Agenda item

WARD: Grange

NOTED

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

2.    At the Planning Committee on the 26 October 2021 Members had voted not to accept the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission, having identified concerns relating to the impact on heritage assets, which outweighed the public benefits of the scheme, acceptability of the housing mix and the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area in terms of design and appearance.

Members were minded to refuse planning permission and defer the final decision, pending the drafting of reasons for refusal based on those grounds which are detailed at paragraph 1.2 (page 174) of the report.

3.    The Part 2 report sets out the draft reasons for refusal for Members to consider

4.    Since the original committee meeting, the applicant has provided additional information in the form of an improvement in the proposed mix of residential accommodation. The applicant has advised that they would increase the number of affordable residential units, at London affordable rent, from 7 to 9 units increasing the proposed level of affordable housing from 14.2% to 16.7% on a habitable room basis. Also altering the residential mix providing an additional 3 bed, 4-person unit and a 2 bed, 3-person unit.

5.    The applicant has also offered, in response to Members concerns, to provide more clarity on tree removal including the boundary treatment of the landscaped area between the development and the New River. This will include a commitment to a detailed planning condition and a Section 106 planning application to secure that treatment.

6.    The recommendation is detailed at paragraph 2.1 (page 174) of the report. If Members accept Option 1, a report will be made to the committee in January 22 where members can review the proposal in more detail and either approve or refuse the proposed development. If there is no agreement to Option 1 then Members can consider the draft reasons for refusal and further agreement to move the meeting to Part 2.

7. Members’ debate and questions responded to by Officers.

8. Members’ comments and queries including the following:

·         Councillor Rye moved to Option 1 and the 3 amendments that the Director of Law & Governance put forward.

·         Councillor Taylor raised a specific point about the Heritage aspect he was most concerned about. He was not convinced by the applicant’s intentions, which Andy Higham advised Members about. He therefore referred to paragraph 7.8 of the previous report (October 21) and the section on Enfield Town Conservation Area group that makes specific points about the harm caused by the development. He would like this issue raised with the applicant.

·         Councillor Levy’s comments that Councillor Anderson had expressed a 4^th ground of concern at the 26 October 2021 committee meeting regarding an issue of affordability. He asked officers to liaise with Councillor Anderson to ensure that if there was a 4^th ground, to include that in the report.

9. The unanimous support of the committee for Option 1 of the officers’ recommendation including the 3 points made by the Director of Law & Governance and the proposals by Councillor Taylor and Councillor Levy.

AGREED to consider the Part 2 report and Option 1:

1.  In light of the additional information as set out in the report, to defer the application to enable the updates to be further assessed and balanced as part of an amended report for a future Planning Committee.