Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report and referral of the application to the Mayor of London and no objection being raised, the Head of Planning / Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    An update report for Members had been published and circulated by email.

2.    A Member site visit had taken place on Saturday 20 June 2020.

3.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals and highlighting the key issues and policy considerations.

4.    There had been a Planning Panel public meeting in January 2020, the notes of which were appended to the officers’ report, and over 1000 comments had been received in respect of this application.

5.    Receipt of objections from Bambos Charalambous Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate and Joanne McCartney, Assembly Member for Enfield and Haringey, as set out in the update report.

6.    Receipt of a further three letters of objection raising concerns including overshadowing, residential amenity, health and safety of school children, air pollution, impact on parking, impact on property values, construction noise, and affect on mental health.

7.    Receipt of one further letter of support in respect of the shortage of housing and need for new homes, especially close to stations.

8.    Further additional conditions in respect of Fire Statement, opaque glazing and window openings, disabled car parking, waste strategy, permitted development, and amalgamation of Condition 13 with Condition 21.

9.    Receipt of a written representation from Denise Gandhi (Southgate Green Association), against the officers’ recommendation, circulated to Members.

10. The deputation of PreenalGondhea (MRICS Chartered Surveyor, member of Southgate District Civic Voice planning group and local resident.) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

11. The deputation of Ralph Kley (neighbouring resident) speaking against the officers’ recommendation.

12. The deputation of Marianne Linden on behalf of residents of Hillside Grove and Park Road speaking against the officers’ recommendation. Without having got permission from the committee, Marianne Linden handed over to Jonathon of 43 Hillside Grove to make part of the deputation.

13. The deputation read out on behalf of Chris Horner (Southgate District Civic Voice - Conservation Advisory Group rep) against the officers’ recommendation.

14. The statement of Councillor Stephanos Ioannou, Southgate Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation

15. The statement of Councillor Charith Gunarwardena, Southgate Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation.

16. The statement of Councillor Derek Levy, Southgate Ward Councillor against the officers’ recommendation.

17. The statement in response from Holly Mitchell, Simply Planning, agent on behalf of Viewpoint Estates, the applicant.

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

19. The Committee voted unanimously not to support the officers’ recommendation.

20. Councillor Rye’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Boztas, that planning permission be refused on the grounds of height, bulk and massing; affordable housing and the housing mix; impact on the setting of heritage assets; visually intrusive and having a detrimental impact on residential properties.

21. The unanimous support of the Committee for refusal of the application.

AGREED that the application be refused for the following reasons.

Height, Bulk & Massing

The proposed development, due to its height, bulk and massing would result in an intrusive and incongruous form of development which fails to integrate satisfactorily with its surroundings. The height of the proposed towers in particular is excessive in this location and would result in an inappropriately visually prominent form of development that would be out of context and unduly dominant.  The development would be detrimental to and in contrast to the prevailing character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policies 3.5, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7 of the London Plan, Policy D3 & 4 of the draft London Plan (Intend to Publish), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD37 and DMD 43 of the Development Management Document.

Affordable Housing

The proposed development, notwithstanding the viability information provided, fails to provide an appropriate amount and mix of affordable housing in terms of the split between social rental and intermediate housing having regard to the requirements of Policy CP3 of the Council’s adopted local plan.  The development of this site would therefore fail to contribute appropriately to the supply of affordable housing in the borough, contrary to the Policies 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 of the London Plan 2016, Policies CP3  of the Core Strategy 2010 and Policy DMD1 of the Development Management Document 2014.

Setting of Heritage Assets

The proposed development, due to its height, bulk and massing would result in an intrusive,  incongruous and visually prominent form of development that would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the adjoining heritage assets with insufficient public benefits provided by the development to outweigh this harm. Harm would specifically be caused to the setting of the Grad II* listed Southgate Underground Station and the setting of the Southgate Circus Conservation Area. The development therefore is considered to be contrary to Policies CP5 and CP30 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD10, DMD37 and DMD38 of the Development Management Document, London Plan Policies 3.4, 7.4 & 7.6 and 7.8, Policies D3 and D9 of the draft London Plan (Intend to Publish) as well as the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

The proposed development due to its height, bulk and massing, would give rise to conditions prejudicial to the amenities of the adjacent and nearby residential properties due to the visual intrusion, sense of enclosure and overlooking caused. This would be contrary Policies DMMD8, DMD10, DMD37 and DMD43 of the Development Management Document, London Plan Policies 3.5,  7.6 , 7.8 and Policies D3  & HC1 of the draft London Plan (Intend to Publish)