Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: 

1.That subject to the finalisation of a Section106 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: Winchmore Hill

NOTED

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

2.    Updates to the report had been published and circulated to Members.

3.    The deputation of Tom Clarke from the Theatre Trust.

4.    The deputation of Rebecca Gediking from Save the Intimate Theatre Group.

5.    The response of Jenny Harries, Agent, and Father Mehall Lowry, Applicant.

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

7.    Cllr Boztas enquired about the difference between the application in 2020 and now and whether the hall area was the same. Officers clarified that there was no change, just additional information provided. The proposal provided an uplift of floor space in the hall. It would be a flexible space and more capable of being used for a variety of community uses. It was important to consider this proposal as new and decide based on that information.

8.    Cllr Rye commented that there was nothing in the proposal to allow performances of quality and the marketing on the church website was not sufficient. The design of the proposal added little value and was less attractive than the current one.

9.    Cllr Yusuf commented that he voted against the proposal as he considered it a vandalism against the arts, heritage, and culture of Enfield. The proposal added nothing to the area and the new building was hideous, did not fit into local designs and did not do much for housing needs.

10. Cllr Levy commented that the proposal was policy compliant, and he would like to see articulation of how space would be used rather than just flexible use.

11. In response to Cllr Erbil’s query regarding the application being approved by the committee and the notice not being issued, officers confirmed that following committee when the resolution to grant was made, there was an indication from the Secretary of State that the Theatres Trust called in the application and so we withheld.

12. Cllr Taylor commented that the Parish should be allowed to do things on its own land for its own interest. It was disappointing that the applicant gave little regard to the heritage of the site. If the committee agreed, then the historic assets should be removed and reserved.

13. Cllr Rye suggested it would be useful for officers to explain how the loss of facilities could be made in exceptional circumstances. Officers clarified that the building was not designated as a heritage asset, and retaining features was difficult to do. Section 9.54 in the report clarified what was required and how applications were assessed.

14. In response to Cllr Levy’s question, officers confirmed Members were free to decide based on the information available to them in the updated report. The demolition relates to the community hall rather than the theatre hall. If the committee proceeded with a refusal, we will look at the reasons.

15. Cllr Taylor expressed concerns regarding loss of heritage assets in the borough and officers offered an assessment if there were specific elements they wanted to be restored.

16. Cllr Fallart sought clarification on whether a stage could be put in the new building to facilitate theatre use. Officers confirmed that the space was flexible, and a stage can be erected as an option.

17. Cllr Anolue raised concerns that the borough would be left with only one theatre and asked about the possibility of incorporating theatre into the plan. Officers confirmed that options were assessed and did not prove suitable or viable, so a more flexible space was put forward.

18. Cllr Taylor agreed the proposed plan was flexible but excluded theatre use and asked if it was possible to store staging blocks or to bring a proposal that works for all the community. Offices clarified that they have considered the loss of fixed theatre space, groups that use this space could use alternative spaces which are just as accessible.

19. Cllr Taylor’s proposal, seconded by Cllr Rye, that a decision on the application be deferred so that the applicant could consider the option to include a space to be used for theatre without restricting the flexibility of the proposed building.

20. The committee voted unanimously to support the deferral.

AGREED to defer the decision on grounds requesting clarification on the availability / provision of temporary stage facilities.