Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning or the Head of Development Management be authorised to Grant planning permission and Listed Building consent subject to conditions.conditions.

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Allison De Marco, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.     An update report had been circulated to Members, including additional representations received since the Main Report was published. Officers considered no substantial new issues had arisen but given the length of the representations, and for clarity, Officers had responded to objections by referring to sections in the Main Report that assessed the matters raised. A verbal update on additional representations: a petition had been re-circulated by Bowes Road residents group, this petition has been previously circulated to members and considered and address in the Main Report at Section 6; and no objection from the twentieth century society.

3.     The Planning Decision Manager explained the applications under consideration had been listed on the agenda for consideration on 24 November 2020 and had been withdrawn from consideration by officers. Officers reviewed representations received in the lead-up to the 24 November 2020 and several omissions. Officers were confident the issues raised in the representations had been fully considered.

4.    The deputation of Henry Grala (Local resident) speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

5.    The deputation of Peter Gibbs (Federation of Enfield Residents & Allied Associations) speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

6.    The deputation of Virginia Knox (Local resident) speaking against the officer’s recommendation.

7.    The statement of the Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP (Chipping Barnet).

8.     The statement of Councillor Roberto Weeden-Sanz, Brunswick Park Ward (LB of Barnet).

9.     The statement of Councillor Daniel Anderson, Southgate Green Ward Councillor.

10. The response of Lee Campbell (Transport for London) on behalf of the applicant.

11. The response of Richard Lavington (Scheme Architect) on behalf of the applicant.

12. The response of Rebecca Crow (Grainger PLC) on behalf of the applicant.

13. Members lengthy debate and questions responded to by officers.

14. Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments:

·         Arnos Grove car park is popular with local residents due to the regularity of the Piccadilly line service which provides a level of safety for single people travelling late at night. There is an issue here in terms of meeting the standards of the Equality Act.

·         The application involves a Grade 2 listed building and block BD 01 (east side) obscures views of the drum.

·         Both sides of the car park are small and this was an overdevelopment which is to be crammed into the space. The intended blocks, ranging from 4 to 7 storeys in height would impact Arnos Park, the surrounding area, the listed arches and would change the character of the area.

·         The social housing is not affordable to people of an average income in Enfield. Concern that the proposed secure tenancy of 1 – 5 years would not be meeting the needs of those less well off and vulnerable in the borough.

·         Point 6.62 of the report showed that the needs of new people, in terms of health provision is being overlooked. There was nothing in then report to tackle additional medical services.

·         The proposed new drop off point had not been adequately addressed in the report. How would the proposed drop off area work for people situated at the end of the development in terms of deliveries from companies like Amazon. The proposed new drop off point would increase more car journeys with the loss of the car park.

·         Request that an extra condition be added to remove the non-compliance Cycle Enfield store outside the listed building and be re-located.

·         No detail in the report about the bus stand and recognised issue. It would be resolved in the future, but no solutions given in the report.

·         Bowes Road had a major issue with traffic accidents. There had been no improvements and the report had not been conditioned to show how this would be managed.

·         How many apprenticeships and schemes of work into education and training opportunities would the scheme provide for local young people in the borough including the number for ethnic minorities.

·         In terms of sustainability of the project, would the development involve environment friendly methods of construction, materials sourced locally, provide vertical gardens and any radical solutions to provide green spaces.

·         There were too many 1 and 2-bedroom units and not enough family units of 3 bedrooms. Issue with segregation in terms of the A02 building. All the units in the A02 building should be affordable housing.

·         The scheme did not consider Enfield’s housing needs by the lack of 3-bedroom units.

·         The loss of the car park would cause problems for key workers, people going to work and severely impact the elderly.

·         Residents views ignored in light of a 3,000 signatory petition. Road closures in Bowes Road and Winchmore Hill has caused more traffic congestion and made roads dangerous. The majority of TFL stations did not have car parks in central London but in the suburbs a car is needed.

15.  The Chair requested a response from Andy Higham, Head of Development Management. The Head of Development Management explained that Officers took these concerns and comments very seriously and had taken the issues raised during consideration of the applications very seriously. In writing their report, Officers had fully considered issues that had been raised, including those raised by objectors. While Members may have differing views on the conclusions, Officers had fully considered objections received and issues raised alongside the merits of the proposal.

16.  During the debate, it was AGREED that the rules of procedure within theCouncil’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10pm) be suspended for a period of 45 minutes to enable the business of the agenda to be completed.

17.  During the debate, it was AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end be suspended for a further period of 15 minutes to enable the business of the agenda to be completed.

18.  The majority of the committee did not support the officers      recommendation: 11 votes against and 1 abstention’.

19.  The reasons for refusal were discussed and agreed:

·      Loss of Car Park and Implications on Surrounding Highway network -The proposed development would not adequately mitigate the loss of existing parking for the station leading to increased pressure in the surrounding area and circumstances detrimental to safety, security and the use of the station by local residents contrary to Policy 26 of the Enfield Core Strategy and Policy 45 of the Enfield Development Management Document.

·      Effect on Building (BO1) on setting of Listed Building - The proposed development, due to the siting and scale of building B01 relative to the road frontage, would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the Grade II* listed Arnos Grove Underground Station and associated structures. This would be contrary to Policy DMD 44 of the Enfield Development Management Document, Policy CP31 of the Enfield Core Strategy and Policy 7.8 of the adopted London Plan.

·      Insufficient Family Housing - The proposed development fails to provide an appropriate composition of housing (mix / tenure / rent levels) to meet local housing needs, including the need for genuinely affordable and family housing in the Borough. It would fail to provide a range of housing choice, fail to assist in achieving a mixed and balanced community and constitute unsustainable development contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CP3 and CP5 of the of the Enfield Core Strategy, Policies DMD 1 and DMD3 of the Enfield Development Management Document, Policies 3.8, 3.9, 3.11 and 3.12 of the adopted London Plan and Policies GG4, H6, H11 and H10 of the Intend to Publish London Plan and the Mayor of London Affordable Housing and Viability SPG.

20.  The unanimous support of the committee for the reasons given for refusal.

AGREED that the application be Refused for the reasons given.