Agenda item - 20/02858/FUL - 100 Church Street, Enfield, EN2 6BQ

Agenda item

20/02858/FUL - 100 Church Street, Enfield, EN2 6BQ

RECOMMENDATION: 

1. That subject to the finalisation of a Section 106 to secure the matters covered in this report and to be appended to the decision notice, the Head of Development Management/ the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD:  Grange

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals.

2.    The deputation of Councillor Andy Milne speaking as Grange Ward Councillor.

3.    The response of Jay Ahluwalia (Dominvs) and Nick Grant (Iceni Projects).

4.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

5.    Councillor Rye had a number of concerns regarding the application including the low affordable housing figure which was way below the expectation of the Local Authority and the Mayor of London, there would be substantial damage to the Conservation area, close proximity to the New River is a challenge, the loss of 5 pine trees which currently softens the site and no clear planting scheme to soften the appearance and improve what is being proposed, unresolved issues of roof top plant equipment which is unsightly in a Conservation Area, the spacing in between the 2 proposed blocks was insufficient and the under provision of disabled parking spaces.

Being a car free development didn’t mean that people living on the development won’t have any cars and people would be parking just outside of the CPZ which is 5 minutes away. This would need to be resolved for this application to move forward. A further concern highlighted was inadequate play space. There were many reasons to refuse this application. Andy Higham clarified that whilst this was brownfield site and the proposed development is in a Conservation area. Looking at the harm regarding the development, the advice received is less than substantial and the impacts needs to be weighed up by members to see if any reasons for refusal against the benefits this proposal would bring in terms of housing delivery.

Through negotiation with the applicant, the quantum of development has had to be reduced which had put pressure on the scheme viability. Officers had worked with the developer and applicant to ensure that affordable housing units are focussed on the larger family units at London affordable rent levels.

The conclusions around heritage is that those public benefits do outweigh the areas of concern and were not so sufficient to justify a refusal on those grounds.

The tree officer had been consulted and had confirmed that he had no objection and supported the removal of trees. There was also a condition for replacement planting.

The rooftop plant concern would be dealt with by condition with further condition to seek to ensure that satellite dishes are on the outside of premises.

The spacing between the blocks was looked at and is considered to be appropriate. The design & review panel supported the 2-block proposal rather that one. If the spacing was wider then there would be less units and therefore less affordable housing. There could have been more development on this site, with improved viability, but in terms of heritage, this was the best approach.

In terms of play space, the proximity to Town Park is a key asset in this instance and the provision is the right quality.

In terms of parking and car free development, not everyone owned a car. This is a very sustainable site close to a station, bus routes and a town centre with retail commercial opportunities. If someone did choose to own a car then they would have to leave it 300 metres away from the scheme. Personal choice dictates that people could live in this development and for them to be car free. There would be an exemption for the current CPZ and officers could look with the applicant to see if there is a mechanism to extend it should there be a significant overspill parking in the future. In terms of disabled parking, there had been a change to the London Plan Policy which states that it is now a 3% minimum requirement to be provided on site and an additional 7% provision elsewhere.

6.   In response to Councillor Taylors enquiry about the boundary fence, Andy Higham clarified that as part of this scheme, there was no proposal to have any boundary treatment. The red line site is the edge of the boundary and no enclosure is proposed along this line with the New River. However, the Enfield Town Conservation Study Group had referred to potential encroachment, within the report, from the residents of those properties into the space between the red line and path (black line) which is a concern.

7.  Councillor Taylor confirmed the use of Heritage Officers at this meeting and that they should have been present so as to discuss whether there is or isn’t any substantial harm being caused to the heritage assets. Councillor Taylor also referred to the following points regarding the development:

·         Paragraph 2.5 of the report stated shortcomings to the proposal.

·         The scheme was not policy compliant, in terms of affordable units. Figures of 14.22% or 10% depending on whether calculations are made on units or habitable rooms.

·         Proximity to the New River that will cause harm

·         Space between the blocks is inadequate as detailed at 9.6 of the report.

·         At 9.7 of the report, Para 1.1.4 of the London Plan was quoted regarding working with Local Heritage.

·         There are no commercial use-ages on the site which contravened the 2018 Framework Master Plan.

·         DMD 22 states that the loss of floor space should be resisted and that there was a loss of floor space on this site.

·         Concerns about the height of the development in terms of the Conservation Area. There remained matters on design and cause concern and harm to the Special Character and setting of the Enfield Town Conservation Area.

·         The use of percentages in terms of meeting minimum standards in terms of access to daylight i.e. 86% compliant.

·         The distance between the windows is below standards in DMD 10

·         Para 9.142 makes clear that the development doesn’t meet the London Plan on play provision.

This would be a finely balance decision. The scheme had benefits to it but also known negatives which had been fairly indicated in the report.

Planning Officers responded to Councillor Taylor’s concerns clarifying heritage harm and how the 14% affordable housing figure had been calculated by habitable room.

8.  Councillor Anderson’s enquiry how the development met housing need in the Borough. The original proposal by the developer had 35% affordable housing and after discussions with officers this figure had been downgraded to 14%. This was a considerable difference. The requirements for housing in the borough are stated in the Core policy Strategy 2010-25 including the Local Housing Needs Assessment; type of accommodation and affordability. Given that, how was the affordable housing figure negotiated down? Officers clarified that this was due to striking a balance between an optimal solution for the site, design terms quantum and viability. The optimal solution was being delivered in terms of affordable housing and housing need. This was the process used. Scale and massing had been reduced to mitigate concerns. The result is the quantum number of units for viability. An alternative solution would be to increase massing and height again to deliver affordable units. This would create more pressure in terms of the heritage impact which has to be given significant weight and is a balance. This is the optimal solution for the site given all those differing considerations. Viability of a scheme is independently tested and if the developer can demonstrate that this is the maximum level of affordable housing that can be sustained by the quantum proposed there is no grounds to refuse that application.

9.  Councillor Taylor proposed a deferment of the application so that more comfort is provided by officers on heritage issues and on viability. This was seconded by Councillor Rye, as the development was not meeting requirements. Councillor Taylor’s reasons for deferral as follows:

·         Heritage issues – the Committee would benefit from a full explanation of the damage to the Heritage assets in the locality and Conservation area. How judgement was arrived at, as detailed within the report.

·         Viability issues – the Committee need to understand how the change in affordable housing figures had changed. How that reduction took place with a modest reduction in the total number of units. A reduction to the 17 affordable units by 10.

10.The majority of the Committee did not support deferral of the application with 5 votes for, 5 against and one abstention. Casting vote by the chair against deferral.

11. The majority of the Committee did not support the Officers’ recommendation with 5 votes for and 6 against.

12. The majority of the Committee supported deferral for reasons for refusal with 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

 

AGREED that Members minded to refuse planning permission but the decision be deferred for Officers to bring back reasons for Refusal.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: