RECOMMENDATION: That subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the obligations set out in this report, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
WARD: Lower Edmonton
1. The introduction by Claire Williams, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.
2. An update report had been circulated to Members and published online.
3. Receipt of further representations from the Campaign for Real Ale.
4. The condition in respect of the green roof would be updated in respect of the green wall.
5. That the application street address did not align with the post code was noted.
6. Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers.
7. Members’ ongoing concerns, and discussion of appropriate reasons for refusal of planning permission.
8. A motion proposed by Councillor Anderson, seconded by Councillor Alexandrou, that planning permission be refused for reasons in relation to parking, traffic and access to public transport; design, height and quality of residential space; the setting of the development in the surrounding area; and failure to provide an appropriate amount of affordable housing was unanimously supported by the committee.
AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
01. The proposed development, due to its height, scale, bulk and massing together with the inadequate provision of green spaces and play spaces would result in an intrusive and incongruous form of development which represents an inappropriately visually prominent and overly dominant form of development that fails to integrate satisfactorily with its surroundings. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to the appearance and character of the surrounding contrary to Policies D3, D4, D6, G5 and G7 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD 9, DMD37, DMD 73, DMD 80 and DMD81 of the Development Management Document (2014).
02. The proposed development, by reason of the inadequate quantum of on-site parking taking into account the poor accessibility to public transport and other non-vehicle infrastructure, would result in a more intensive use of the site and would lead to an increase in traffic, on street parking and conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic, cyclists and pedestrians using the adjoining highways. As such the development is contrary to Policy T4 and T6 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP25 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD45 and DMD47 of the Development Management Document (2014).
03. The proposed development, fails to provide an appropriate amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough 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 Policy H5 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DMD1 of the Development Management Document (2014).
04. The proposed development, due to the lack of trees and soft landscaping would result in a form of development that would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the application site and wider area. This would be contrary to Policies D3, D4, D6, G5 and G7 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP4 and CP30 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD37, DMD80 and DMD81 of the Development Management Document (2014).