Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended 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.   This application was originally considered by the Enfield Planning Committee on 19 December 2017. The Enfield Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the development subject to conditions and a S106 agreement that required a financial contribution towards affordable housing.

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

4.   However, in the intervening period, before the legal agreement was completed, central government made revisions 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 and removed the requirement for an affordable housing contribution for residential schemes with over 1000sqm of floorspace.

5.   In the light of these changes, together with the previous resolution of the Planning Committee to grant planning permission for this scheme, the application was reported to the Committee again on 4 February 2020 to seek an amendment to the resolution to remove the reference to a S106 agreement which is no longer applicable.

6.   On 4 February 2020, the Planning Committee voted to defer the item for the following reasons:

·         For the reconsideration of the application in the light of The application needs to be reconsidered in the light of the material change as a result of the Council’s declared Climate Change Emergency; and,

·         To report any material changes in environmental policy in the Draft London Plan,             particularly in relation to tree canopy, and biodiversity.

7.   These matters have been reviewed and the report on today’s agenda contains sections that specifically address these issues.

8.   In all other respects the planning application and proposed development remain as previously approved by the Enfield Planning Committee.

9.   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.

10.   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.

11.   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.

12.   Application is made for the redevelopment of the site by the demolition of the existing house at no 20 Waggon Road to provide 4 x 6-bedroom detached single family dwelling houses with attached garages, new access road from Waggon Road, and associated landscaping.

13.   There are existing, similar back land developments that have taken advantage of other long gardens in the immediate vicinity, at Warner Close and Sandridge Close.

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

15. The statement of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou, Cockfosters Ward Councillor.

16. The deputation of Drummond Robson was not heard.

17.   Members debate and questions responded to by officers. Members stated that this case should be refused as it was clearly worse in terms of its impacts than the original scheme earlier on the agenda (18/00646/FUL).

18. Members concern in relation to the development being out of character to the area, adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, not fully compliant to the Council’s own urban plans with regards to the climate change emergency and the draft London plan with regards to the tree canopy and biodiversity.

19. The Committee refused the officers’ recommendation: 1 vote for, 4 against and 3 abstentions.

AGREED that the application be Refused.

Reason: Out of character with the locality and would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of local residents and also due to its impact on trees.