-16 Waggon Road accessed via Sandridge Close.

4.    The metropolitan Green Belt lies to north of the application site on the opposite side of Waggon Road whilst Monken Mead Brook defines the rear        (southern) site boundary.

5.    This application was originally considered by the Planning Committee on 19th December 2017. The Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and a S106 agreement to require a contribution towards affordable housing.

6.    Members may recall seeing a similar scheme before them, at Planning Committee a few weeks ago, that sought to construct a similar tandem development on an adjacent site to the west in a further continuation of development from Sandridge Close.

7.    The legislation in place at the time, The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order (DMPO 2015) required an affordable housing contribution for residential schemes of 10 units or more and/or those with a proposed General Internal Area (GIA) in excess of 1000sqm. As the proposed scheme had/has a floor area in excess of 1000sqm, a contribution towards affordable housing was therefore required.

As with many smaller schemes that are required to make a contribution towards affordable housing, there were extensive discussions on the issue of viability and what the development could reasonably sustain in terms of an appropriate financial contribution.  This extended the timescales and resulted in the legal agreement not being completed.

8.    However, in the intervening period, revisions were made to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which confirmed that affordable housing can only be sought in respect of schemes for 10 or more homes or if the site has an area of half a hectare or more, neither of which is applicable in this case.  At the same time the requirement for an affordable housing contribution for residential schemes with a GIA in excess of 1000sqm was removed.

9.    Other revisions to the NPPF resulted in changes that either do not affect this proposal or are covered by the original report.  In the light of these changes, together with the previous resolution of the Planning Committee to grant planning permission for this scheme, the application needs to be reported to the Committee again to seek an amendment to the resolution to remove the reference to a S106 agreement which is no longer applicable.

10.In all other respects the planning application and proposed development remain as previously considered and accepted, although for information, the previous officer’s report was published on the agenda.

Accordingly, Members were requested to consider the application without a legal agreement on the basis of the revised resolution.

11. A late representation was reported from Mr Henley of Covert Way

12. Members debate and questions responded to by officers’.

13.Significant discussion regarding the impact of this development on the natural environment and the response of this development to the Council’s Climate Change Declaration and the weight afforded to this alongside existing adopted policy within the “development plan” that relate to climate change.  Confirmation was also sought by Members that there were no other changes in policy that needed to be reported particularly in the area of climate change / environmental  / biodiversity.

14.Officers advised that the report had been reviewed in light of current policy and the addendum drew attention to the key material change – in other respects there were no changes or matters were covered by condition.

The legal officer warned of the cost consequences at appeal even if delaying the application by reading the relevant section of the Government’s planning practice guidance. It was also noted that any previously approved application that was subject to a section 106 may have to return to Committee if new material considerations had arisen since the initial Committee approval, prior to the issuing of the permission.

15. The majority of the Committee did not support the officers’ recommendation: 3 votes for, 7 votes against.

16. The majority of the Committee supported a deferral of the application with 4 votes for, 3 against and 3 abstentions.

This was proposed by Councillor Leaver and seconded by Councillor Rye.

AGREED that the application be deferred.

Motion to defer was AGREED for the following reasons:

1.The application needs to be reconsidered in the light of the material change as a result of the Council’s declared Climate Change Emergency;

2.The application and report to be reviewed and reconsidered to ensure that any material changes in environmental policy in the Draft London Plan, be reported particularly in relation to tree canopy and biodiversity.