Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That Planning Permission be Refused

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the reasons for Refusal as indicated in the Recommendation section of the report.

WARD: Brimsdown

Gideon Whittingham, Planning Decisions Manager, introduced the report and described the proposals. Mr. Whittingham advised the committee that a further letter of objection had been received from Feryal Clark MP objecting to the development.

The deputees Mr Mitchell, local resident and Mr Daniele, agent for the applicant, spoke against the Officer’s proposal to refuse the application.

During the discussion which ensued, concerns were raised regarding the lack of changes to the previously considered scheme, the non-compliant fire safety provision, the safety of the children’s play area located on the twenty-first floor, the loss of community space and the need for more landscaping. Concerns were also raised about the close proximity of the first-floor amenity space and habitable room windows on Langley Court.Further discussion centred on viability / level of affordable housing contribution and the loss of the public house (although there was an acceptance that the public house had been closed for some time).

Andrew Marsden, the Council’s Building Control Manager gave specific advice on the building regulations and concerns about fire safety, and this was echoed by Brett Leahy, Director of Planning & Growth who stated that of all the reasons for refusal, fire safety was the most concerning.  Noting that while the block had two staircases, they shared a single lobby as an exit point. Cllr Rye expressed concern about the safety of the children’s play area on the roof as there were no security fencing proposed.

Members also expressed concerns regarding the timeframe given by the Committee at its meeting on 19 July 2022 to the applicant to address the reasons for refusal contained in the previous application. Some Members considered this to be insufficient for such a large development. Members were reminded that the timings had been mandated by the Committee themselves and that officers had worked to those timescales.

Further concerns were expressed by several Members of the Committee, which related to fire safety whereby the single staircase discharged into an escape route which connected to a covered car park by way of the lobbies did not comply with building or fire safety regulations. Additional concerns included the proposed children’s playground which was located on the roof, for which safety features had not been provided and were considered to be inadequate and dangerous.

Councillor Michael Rye proposed, seconded by Councillor Peter Fallart, that planning permission be refused as per the officer’s recommendations.

On being put to the vote, there were five votes for the proposal to refuse the application and seven against.

Members went on to discuss the application further. During the debate, Councillor Mohammad Islam appeared to suggest that he had been in communication with the Applicant who had advised that the communication from the Planning Department had not been adequate. This prompted Elizabeth Paraskeva, the Council’s Principal Lawyer, Regeneration and Contracts Teams to seek clarification and to ask Councillor Mohammad Islam to repeat what he had just said. The Councillor explained he was referring to the communication between Enfield’s planning officer and the developer’s planning agent, rather than direct contact. Brett Leahy, Director of Planning & Growth, advised that he had seen the communication to and from the Applicant and that it was incorrect to say the communication had been inadequate.

Councillor Mohammad Islam proposed that the item be deferred to consider further fire safety and the children’s play area but, following a request from Councillor Taylor, it was agreed that it would be sensible to include all 12 reasons for refusal contained in the report so there could be future discussions with the Applicant on all 12 reasons during the period of deferral.

Discussion took place amongst Members as to what would be an appropriate timeframe for the deferral and 6 months was agreed as reasonable.  Following further advice from Brett Leahy, Director of Planning & Growth, it was acknowledged that this period may not naturally fall on a scheduled Committee date and officers would therefore bring back a report on this item, to an appropriate meeting around this timescale.

Councillor Mohammad Islam proposed an amended motion, seconded by Councillor Gunes Akbulut, that the planning application be deferred for 6 months to allow the applicant sufficient time to address all the 12 reasons for refusal set out in the Officer’s report. 

On being put to the vote, there were eight votes for the proposal to defer the application, three against and one abstention.

Councillor Jim Steven commented that he was extremely concerned that the committee had agreed to defer this item rather than refusing planning permission given the very serious concerns raised by officers during the debate.

AGREED that the planning application be DEFERRED for 6 months to allow the applicant sufficient time to address all the 12 reasons for refusal set out in the Officer’s report.