Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Joseph Aggar, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.    An update to plan numbers listed at Para 2.6 (from page 83) of the report. A revision and correction for 2 of the drawing numbers on the decision notice. To add the letter A to the following plan numbers:

·         Proposed 2B4PF – Type U – Private A.

·         Proposed 2B4PF – Type Uv1 – Private A.

3.   Addition to the recommendation to include reference to delegated authority for the Head of Planning/Head of Development Management to amend/update conditions and the terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

4.  The Section 73 application is to vary the number of planning conditions as set out in the report. This is to allow amendments to the original planning consent to the New Avenue Estate regeneration scheme. The planning permission was originally granted in 2018 and members were advised to consider the proposed changes to the scheme in the context of the approved scheme.

5.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers

6.     Members comments and queries including the following:

·         The Chair asked for clarification regarding the difference in the scheme and the increase in the total number of units including affordable units. Officers clarified that there was an overall uplift of 94 units and the affordable units uplift was 30. Consent had been given for 140 units and is now 170. In terms of contributions to the scheme, the existing permission didn’t provide any off-site play provision and this proposal did. The existing permission didn’t facilitate all the play provision on-site, so this was an improvement. The scheme also offered further enhanced pedestrian and cycle movements and routes. The Section 106 contributions were considered as adequate relative to the scheme.

·         Councillor Rye’s comments including that this was a very dense development and limited open space & play facilities for families living on the site leading to a contribution for young people to make use of facilities to nearby open space rather than on-site. The lack of amenity space consequences would be educational and health outcomes.  There had been a loss of some 3 bed units.

·         In reply to Councillor Rawlings questions regarding the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) and the car parking PTAL rating of 2, officers clarified that the scheme, given its revisions and internal layout modifications there was an improvement in the ADF above the extant scheme. In terms of car parking, much of the site is PTAL 1A & 1B which is still consistent with the London Plan Policy. The term mansion block was just a description of the architectural style.

·         In response to Councillor Levy’s questions regarding the role of a Section 73 application in this regard and what impact it has on Members of the Committee, officers clarified that the application was submitted as a Section 73 and assessed as such. A Section 73 is used to seek material amendments to a scheme. Notably to alter the conditions to which it was attached. In terms of the process and assessment, there was no statutory definition of what a minor material assessment is. The scheme continues to form an estate led regeneration and the overall height of the development not to increase over what had been consented. There is no impact on surrounding occupiers and overall the changes were not considered a fundamental alteration to the scheme as a Section 73 and in this instance was appropriate.

·         Councillor Taylors comments including that the play space provision was inadequate and that the £76k provision was not sufficient and required more investment. The Local Authority should ensure provision for a continued level of expenditure for such provision and for future provision in this area. Officers clarified that an application is considered at a point in time and is considered in consultation with Parks colleagues. The scheme has been viability tested, considering the requirements of CIL, Section 106 and existing Section 106 including build costs, etc. and this was considered viable.

·         Councillor S. Erbil’s concern regarding the increase in population that a 94-unit increase the scheme would bring and the impact this would have on GP’s and school capacities. Did the area have capacity to hold the increase in population per unit? Officers clarified that the scheme had submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment. It was judged that the existing and current scheme’s impact would be no more than local. The scheme does provide an education contribution with an abatement to the CIL. There is a contribution of £800K that has been secured that can be invested in supporting any educational needs. So, any uplift in the unit numbers would lead to a contribution towards the CIL and would be spent accordingly. In terms of health provision, this would be picked up as part of the CIL to provide the necessary infrastructure to support the growth. There is also an infrastructure development plan which seeks to look at what is required and where that is needed.

·         In response to Councillor Anolue’s question about tree removal and replacement, officers clarified that there were 169 trees on site before development. The consented scheme proposed to remove 70 trees. This scheme proposed replacement trees of 207 and an uplift of 21 trees. There will be a net increase in trees overall as part of this application.

·         In response to Councillor Rye’s questions regarding on-site play facilities and recreational space, officers clarified that on site in phase 1 (completed) there is a formal play area for 5-11 year olds including play equipment. Above the roof of the Community Centre there are further play facilities. There is a proposed natural play area in Cowper Gardens. There is also a proposal to increase the amount of play in the communal court yards, sought to condition to ensure that it is appropriate. There are also other playgrounds, further door- step play and communal play to the rear of flatted blocks.

7.  The support of the majority of the Committee for the Officers recommendation with 11 votes for and 1 abstention.

AGREED that subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations as set out in the report, the Head of Development Management/the Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to Grant planning permission subject to conditions, including additional reference to delegated authority for the Head of Planning/Head of Development Management to amend/update conditions and the terms of the Section 106 Agreement.