Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.  The introduction by Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, clarifying the proposals.

2.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee on 3 August 2021 to allow Officers to address with the applicant the parking issues and the removal, or gating of the footpath through the development connecting Cedars Road to Carpenter Gardens, to prevent public access through the site for reasons of safety and security. Further discussions were held with Councillor Barnes and neighbour representatives to seek to address the concerns of residents. Following these discussions, plans were submitted indicating amendments to the scheme, as detailed at 2.4 (page 17) of the report.

3.  Letter from local resident was circulated ahead of the meeting including the response from the agent.

4.  The Committee were given 2 options to consider:

·         Option A – To relocate and remove 2 parking spaces, install brick wall and turning head and introduction of sliding gate

·         Option B – To relocate and remove 2 parking spaces, install brick wall and turning head and removal of sliding gate.

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

6.  Members’ comments and queries including the following:

·       Councillor Rye’s preference was for Option B, to remove the sliding gate. The gate has the issue of segregating communities. There would also be a noise disturbance created by the gate and by traffic pulling up to access the gate. Option B was his preferred choice.

·         Officers advised that the gate would be for vehicular access. The gate would be sliding behind the wall. Many gates now designed to operate in residential situations and noises are at the right level and would not be an issue.

·         In reply to Councillor S. Erbil’s enquiry about residential parking/resident parking permits, officers clarified that the report does refer to looking to put in a CPZ but this development would be excluded from that. The member preferred option B.

·         In reply to Councillor Taylor’s enquiry about who proposed the sliding gate and its purpose, officers clarified that the introduction of the sliding gate was as a result of a discussion with Councillor Barnes and neighbour representatives. The purpose was to secure the site so that no anti-social behaviour takes place and no unauthorised vehicles will enter the site. The member preferred option B.

·         The sliding gate would be maintained by the residents of the development.

·         In reply to Councillor Rawlings question about the removal of 2 parking spaces and whether double yellow lines would be made in their place to stop people using that area as parking, officers clarified that the parking area will be on private land and not subject to those parking restrictions. Officers advised that they could ask the developer to put in double yellow lines but it would be subject to private enforcement and not public.

7.  Councillor Rye proposed to approve the application based around Option B, seconded by Councillor Fallart.

8.  The unanimous support of the Committee for the Officers recommendation and for Option B.

AGREED that the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.