public document pack - enfield...planning committee contact: natalie cole or jane creer committee...

PLANNING COMMITTEE Contact: Natalie Cole or Jane Creer

Committee Administrators Direct : 020-8379- 4088/4093 Thursday, 30th August, 2007 at 7.30 pm Tel: 020-8379-1000

Ext: 4088 or 4093 Fax: 020-8379-3177 Textphone: 020 8379 4419 E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Venue: Conference Room The Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, Middlesex, EN1 3XA

Council website: www.enfield.gov.uk

MEMBERS Councillors : Anwar, Jayne Buckland, Andreas Constantinides, Peter Fallart, Norman Ford, Jonas Hall, Ahmet Hasan, Robert Hayward (Vice-Chairman), Kieran McGregor, Anne-Marie Pearce, Henry Pipe, Martin Prescott (Chairman), Toby Simon, Terence Smith, Annette Dreblow, Christiana During and McGowan

N.B. Members of the public are advised that the order of business on

the agenda may be altered at the discretion of the Committee.

Any member of the public interested in attending the meeting should ensure that they arrive promptly at 7.15pm.

Please note that this meeting will be recorded for live and future broadcasting

on the Council’s website.

AGENDA – PART 1 1. WELCOME AND LEGAL STATEMENT 2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Members of the Planning Committee are invited to identify any personal or

prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda.

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE (Pages 1 - 12) To receive the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 July

Public Document Pack

2007.

5. REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION) MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (REPORT NO. 70) (Pages 13 - 120)

5.1 Applications dealt with under delegated powers

(A copy is available in the Members Library) 5.2 Planning Applications and applications to display advertisements

(Pages 20 – 100) 5.3 Appeal information (Pages 101 – 120) Section 1: New Town Planning Applications Appeals Section 2: Decision on Town Planning Application Appeals

6. MONITORING PERFORMANCE (REPORT NO. 71) (Pages 121 - 124) To receive the report of the Assistant Director of Planning and Transportation

on monitoring performance in respect of Best Value Performance Indicator 109 (BVPI109) – Speed of determining planning applications.

7. TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR FOOTBALL TRAINING CENTRE APPLICATION : ARRANGEMENTS FOR PLANNING PANEL

To agree:

(a) the date of Thursday 11 October 2007, 7.30 pm at the Conference Room, Enfield Civic Centre; and (b) the membership of the Panel for a Planning Panel meeting in relation to application TP/07/1623 made by Tottenham Hotspur Football Club for the construction of a football training centre comprising a building incorporating training and associated facilities, ancillary buildings and plant, external pitches, access roads, parking, pathways, fences and external lighting at land between Whitewebbs Lane and Bulls Cross, Enfield.

8. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC If necessary, to consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the

Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting for any items of business moved to part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

This page is intentionally left blank

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19.7.2007

- 149 -

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY, 19 JULY 2007

COUNCILLORS PRESENT Chaudhury Anwar MBE, Andreas Constantinides, Peter

Fallart, Jonas Hall, Ahmet Hasan, Robert Hayward, Kieran McGregor, Anne-Marie Pearce, Henry Pipe, Martin Prescott, Toby Simon, Terence Smith, Annette Dreblow, Christiana During and Donald McGowan

ABSENT Jayne Buckland and Norman Ford

OFFICERS: Andy Higham (Area Planning Manager), Julian Jackson (Head

of Development Control), David Snell (Area Planning Manager), David Taylor (Transportation Planning), Keith Trowell (Legal), Brian Wright (Planning) and Bob Ayton (ECS&L) Natalie Cole (Secretary) and Jane Creer (Secretary)

Also Attending: Approximately 40 members of the public, applicants, agents

and their representatives Councillors Giladi, Kaye and Taylor

163 WELCOME AND LEGAL STATEMENT The Chairman welcomed attendees to the Planning Committee and introduced Mr Trowell, Legal Representative, who read a statement regarding the order of the meeting and expected behaviour during the meeting. 164 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Buckland and Ford and Mr Stacey (Conservation Advisory Group). 165 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS NOTED that Councillor Pearce declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to AD/07/0051 and TP/07/0670 – 25 Windmill Hill, Enfield EN2 7AE - she had taken part in discussions and expressed opinions about these applications. She would not take part in the consideration of these applications. 166 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

Agenda Item 4Page 1


- 150 -

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 26 June 2007 were confirmed as a correct record. 167 REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION) MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS (REPORT NO. 61) RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation). 168 APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY NOTED that a copy of those applications dealt with under delegated powers was available in the Members Library and via the Council website. 169 ORDER OF AGENDA AGREED that the order of the agenda be varied to consider item 6, Telecommunications Applications, first and to accommodate the members of the public who wished to make deputations. 170 TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS (REPORT NO. 59) RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) assessing whether there was any benefit in the Planning Committee considering “Prior Approval” telecommunications applications, Presented by Mr Snell, Planning Area Manager. NOTED 1. Members were reminded that they could request that applications be brought to the Planning Committee for consideration. In doing so, members were asked to be mindful that telecommunication applications must be considered within 56 days of being submitted and to request items be brought to Planning Committee at an early stage. 2. Whilst point 8.3 in the report stated that a high percentage of the decisions to refuse prior approval applications had not been supported at appeal, more than half of the telecommunications applications refused did not make it to the appeal stages. In many cases negotiation with the applicants resulted in acceptable solutions for alternative sites to be used.

3. Councillor Constantinides reminded the Committee of his previous request that the Planning Committee make a formal request that Council policy be reviewed to allow telecommunications masts to be installed on Council owned land. The Chairman reported that he has raised the matter informally and suggested a formal approach be adopted.

ACTION: SECRETARY

Page 2


- 151 -

AGREED to accept the recommendation that in future applications for prior approval be determined in accordance with the current scheme of delegation and to review in 12 months. 171 AD/07/0051 - 25 WINDMILL HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 7AE NOTED 1. The opening statement of Mr Snell, including;

a. Receipt of 12 additional letters of objection received. New issues raised were reported including that the signs proposed were out of keeping with the neighbourhood and were undesirable and inappropriate in a quiet residential road, existing signs on Windmill Hill were switched off during the evening, leaving the proposed signs on at night would be unacceptable and that security issues not addressed.

b. The receipt of amended plans deleting the proposed Florence Avenue projecting box sign.

c. The proposal description amended to read: ‘Two internally illuminated fascia signs, one internally illuminated projecting box sign and vinyl graphics to windows’.

d. The amendment to the recommendation to read: “That advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

2. The deputation of Ms Fadipe, Chartered Town Planner, on behalf of Chase, Highlands and Town Residents and Businesses, including:

a. The complaint that local residents had not seen the plans for alternative fascia signs, where only the Tesco logo would be illuminated in more subtle colours. b. The suggestion that residents be re-consulted as details of the original signage proposed had been the basis of Ms Fadipe’s deputation. c. An architect working for Tesco had stated on the Tesco website that some of Tesco signs were out of keeping of character of areas they had been installed in.

3. The response of Mr Snell, including;

a. This was an advertising application, which could only be refused for reasons of visual appearance and amenity. Objections had been

Page 3


- 152 -

based mainly on the appearance of the original sign proposed by Tesco. b. Alternative signage had been discussed at the Planning Committee on 26 June 2007 and was suggested by an objector. c. In light of b. above Mr Snell did not feel it was necessary to re-consult with residents on this improvement, which was more subtle than the originally proposed signage

d. Councillor Pearce had not taken part in considerations (due to her declaration of interest) and left the meeting at this point and a vote was taken.

AGREED that advertisement consent be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report. NOTED that Councillor McGregor abstained from voting. 172 TP/070670 - 25 WINDMILL HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 7AE NOTED 1. The opening statement of Mr Snell, including;

a. 15 additional letters of objection received. New issues raised were reported, including: (i) Another ATM machine was unnecessary on Windmill Hill

and it would present a crime opportunity, result in antisocial behaviour and cause pedestrian congestion.

(ii) Ram bollards would cause unnecessary obstructions. (iii) Automatic doors were out of character on a residential road, and the entrance should be sited on Windmill Hill. (iv) The rear canopy, external access ladder and safety cage to the rear would be out of character.

b. Tesco would require consent from the Highways Authority to install ram bollards. It was Enfield’s policy not to allow footway obstructions and so the bollards would not be consented to, although they were part of the application before the Committee and had to be considered.

2. The deputation of Ms Fadipe, Chartered Town Planner, on behalf of Chase, Highlands and Town Residents and Businesses, including:

a. Planning permission for change of use of this site had been granted without the Council knowing the premises would be operated by Tesco. The opening of a Tesco in this area would have a detrimental impact on local residents and businesses

Page 4


- 153 -

b. Traffic, parking and health and safety in Windmill Hill and Florence Avenue would be affected by deliveries by heavy goods vehicles c. Ms Fadipe was reminded that the above comments were not material considerations in relation to the application which was before the Committee. d. The pavement was not wide enough to accommodate people queuing to use the ATM.

3. The response of Mr Snell, including that the Planning Committee could only consider the application for the shop front and alterations (i.e. the installation of the ATM) to the building. How the premises would be serviced and operated were not material considerations. 4. Members discussed the application, including the following comments;

a. Councillor Simon suggested that alternative methods to secure the ATM were considered. Mr Trowell reminded the Committee that security and crime reduction were not planning considerations.

b. In response to concerns expressed by Councillor McGregor, the

Chairman stated that the Committee could approve the entire application but it did not mean that Highways would consent to the installation of ram bollards. It would be Tesco’s decision whether to install the ATM without protective bollards.

5. Councillor Simon’s suggestion that Highways gave critical consideration to any requests from Tesco in relation to adjustments to secure the ATM or to allow delivery by large goods vehicle to ensure they would cause the minimum of disruption to the area. The Council should make no concession to Tesco if to do so compromised moving traffic, or other, policies or would otherwise detrimentally affect the area. Other members of the Committee supported this. Members were informed that they could only approve the recommendation as it stood although Councillor Simon’s suggestion was noted with approval. AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. Votes: For Councillors Anwar, Constantinides, Simon, Hayward, Dreblow,

Fallart, Hall, Pipe and T. Smith Against Councillors During, McGowan and McGregor Clerks note: Councillor Pearce returned to the meeting room at this point. 173

Page 5


- 154 -

TP/07/0613 - KINGSWELL HOUSE AND, LAND TO THE REAR OF, 453, SOUTHBURY ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 4HR NOTED 1. The opening statement of Mr Snell, including:

a. A previous similar application (TP/06/1912) was refused by the Local Authority (LA), for the reasons set out in the report, but a revised scheme had recently been accepted on appeal on the basis of a reduction of units in the development. b. The appeal inspector had accepted the proposed density and distancing between the proposed buildings.

c. In view of the appeal decision the recommendation was amended to include footway rather than highway improvements and to request that any amendments required to conditions, in the light of the decision, be delegated to officers.

d. Officers advice that the appeal decision was a significant material consideration and that it had addressed all material aspects of the application. There were therefore no grounds on which planning permission could be refused.

2. The deputation of Mr Ktorides, a Transportation Planner and owner of 108 Southbury Road, including:

a. The proposed distancing between the buildings did not meet UDP standards in some parts of the development.

b. The Committee was urged to include a condition to ensure there was more space between the unit-blocks to the south of the development and that wider blocks be considered.

3. The deputation of Mr Davies, local resident, including:

a. The proposed buildings would dominate the view and would ruin the aspect of Southbury Road Station. b. The suggestion that the bulk of the building be reduced and the proposed retail units be used for more housing.

4. The statement of Councillor Taylor (Ward Councillor), including:

a. Councillor Taylor’s initial intention to suggest members visit the site before making a decision, although this was no longer necessary as the previous application had been won on appeal.

Page 6


- 155 -

b. His support for the comments made by Mr Ktorides and Mr Davies. c. Officers should attempt to negotiate the best deal for the area.

5. Mr Snell’s response to the above statements, including that the inspector’s appeal report for TP/06/1912 had considered distancing of building and the aspect of the station, therefore officers considered the application TP/07/0613 to be acceptable. The negotiations with the developer would involve details such as the mix of units. 6. A discussion followed, including:

a. Councillors expressed concerns about: (i) if this scheme was approved, the developer could still use the planning permission granted for the application, which was won on appeal. Mr Snell explained that the Applicant and Agent had recognised that the current application dealt with some of the LA’s previous concerns. Officers had a good relationship with the developer and hoped discussions and negotiations would result in the more acceptable scheme (TP/07/0613) being built. (ii) The large reduction in social housing provision, Mr Snell stated that 100% social housing had not been acceptable for this application and referred to PPS3 and PPS1 of national planning policy guidance. (iii) Lack of cycle facilities and the suggestion that developers considered improving the cycleways as the area was not covered by cycle routes. (iv) retail units would need to use residential parking spaces for goods deliveries. Mr Snell explained that there were some parking spaces for the retail units underneath the proposed flats and the inspector had found this to be an acceptable level during the appeal for TP/06/1912.

c. The charcoal grey colour of the building must be considered as part of the applcation, however, there was a condition regarding finishing materials, and this could be negotiated with the developer.

h. The general consensus of the Committee was that this was a large development in an already highly populated and deprived area, with poor infrastructure and amenities but, as a similar application had been won on appeal, the Committee had no choice but to approve the application.

AGREED that subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure footway improvements and a contribution to education provision, planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. Votes:

Page 7


- 156 -

For Councillors Constantinides, During, Hasan, McGowan, Simon, Hayward, Dreblow. Fallart, Hall, Pearce, Pipe, T.Smith

Against Councillor Anwar 174 TP/07/0668 - ST PETERS CHURCH, BOUNCES ROAD, LONDON, N9 8LE NOTED 1. The deputation of Mr Brufell, Headteacher of Eldon Infants School, on behalf of the Infants and Junior schools and their governing bodies, including:

a. Pupils of the schools represented 43 different ethnic groups and had to deal with challenges surrounding social deprivation and the English language without having the added perception of harm to health caused by the mast, which was in very close proximity to schools.

b. The report stated that the applicant had considered alternative sites but these had been considered to be too close to residential properties – Mr Brufell highlighted that the properties would have brick walls to protect them from radiation. If this application was approved, the radiation rays would fall on a large part of the school playgrounds. Mr Snell stated that the Applicant had not found any suitable sites for their need and had confirmed that the proposal would comply with health and safety guidelines.

c. Mr Brufell displayed a petition objecting to the original application signed by approximately 400 people. d. Mr Brufell highlighted that the Council had a duty to protect the pupils in its schools as part of the Every Child Matters initiative.

2. The statement of Councillor Giladi, ward councillor and governor of Eldon Junior School on behalf of the governing body, local residents and the local Neighbourhood Watch, including:

a. The application was identical to the previous prior approval application (PA/06/0021), which was refused by the Planning Committee, except that this application was for full planning permission. b. Councillor Giladi supported all the issues raised by Mr Brufell.

c. The consultation was inadequate as the majority of the population did not speak or read English. The Committee was reminded that all documents could be translated and that full interpretation services were available.

Page 8


- 157 -

d. Most of the community were not members of the Church of England and use of a Celtic cross to disguise the mast could cause local unrest. e. The application should be refused on the grounds of siting, appearance and perception.

3. A discussion followed, including:

a. Mr Higam stated that the application for prior approval was refused and the Applicant was advised to seek planning permission.

b. Legal advice concerning paragraphs 29-30 of PPS8, which set out that health concerns and public perception could be considered, however, if a property met guidelines it should not be necessary for the LA to consider the health aspects of an application. He highlighted that whilst courts have ruled health as a material consideration in some instances, this would need to be supported by evidence.

c. A vote was taken: 4 votes in favour and 6 votes against the recommendation. d. A second vote was taken to confirm refusal of the application.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons: Reason: The proposed siting of the telecommunications antennae, due to its size and appearance and taking into account the close proximity to Eldon Infants School and residential properties, would appear as a prominent feature in the outlook of the school and local residents and due to the increased aware ness of the proposal, its presence would have or would have the perception of, detrimentally affecting the level of amenity, health and enjoyment of the locality and attendees of the school. In this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD1 and (II)EN6 of the Unitary Development Plan. Votes for refusal: For Councillors Constantinides, During, Hasan, McGowan,

McGregor. Pearce and Pipe. Against Councillors Simon, Hayward, Fallart, Hall, T.Smith Abstentions Councillor Anwar 175 LBC/07/0012 - GRAMMAR UPPER SCHOOL, MARKET PLACE, ENFIELD, MIDDLESEX, EN2 6LN AGREED that the Government Officer for London be advised that the local Planning Authority raised no objections to the application. 176

Page 9


- 158 -

LBE/07/0007 - ENFIELD GRAMMAR UPPER SCHOOL, MARKET PLACE, ENFIELD, MIDDLESEX, EN2 6LN AGREED that subject to the associated Listed Building Consent application (LBC/07/0012) being granted following referral to the Government Office for London, Members resolve to grant planning permission in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations subject to the conditions listed in the report; and to authorise officers to amend or add further conditions in line with any conditions attached to the Listed Building Consent. 177 LBE/07/0008 - HAZELBURY INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOL, HASELBURY ROAD, LONDON, N9 9TT NOTED that Mr Higham, Planning Area Manager, highlighted that revised plans had been received which clarified inaccuracies in the plans regarding the height of glazed canopy now confirmed at 5.4 metres on all elevations. AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to the condition set out in the report. 178 LBE/07/0009 - CUCKOO HALL PRIMARY SCHOOL, CUCKOO HALL LANE, LONDON, N9 8DR AGREED that in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be deemed to be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report. 179 PA/07/0008 - LAND EASTERN SIDE OF STAGG HILL, NORTH OF JUNCTION WITH WAGGON ROAD, HADLEY WOOD, ENFIELD AGREED that prior approval was not required and that details of the siting and appearance be referred to delegated powers. 180 TP/06/0086/DP4 - 106, WETHERBY ROAD, ENFIELD, EN2 NOTED the opening statement of Mr Snell, including, a. The receipt of objections from Numbers 98 and 102 to the Stopping Up Order consultation on grounds of deficient landscaping and loss of on-street parking b. Advice that landscaping had been addressed and that the loss of parking did not justify refusal.

Page 10


- 159 -

AGREED that details be approved subject to the condition set out in the report. 181 TP/07/0921 - LAND, OFF MONTAGU ROAD, END OF ZAMBEZI DRIVE, LONDON, N9 0FT NOTED the opening statement of Mr Higham, including: a. Revision of Site Plan to reflect applicants desire to have the roads adopted. b. Alterations to Conditions 13, 15, and to “ insert prior to occupation” rather than “prior to commencement” c. Alteration to Condition 18 to insert “unless otherwise agreed in writing: where measures are not being used, reasons should be provided” d. English Nature had also provided comments requiring a nature survey. It was reported that unfortunately no such comments were received in connection with the previous outline scheme (which was the appropriate stage for such comments to have been raised). No condition was therefore to be imposed. 182 TP/07/0869 – KEYS MEADOW (PRIMARY SCHOOL), 84 TYSOE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 6FB. AGREED that planning permission be granted subject to the condition set out in the report. 183 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – NORTH CIRCULAR AREA ACTION PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS (REPORT NO. 60) RECEIVED the report of the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation), presented by Mr Jackson, Head of Development and Control, updating the Planning Committee on the preparation of another document for consultation as part of the Local Development Framework. NOTED a. The options report was for an area around the North Circular Road between the A109 at Bounds Green and the A10 Great Cambridge Road. b. In response to Transport for London’s approved safety and environmental scheme the Council commissioned an Area Action Plan for the area. This plan, once adopted, will provide a planning framework for development and regeneration of the area.

Page 11


- 160 -

c. A Baseline Report had been completed (and was available on the Council’s website) and the next stage was this Issues and Options report, which was informally consulted on 20 February at Broomfield School. Formal consultation began in June 2007 and would continue until the end of July 2007. Consultation on the preferred options would then take place at the end of this year. d. In response to concerns raised by Councillor Constantinides, Mr Jackson explained that Members of the Planning Committee would not have to declare an interest if they had taken part in the consultations. Mr Trowell confirmed that the LA would be responsible for adoption the policy and the public should not feel that Planning Committee members had prejudicial interests. e Members could contact Joanne Woodward, Planning Policy Team Leader on 020 8379 3881 for further information. 184 CONTRAVENTIONS (REPORT NO. 63) NOTED the information provided in the report.

Page 12

- 1 -

MUNICIPAL YEAR 2007/2008 - REPORT NO. 70 COMMITTEE: PLANNING COMMITTEE 30 August 2007 REPORT OF: Assistant Director (Planning & Transportation) Contact Officer: David Snell Tel: 020 8379 3838 Andy Higham Tel: 020 8379 3848 5.1 APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATED POWERS INF 5.1.1 In accordance with delegated powers, 425 applications were determined

between 04/07/2007 and 14/08/2007, of which 313 were granted and 112 refused.

5.1.2 A Schedule of Decisions is available in the Members’ Library.

Background Papers To be found on files indicated in Schedule.

5.2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS TO DISPLAY

ADVERTISEMENTS DEC On the Schedules attached to this report I set out my recommendations in

respect of planning applications and applications to display advertisements. I also set out in respect of each application a summary of any representations received and any later observations will be reported verbally at your meeting.

Background Papers

(1) Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Section 54A of that Act, as inserted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, states that where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless the material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for the London Borough of Enfield is the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

(2) Other background papers are those contained within the file, the

reference number of which is given in the heading to each application.

ITEM 5 AGENDA - PART 1

SUBJECT -

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

Agenda Item 5Page 13

- 2 -

5.3 APPEAL INFORMATION INF The Schedule attached to the report lists information on town planning

application appeals received between 01/07/2007 and 10/08/2007 and also contains information on decisions taken during this period.

Page 14

LIST OF APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON: 30th August 2007

1

APPLICATION: LBE/04/0038/REN2

RECOMMENDATION: Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD: Town Location: 10, LITTLE PARK GARDENS, ENFIELD, MIDDLESEX, EN2 6PQ. PAGE No: 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION: LBE/07/0003 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD: Enfield Highway Location: Albany School, Bell Lane, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 5PA PAGE No: 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION: TP/07/0413 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD: Edmonton Green Location: Londonwaste Ecopark, Advent Way, Edmonton, London, N18 3AG PAGE No: 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Highlands Location: 9, SLADES HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 7DL PAGE No: 38 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Turkey Street Location: ST GEORGES C OF E PRIMARY, HERTFORD ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 6NR PAGE No: 44 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Chase Location: East Lodge Village, East Lodge Nursery, Botany Bay, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 8AS PAGE No: 48 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 15

APPLICATION: TP/07/0774 RECOMMENDATION: Approval WARD: Chase Location: East Lodge Village, East Lodge Nursery, Botany Bay, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 8AS PAGE No: 52 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Enfield Highway Location: EASTFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL, EASTFIELD ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 5UX PAGE No: 56 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION: TP/07/0889 RECOMMENDATION: Refusal WARD: Winchmore Hill Location: 491, GREEN LANES, LONDON, N13 4BS PAGE No: 60 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Chase Location: FORTY HILL C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL, FORTY HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 9EY PAGE No: 65 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Chase Location: CAPEL MANOR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BULLSMOOR LANE, ENFIELD, EN1 4RL PAGE No: 69 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Jubilee Location: COMMERCIAL PREMISES, 5, PICKETTS LOCK LANE, LONDON, N9 0AS PAGE No: 73 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION: TP/07/1260 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Subject to

Page 16

Conditions WARD: Southbury Location: SUFFOLKS PRIMARY SCHOOL, BRICK LANE, ENFIELD, EN1 3PU PAGE No: 81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WARD: Chase Location: ST SIMONS NURSERY, CATTLEGATE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN2 9DS PAGE No: 88 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPLICATION: TP/87/0074/VAR1 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD: Enfield Highway Location: 1371, Mollison Avenue, Junction With Stockingswater Lane, Enfield, EN3 7NJ PAGE No: 95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 17

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 30th August 2007

Page 19

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved.London Borough of Enfield.License No LA086363, 2003

Scale 1/1250 Date 15/8/2007

LBE/04/0038/REN2

Centre = 532573 E 196687 N

Page 20

Application Number: LBE/04/0038/REN2 Ward: Town Date of Registration: 17th July 2007

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: 10, LITTLE PARK GARDENS, ENFIELD, MIDDLESEX, EN2 6PQ.

Proposal: Renewal of time limited permission under ref: LBE/04/0038/REN1 for use of garage and part of rear garden area as temporary shop mobility centre involving erection of temporary building for office/wc accommodation.

Applicant Name & Address:

Roger Miles, Enfield & Edmonton Shopmobility Service London Borough of Enfield P.O. Box 52, Civic Centre Silver Street EnfieldMiddxEN1 3XD

Agent Name & Address:

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

1. This permission is granted for a limited period expiring on 31st December 2007 when the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and/or the buildings hereby permitted removed and the land reinstated

Reason: The permission is granted for a temporary period only due to the nature and appearance of the buildings given the site's location in the Conservation Area.

Site and Surroundings

Detached property and garden used as the Citizens Advise Bureau, on a corner site in Little Park Gardens. The property lies within Enfield Town Conservation Area.

Amplification of Proposal

This application seeks permission to renew the temporary planning permission for the use of part of the rear garden and existing side garage as a temporary shop mobility centre for an additional 4 month period until such time as permanent facilities are available. It is intended that the permanent shop mobility facility will be provided within the new civic building/multi-storey car park, erected on the corner of Cecil Road and London Road. Although the original contract completion date for this building, now known as Thomas Hardy House, was 10th August 2007, this is no longer achievable and it is now anticipated that completion will be on 19th October 2007, some 10 weeks late. The period applied for would allow up to the end of December 2007.

The shop mobility scooters are stored in the existing garage. Two temporary buildings have been erected at the rear to accommodate an office (12.3 sq. metres floor area) and disabled toilet facilities (8 sq. metres floor area) with ramped access. These buildings are finished in a grey

Page 21

colour. Some coniferous planting has been provided to the rear of the buildings seek to seek to minimise the impact of the buildings when seen from adjoining residential properties.

Relevant Planning History

LBE/04/0038 Planning permission granted for the use of garages and part of rear garden area as temporary shop mobility centre involving erection of temporary building for office/wc accommodation. This permission was granted for a temporary period expiring on 18th July 2006 to ensure the service remained available for users following the loss of the former facility in Genotin Road, linked with the town centre redevelopment works, and until such time as the permanent accommodation, which at that time was to be provided in the Little Park Gardens Car Park would be available. It is no longer intended to construct a purpose built facility in the Little Park Gardens car park.

LBE/04/0038REN1 Permission renewed for a further temporary period expiring on 31st August 2007 to allow for the completion and fit out of Thomas Hardy House (where it is now intended the permanent facility will be provided), which was scheduled to be available from 10th August 2007.

Consultation

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of 8 adjoining/nearby properties. In addition, the application has been advertised on site and in the local press. Three letters of response have been received raising the following issues:

no objection to renewal of the facility but do object to certain users of the facility who create a nuisance.Users often park cars across residents drives Unsuitable use for a residential area and removed from the shopping centre The two portakabins are very unsightly Dangerous for the disabled people who use the buggies who have to cross roads and for other pedestrians using the pavements Causes traffic congestion as there is no dedicated parking for cars dropping people off or for the dial-a-ride minibuses.

The Enfield Town Conservation Area Study Group advise that they objected to the development in the first place and strongly object to its extension of time. They reiterate that this facility is in the wrong place, causing obstructions on the road and pavements. They urge the Council to make proper provision in the correct place.

External

None

Internal

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Page 22

Policy 3A.14 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population Policy 3A.15 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities Policy 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment Policy 4B.7 Respect local context and communities Policy 4B.10 London’s built heritage Policy 4B.11 Heritage conservation

Unitary Development Plan

(I)GD1 Appropriate regard to surroundings (I)GD2 Quality of life and visual amenity (I)C1 Preserve or enhance character of conservation area (II)C30 Conservation area development

Interim UDP Amendments

None

Other Policy Issues

PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment

Analysis

In granting permission initially, it was acknowledged that the buildings proposed to accommodate the use were not consistent in terms of their design/appearance with the traditional characteristics of this part of the Conservation Area. However, as they were required for a limited period and to support a much needed community facility, this was considered on balance acceptable. Since then and in association with the earlier request for an extension of time, some screen planting has been put in place to seek to minimise the impact of the buildings on the amenities of the immediately adjoining residents at No. 8 Little Park Gardens.

The delay in fitting out the permanent facility has led to the need to further extend the temporary permission in order to ensure that the shopmobility service remains available to users. The extension sought is limited to a 4-month period only and when balanced against the valuable community service that this facility provides, it is considered reasonable to extend the planning permission to cover this limited additional period.

The concerns raised by residents about the inconvenience arising from the activities of some users are noted and have been referred on to the relevant offers responsible for managing the facility, with a view to minimising the impact of the use on local residents.

On balance, it is recommended that permission be granted for a further limited period.

Reasons for granting planning permission

1. Having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)C1 and (II)C30 of the Unitary Development Plan, given the temporary nature of the proposed development it would not serve to detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area for a prolonged period.

2. Having regard to Policy (I)GD2 of the Unitary development Plan the proposed development would not unreasonably detract from the visual or residential amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Page 23


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

LBE/07/0003

Centre = 535852 E 198242 N

Page 24

Application Number: LBE/07/0003 Ward: Enfield Highway Date of Registration: 9th May 2007


Location: Albany School, Bell Lane, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 5PA

Proposal: Removal of existing stores and garage and erection of single storey detached childrens centre for a maximum of 53 children aged between 0-5 years and a single storey detached maintenance workshop and store together with associated works including covered link to youth centre, fencing, landscaping and provision of 4 parking spaces with separate vehicular and pedestrian access to Bell Lane.


London Borough of Enfield (Education) Civic Centre Silver Street EnfieldEN1 3XQ


Lond Borough of Enfield (CTS) PO Box 50 Civic Centre Silver Street EnfieldEN1 3XA

Recommendation: That planning permission be deemed to be GRANTED, by virtue of Regulation3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, subject to the following conditions:

1. C07 Details of Materials

2. C09 Details of Hard Surfacing

3. C11 Details of Enclosure

4. C17 Details of Landscaping

5. C18 Details of Tree Protection

6. C20 Details of Fume Extraction

7. C21 Construction Servicing Area

8. C22 Details of Const. Vehicle Wheel Cleaning

9. The number of children attending the premises at any one time shall not exceed 53 children.

Reason - In the interests of safety and to avoid an over intensive use of the site.

Page 25

10. C48 Restricted Use

11. C57 Sustainability

12. That use of the development shall not commence until a Travel Plan for the Children's Centre has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The premises shall operate in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with Unitary Development Plan Policies and does not prejudice conditions of safety or traffic flow on adjoining highways.

13. The use of the development shall not commence until the redundant vehicular access has been broken out and reinstated to footway, and any subsequent required alterations have been made to the school entry markings on the road, at the applicants' expense.

REASON: In the interests of amenity and highway safety.

14. C51A Time Limited Permission


The site is contained within the boundaries of Albany School, on the northern side of Bell Lane with Albany Youth Day Centre to the west and the Caretaker’s House to the east. Beyond which is Albany Park, designated as Metropolitan Open Land, and to the south lies a largely residential area.

Turkey Brook is approximately 300m from the site and runs eastwards along the northern perimeter of Albany Park.


Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing stores & garages to the rear of the Caretaker’s House and the erection of a single storey building flat roof building for use as a children’s centre for up to 53 children (aged 0-5 years), with an entrance canopy and covered link to the youth centre. The proposal also involves associated works such as fencing, landscaping, and the provision of 4 parking spaces with separate vehicular and pedestrian access to Bell Lane.

The proposed Children’s Centre will infill an area of surplus land and hardstanding between the Albany Youth Centre and the Caretaker’s House with children’s play areas to the front, side and rear. The new maintenance workshop will be sited in the northeast corner of the site to the rear of the Caretaker’s House, abutting the common boundary with Albany Park.

The proposal includes three linked activity areas for 2 – 5 year olds (44 children) around a service core including separate toilets, quiet room, kitchen staff/office areas and a separate activity room for 0 – 2 years (9 children). The walkway link comprises of painted steel frame with translucent canopy. The existing entrance and access gates will be moved further to the west from its current position and a new dedicated pedestrian access to Bell Lane, together with new entrance gates allowing access for maintenance equipment to Albany Park.

The proposed maintenance workshop will involve the removal of an unsightly assortment of prefabricated stores and garages, to be replaced with one single storey shallow pitched roof structure with new gates and access linking the new workshop to the path running parallel with the park’s western perimeter.

Page 26

Relevant Planning Decisions:

None.

Consultations:

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 22 neighbouring properties. No letters of objection have been received.

Internal

Environmental Health and Regulation have no objections, subject to conditions regarding details of ventilation and fume extraction.

External

Environment Agency – no objections.

Thames Water – no objections.

Policy

The London Plan

Policy 3A.21 Education Facilities Policy 4A.7 Energy efficiency and renewable energy Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction Policy 4B.7 Respect local context and communities

UDP Policy(I)EN6(c) To have regard to the flooding impacts of all developments (I)O1& O4 Open Land outside Green Belt (II)O1 Resist development and use in Metropolitan Open Land, not normally deemed appropriate (II)O2 Uses appropriate in the Metropolitan Open Land (II)O5 Development in proximity to M.O.L (I)GD1 Regard to surroundings (I)GD1 Appropriately located (I)GD3 Character / design (II)GD6 Traffic generation (II)GD7 Parking standards (II)GD8 Site access and servicing (II)GD12 To resist developments that would increase flood risk (II)CS2 Design of community buildings (II)CS3 Community Facilities

Interim Amendments

(II)SDC1 Sustainable Design and Construction (Interim Amendments) (II)T19 Cycle parking standards

Page 27

National and Regional Policy

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPS25 Planning and Flood Risk

Analysis

Background

The subject site has been selected so that local need will be met and will also provide additional community facilities to compliment existing facilities in the adjoining youth centre.

Impact on the character of the surrounding area

The design aims to achieve a small-scale child friendly development and consolidate the garages and maintenance stores into one structure. The day centre and covered link comprises of lightweight prefabricated structures. While the maintenance workshop retains a more traditional utilitarian appearance. Nevertheless their siting, modest size and scale, will sit comfortably in the context of the existing school/community buildings and will not harm the setting of the Metropolitan Open Land.

Furthermore, the additional hardstanding linking the maintenance yard to the footpath utilises a small area of verge in Albany Park. The area of land does not include any formal playing pitches and is minimal in size, thus it would not harm the character and appearance of the Metropolitan Open Land.

Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties

The nearest affected residential properties, excluding the caretaker houses, are located on the opposite side of Bell Lane some 23 metres from the proposed facility, Under these circumstances, and given their design and orientation, it is not considered that the development will lead to any undue loss of light, overlooking or loss of outlook.

Two of the existing structures abut the rear boundary of the neighbouring Caretaker’s House. As a consequence of their removal and the revised siting of the new workshop away from the this boundary, would improve the outlook, the setting and the visual amenity of the Caretakers House, consistent with Policies (I)GD1 and (I)GD2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

However, a matter for consideration is whether there would be any potential noise increase. The proposal would lead to an increase in the number of children in this part of the site. However the area is already bounded floodlit tennis courts used by the school during the day and as a community facility later into the evening. Therefore it is not considered that adjoining properties would suffer any significant increase in potential for noise disturbance.

Flood Risk

The application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA), which was considered to meet the requirements of PPS 25: Planning and Flood Risk, the proposed development was deemed in accordance with the guidelines contained therein, and the Environment Agency do not wish to object on the grounds of flood risk. As a consequence, the proposal is considered acceptable to the LPA, having regard to Policies (I)EN6 and (II)GD12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 28

Landscaping

The trees to be pruned or removed are in poor health and are not considered worthy of retention. The new planting scheme is generally satisfactory, subject to appropriate conditions.

Parking and Access

Direct pedestrian and servicing access takes place from Bell Lane, an unclassified road. The Children’s Centre is to cater for up to a maximum of 53 children together with 12 staff. The application confirms that provision is to be made for four off-street parking spaces. The UDP would require 6 spaces. However, it is noted that the site is well served the 191 bus route and is relatively close to the transport facilities on Hertford Road, so it would be reasonable to expect that some staff would travel by public transport. On balance, in the light of the guidance in PPG13 and the London Plan, the level of parking provision is considered acceptable.

There is some concern about the potential for increased traffic congestion and unsafe parking practices from parents dropping off and picking up children from the proposed facility, and that this could be worsened by coinciding with the movements of children from Albany School and nearby Eastfield Primary. A traffic survey conducted on Monday 16th July between 3pm and 4pm did not show particularly heavy levels of parking, however there are some concerns that due to the end of term this did not represent an accurate picture of the usual parking situation. Although it is appreciated that this is a largely local facility, and that the pick up and drop off times would be more staggered than those associated with the nearby schools, it is considered that given the scale of the proposed operation (53 children), the fact that no off street picking up and dropping off spaces have been provided, and its sensitive location in terms of vehicular movements, it would be prudent to place a condition requiring a travel plan to ensure that the minimum number of people travel to the site by car.

This proposal involves moving the existing vehicular access on Bell Lane westwards; this presents no highway safety implications, and no objection is raised to this although a condition is recommended ensuring that the existing vehicular access be broken out and reinstated to footway at the applicants’ expense, and that the school entry markings be redone as required.

Sustainable Design and Construction

The proposal achieves a good rating within the sustainability assessment.

Conclusion

In the light of the above, it is recommended that the development be approved.

Reasons for granting planning permission:

1. The proposed development, does not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the adjoining Metropolitan Open Land and its setting, having regard to Policies (I)O1, (II)O1, (II)O2, (II)O5, (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residential properties having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 29

3. The proposed development does not give rise to conditions that will lead to an increased risk of flooding, having regard to Policies (I)EN6 and (II)GD12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposal would comply with car / cycle parking standards and therefore, would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining highways having regard to Policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7, (II)GD8 and (II)T13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 30


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/0413

Centre = 535734 E 192795 N

Page 31

Application Number: TP/07/0413 Ward: Edmonton Green Date of Registration: 5th April 2007

Contact: Andy Higham 020 8379 3848

Location: Londonwaste Ecopark, Advent Way, Edmonton, London, N18 3AG

Proposal: Erection of a roof over the existing in-vessel composting facility and maturation area and the erection of an ancillary bio-filter together with connecting duct.


Russ Morgan, London Waste Advent Way EdmontonLondonN18 3AG


Simon Zelestis, BDP 16, Brewhouse Yard London EC14 4LJ

Recommendation: APPROVAL subject to conditions:-

1. That the development hereby approved shall be constructed within 3 months of the date of the Notice.

Reason: To ensure that odour control is effected as soon as possible and in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of adjoining business premises and residential properties within the surrounding area.





The application site for this proposal lies in the north west corner of the London Waste site, adjacent to Salmons Brook which forms the western boundary: beyond is the Eley Industrial Estate. The southern boundary is formed by the North Circular Road, the northern boundary adjoins the Aztec 406 Industrial site (formerly known as Deephams) and to the east is the River Lee Navigation together with the Camden Plant concrete crushing and recycling business on land lying south of the William Girling Reservoir: a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The site is designated as a Primary industrial Area (PIA) and lies close to the Lee Valley Regional Park and Green Belt. Access to the site is from Advent Way and the North Circular Road.


Page 32

Permission is sought for the construction of an enclosure over the existing in-vessel composting facility and maturation area and the construction of an ancillary bio filter involving external ducting. The existing consent for the facility covers an area of 9,976 sq,m. with the maturation area at the northern end. The height of the structure over the maturation area and storage area is 7m to eaves and 9.1m to the ridge of the pitched roof. Externally, the enclosure will be constructed using steel cladding above a 3m high wall. The existing height of the windrows is 6m.

The application is submitted in order to contain and treat odours that may arise during the compositing maturation process; the operation of screening the matured compost material and the storage of the final compost product. All these activities are currently carried out on an open unenclosed area which was identified as the source of odours causing a nuisance to local residents and businesses. The proposal seeks to address these problems associated with the approved process.

The system will remove a significant level of odorous gases including 98% of Hydrogen sulphide and 95% of all other odours. The Applicant advises that the system has been used successfully at a number of waste water and sewage treatment plants in the U.K. and at other processing plants.


TP/95/0656 – Erection of a building for the processing and recycling of municipal green waste for compost together with formation of associated hard standing area was approved in September 1998

TP 04/1721 – Creation of an in-vessel composting facility and maturation area was approved in February 2005

Consultation

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 19 adjoining businesses. One letter of objection has been received on behalf of the Campaign Against London Waste Emissions. They object on the following grounds:

- opposed to bad odours exhausted from the process and deplore the choice of this rural type method of composting in this urban area.

- Without fully enclosing all processes, elimination of the odours will be impossible - Inadequate consultation was undertaken on the original application - Dissatisfaction with original decision - Concerns evidenced though the Council serving an abatement notice to remove material

and address the odours - Fully enclosed facility is not proceeding purely on cost grounds - Current process involves exposing the composting material to the air leading to bad

smells and odour; - Smell from site remains constant and is to be found every day. - Prevailing westerly winds take the smell across the River Lee to Chingford whilst easterly

winds will convey the smell across Edmonton - Complaints of smell and odours continue to be made since December 2006 - Planning permission should be withheld unless the facility is totally enclosed to prevent

smells and odours escaping.

Page 33

- The proposed solution does not guarantee that the facility will not cause bad smell / odours

- London Waste has a responsibility to protect the environment of the local areas - London Waste should properly enclose all processes on site complete with air scrubbing

and approved bio filters - An EIA should be carried out whether required or not and it is further requested that all

recommendations and proposals should be to the entire satisfaction of an Independent Expert experienced in composting.

- Members should defer making any decision until they have seen the site for themselves to see the plant in operation

Internal

Environmental Health have advised that the total enclosure of the maturation pad and in vessel composting facility (roofing and side walls) together with a filtration unit should reduce complaints of odours and would appear a suitable solution to this problem. They have no further comments to make.

No observations have been received from Cleansing although previously, they commented that costs of transportation, bulking and disposal would be reduced by provision of this facility and that the Service would be fully supportive of the scheme. The Borough already makes a Green Waste Door to door collection including kitchen waste that has to go through an in-vessel system. Currently, the green waste form this Borough is transported to Cambridgeshire for disposal in landfill.

External

The Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposal

GLASS advise that the proposed development lies within an area of Archaeological Importance as defined in the Borough UDP However, the proposals are not considered to have an effect on any significant archaeological remains. Therefore, any requirements for pre- or post determination archaeological assessment or evaluation can be waived. requirement for pre-or post determination archaeological assessment or valuation of the site in respect of the application can be waived.

The North London Waste Authority advise that the facility currently received 30,000 tonnes of bio-degradable waste collected from household residents across the North London Area and produces compost for agriculture and landscaping as well as being returned to household residents. The Authority supports the plan to enclose parts of the facility in order to deal with nuisance odours that were experienced in summer 2006.

Any observations received from Thames Water, British Waterways, Lee Valley Park Authority, Enfield Archaeological Society, English Nature or Transco for the National Grid will be reported at the meeting.

Relevant Planning Policy

London Plan

3B.5 Strategic Employment Locations 3B.11 Environment Industries 4A.1 Waste Strategic Policy and Targets 4A.2 Spatial Policies for Waste Management

Page 34

4A.3 Selection of Sites for Waste Management and Disposal 4A.6 Improving Air Quality

UDP Policy

(II)E2: To concentrate activities falling within use classes B1 – B8 into the Primary Industrial Areas.

(I)EN1 To protect and enhance the quality of the Environment throughout the Borough. (I)EN5 To prepare in consultation with the London Waste Regulation Authority and other

statutory and voluntary bodies, detailed proposals for waste transfer and disposal, including measures for recycling

(I) EN 6 Have regard to minimize the environmental impact of existing land uses and activities and of all development; minimize impact of transportation noise, pollution and vibration and asses flooding and surface water drainage implications of proposed developments.

(II)EN27 to maintain effective environmentally beneficial system of waste collection, treatment and disposal.

(II)EN29 To ensure the recycling of as much waste material as possible. (II)GD2 ensure development is appropriately located (II)GD3 character and design (II)G20 development adjacent to Green Belt (II)G30 development adjacent to Lee Valley Regional Park


SDC1 – Sustainable Design and Construction (Interim Amendment)

Other Material Considerations

PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPS 10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG 13 Transport PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control

Analysis

Principle

The composting facility was approved In February 2005 and thus, the principle has already been established. Moreover, the composting process is consistent with the focus on recycling and sustainable waste management practices by London Waste, the Council’s own UDP policies and in accord with the thrust of PPS 10 ” Planning for Sustainable Waste Management”.

In addition, it is considered that the location for this facility in principle is appropriate lying as it does within a Primary industrial Area and it also offers opportunity to minimise vehicle trips to other more distant waste facilities.

Siting and Design

The enclosure of the maturation area would comprise the erection of a building covering approx 2350 sq metres, measuring 36.6 metres in width and 64.4 metres in length. It would have an overall height of 9 metres with eaves at 7 metres.

Page 35

Constructed of grey metal cladding, the enclosure would have an industrial appearance typical of many buildings in the vicinity. Moreover, the height and size of the building would not render it intrusive or dominant when viewed from neighbouring premises or the adjacent Green Belt / Lee Valley Regional Park.

In addition to the enclosure of the maturation area, a bio filter is also proposed. The ducting and ventilation required for this would run along the western elevation of the composting facility at a height of 7.8 metres above ground level (overall height is 9.2 metres). The ducting would extend along the entire length of the facility (some 130 metres) linking the maturation area to the bio filer at the southern end (adjoining the reception area). The Applicant states that the siting of the bio filter has been influenced by the desire to minimise the capacity of the ventilation equipment, the amount of ducting and the operational noise. by locating the bio filter as close as possible to the source of the odours. Positioning the bio filer behind the reception and keeping the ducting at a low level achieves this whilst also screening the structures visually from neighbouring occupiers. Colour for the ducting has not been specified and a condition seeking details is recommended.

Consequently, no objection is raised to the siting, size or design of the enclosure or the bio filter. Furthermore, given the industrial nature of the surrounding area, the noise emissions associated with the operation n of the plant is not considered detrimental to the area and it is noted that Environmental Health raises no objection. The proposal for the enclosure building is entirely appropriate within this industrial complex within the London Waste Complex. The main considerations if the visual impact of the ducting sited on the east side of the existing structure and proposed roof over will arise from the ducting which is elevated to a height of 7.8m high and is 1.4m wide and runs along the north eastern boundary and returns along the north eastern boundary. Although very prominent this would be largely screened from the view of businesses on the Eley industrial estate to the south and cannot be viewed by the only residential properties which lie over 1/2m away in to the north east at Chingford in the Borough of Waltham Forest.

Impact of Odours on Residential Properties / Business Premises

The proposed bio filter is designed to remove 98% of Hydrogen Sulphide and 95% of all other odours. In addition, the range of air changes proposed to treat the composting facility is also within the capacity of the equipment. The system works by drawing the air from the compost enclosure through organic matter containing bacteria and enzymes that neutralise the odours prior to discharge of the air back in to the environment.

It is acknowledged that the measures contained in this application do not result in the total enclosure of the processes: the transfer of material from the reception area to the treatment areas and from there to the maturation area would involve external movements. In addition, the treatment area windrows are also ventilated. However, the principle source of the odours which resulted in the Council serving an abatement notice last year was in respect of the maturation area. This proposal seeks to address this source of the primary concern and as such, Environmental Health do not raise any objection. Moreover, should the problem continue to cause a statutory nuisance, the Council would still have the ability under other legislation to require further remedial action.

Access and Traffic Generation

The proposal in itself raises no issues regarding access or traffic generation. However in terms of sustainability, the process of green waste recycling reduces the overall material delivered to the London Waste Complex, resulting in a reduction in the number of outgoing laden vehicle movements and a reduction in the number of lorries taking material to landfill and resultant

Page 36

transport costs and lorry movements over longer distances helping to reduce road congestion and pollution. There is no other similar facility in the London area.

Conclusion

This application will not change the nature of the business but aims to significantly reduce the noise odour problem experienced last summer. Whilst the concerns of local residents are noted, it is considered that the proposal should bring about significant improvement in the level of odours generated by he operation. Furthermore, though the total enclosure of the process may also be a solution, the existence of an alternative solution cannot be used as a material consideration when determining this application. The current proposal must be considered on its merits and having regard to the above circumstances, it is considered that planning permission be approved for the following reasons:

1 The facility together with the measures contained in this application is an appropriate use of the site and together with its siting and design, will not detract from the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding area having regard to Policies (II)EN27, (II)E2, (II)GD3 (II)G20 and (II)G30 of the Unitary Development Plan

2 The proposed enclosure and bio filer will not detract from and should improve the conditions experienced in the local area in terms of odours having regard to Policies (I)E1, (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed facility does not give rise to vehicle movement prejudicial to free flow and safety on the adjoining highways having regard to Policies (I)GD6, (II)GD7 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary development Plan.

Page 37


Scale 1/1250 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/0721

Centre = 531527 E 196854 N

Page 38

Application Number: TP/07/0721 Ward: Highlands Date of Registration: 12th June 2007


Location: 9, SLADES HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 7DL

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a two storey 12 No. self-contained flats (comprising 10 x 2- bed, 2 x 3-bed) incorporating accommodation roof space with 2 front dormer windows and one rear dormer window, Juliet balconies and patios to front and rear and 17 basement car parking spaces.


Brookfield Developments C/O agent


Hertford Planning Service Westgate House 37-41, Castle Street HertfordHertfordshireSG14 1HH

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions


2. No work on the site shall be commenced until fencing has been erected to a specification and in positions to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority to protect the trees and shrubs to be retained on the site. The fencing shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed within the fenced area, and the ground level within that area shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made within the fenced area without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the existing trees on site during construction

3. C10 Details of Levels

4. All windows above ground level in the end flank elevations of the building as indicated on drawing nos. 7928/W/007 C and 7928/W/008B shall be glazed with obscured glass and shall be of a non-openable design and shall remain so glazed and fixed shut.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties.


6. Details of surface treatment and vertical alignment of the vehicular access and turning area and details of retaining walls and the elevation of the entrance to the basement parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. No part of the development shall be occupied

Page 39

until the basement is available for residents and visitors parking and the basement area shall not thereafter be used for purposes other than the parking of vehicles for the occupants of and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the development does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic or highway safety on the adjoining roads.

7. C19 Details of Refuse Storage



The site is situated on the north side of Slades Hill and was formerly occupied by a detached two, storey house, now demolished. The site adjoins No.7 Slades Hill to the east, up the hill, where a development for flats is under construction, and a two storey detached property No.9A Slades Hill to the west, down the hill. To the north the site adjoins the rear gardens of properties in Ridgemount. The site contains a number of trees, two Horse Chestnuts to the site frontage are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.


Erection of a two storey block of 12 flats (10 x two bed and 2 x three bed), incorporating rooms in the roof, with two front dormer windows and one rear dormer window, juliet balconies and roof terrace together with the provision of conservatories at roof level. Basement parking is proposed with 17 spaces.

This is a revised application following the grant of planning permission on appeal. The amendments to the scheme comprise:

i) A gable feature formed to the right hand side of the front elevation; ii) Juliet balconies provided to the front elevation, 1st and 2nd floor flats; iii) Rear elevation, balcony added to left hand side at second floor level; iv) Omission of 1 rear dormer; v) Pitched roof added to remaining rear dormer; vi) French doors instead of conventional casement windows to one set of ground and first

floor windows to rear elevation with Juliet balconies; vii) Raising of the height of the central section of the roof of the rear projecting wing; and viii) Addition of conservatories at roof level; ix) Mix of accommodation changed increasing the number of habitable rooms by 1; x) The building has been set back approximately 800mm further back from the building

line connecting No9a and the new block of flats at 7 Slades Hill

Relevant Planning Decisions

TP/01/1620 for the redevelopment of the site by the erection of a block of 13 flats was withdrawn.

TP/05/0010 for the demolition of the existing property and the redevelopment of the site by the erection of a two storey block, plus accommodation in the roof space, of 11 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with basement car park providing 17 car parking spaces and 10 pedal cycle places. Planning permission granted on appeal.

TP/05/0776 for demolition of existing property and redevelopment of the site by the erection of a two storey block of 12 flats (11 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed) incorporating accommodation in the roof

Page 40

space with front and rear dormer windows, a roof terrace, basement parking for 17 cars and access from Slades Hill (Revised scheme) Planning permission granted on appeal.

Consultations

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of 58 adjoining and nearby occupiers. In addition, the application has been advertised on site and in the local press. In response 3 letters of objection have been received. The objections raised can be summarised as:

The construction of more flats is significantly altering the local environment

Increased volume of traffic

Dangerously position close to speed camera

Balconies to the rear will create intrusion to neighbouring dwellings and loss of privacy

Development of expensive flats does nothing to help key workers

Absence of any commitment to social housing

External

Thames Water raises no objection on grounds of water supply or sewerage infrastructure.

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority confirm that they are satisfied with the proposals

Internal

The Director of Education raises no objection to this application.

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Policy 3A. 1 Increasing London’s supply of housing Policy 3A.2 Borough housing targets Policy 3A.4 Housing choice Policy 3C.22 Parking strategy Policy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city Policy 4B.3 Maximising the potential of sites Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction

Appropriate UDP Policy

(I)GD1 New developments to have appropriate regard to its surroundings (I)GD2 New development to improve the environment (II)GD3 Design and character. (II)GD6 Traffic implications. (II)GD7 Parking standards. (II)GD8 Access and servicing. (II)H1 Increase the housing stock. (II)H7 Density (II)H8 Privacy and overlooking. (II)H9 Amenity space. (II)T13 New access onto a public highway.

Page 41

(II)T17 Pedestrian access (II)T19 Provision for cyclists. (II)C38 Trees


Cycle parking standards. SDC1 – Sustainability Assessment

Other relevant policy

PPS1 Delivering sustainable development PPS3 Housing PPG13 Transport

Analysis

Principle

The principle of the redevelopment of this site by the erection of a block of 12 flats has already been accepted through the granting of planning permission on appeal. The amendment to the mix of accommodation has lead to creation of an additional habitable room. However, as the density under the approved scheme was 161hrph, the density will remain in accordance with UDP policy.

Impact on the character of the area

The elevational amendments to the building are considered acceptable and will have no greater impact on the character of the surrounding area than the approved scheme. The provision of conservatories at roof level, given their siting on the rear part of the roof of the building will not be unduly dominant or intrusive when viewed from adjoining roads. The amendments to the siting of the building will similarly have no greater impact on the character of the area

Impact on the amenities of adjoining residents

The previous schemes were refused by the Council on grounds that the development would have an adverse impact, by virtue of siting, scale and rearward projection, on the amenities of the occupiers of No.9a Slades Hill. The council were not supported in this objection and hence planning permission was granted on appeal. The amendments to the scheme, in setting the building back, will mean that it now projects an additional 800mm beyond the rear wall of No.9a. However, it is considered that this marginal increase in depth will have no further undue impact on the amenities of the occupiers of this property when compared to the approved scheme

The elevational amendments to the building, including the provision of Juliet balconies, will have no greater impact on the amenities of the residents to the rear when compared to the approved scheme in terms of loss of privacy or overlooking. The roof terrace formed part of the schemes granted on appeal. The proposed conservatories are likely to be most evident when viewed from the flatted development on the Ridgeway, due to their higher position compared to the appeal site. However, the separation distances involved, the landscaping to the boundaries and the small scale of the conservatories means that they would not be unduly dominant or obtrusive.

Traffic generation, access and car parking

The amendments to the scheme will have no greater impact in terms of traffic generation access or car parking over and above the approved scheme.

Page 42

Conclusion

In conclusion, the amendments to the scheme are considered acceptable and therefore approval is recommended for the following reasons:

1 The proposal makes a contribution to the Borough’s housing stock and in this respect complies with policies (I)H1 and (II)H1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development complies with the Council’s density, amenity space and distancing standards and in this respect complies with policies (II)H7, (II)H8 and (II)H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed amendments to the scheme, since the earlier grant of planning permission on appeal, have appropriate regard to the surroundings and the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties. In this respect the development complies with Policies (I)GD1 and (II)GD3.

4 The proposed development makes provision for appropriate access, servicing, car and cycle parking facilities having regard to policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7, (II)GD8, (II)T13, (II)T17 and (II)T19 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 43


Scale 1/1250 Date 13/8/2007

TP/07/0758

Centre = 535627 E 199063 N

Page 44

Application Number: TP/07/0758 Ward: Turkey Street Date of Registration: 26th June 2007


Location: ST GEORGES C OF E PRIMARY, HERTFORD ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 6NR

Proposal: Single storey extension to library and construction of glazed veranda to west elevation.


The School Governors St Georges C of E Primary School Hertford Road EnfieldEN3 6NR


Mr Anthony Hall, Grace Architecture 1, High Street ChelmsfordEssex CM1 1BE

Note to Members

This application is reported to Committee, as it is a Council maintained school.

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1. C08 Materials to Match

2. C25 No additional Fenestration



St George’s Church of England primary school is situated off Hertford Road to the rear of St George’s church. It is bounded by the rear gardens of residential properties along Aylands Road to the north and Meadway to the south and by St George’s Church to the east.

Proposal

Permission is sought for the construction of a small extension to provide an enlarged library and the erection of a veranda for external covered teaching.

Relevant Planning History:

TP/00/0830 – Single storey extension and enclosure of veranda. Approved 4-07-00

Page 45

Consultation

Public

18 neighbouring properties were consulted. No letters of objection have been received.

Internal

The Director of ECS & L supports this application. The proposed scheme will enable the school to contribute towards achieving the strategic priorities as set out in the Authority’s Children’s and Young Peoples’ s Plan 2006 – 2009. The scheme will also enhance teaching facilities for the pupils. It will not result in an increase in staff or pupil numbers.

External

None

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

Policy 3A.21 Education facilities


(I) CS1 Provision of community services (II) CS2 Siting and design of buildings (II) CS3 Community facilities (I) GD1 Regard to surroundings (II) GD3 Aesthetics and functional design (II) H8 Privacy

Other Policy Considerations

None

Analysis

Principle of Development

The proposed development is considered necessary to provide improved facilities for the school. No additional students or staff are proposed.

Amenity Issues

The small proposed infill extension on the north elevation will be of the same height as the existing school buildings. The rear of the nearest residential dwellings on Aylands Road are over 40 m away. With regard to the glazed veranda it is to be provided within a set back to the west elevation of the building .An additional area of paving is also being created for external teaching to be set within a low retaining wall in a shallow grassed bank. It is considered that the distances to the neighbouring residential properties are sufficient to not impact on the amenities of the occupiers of those properties.

Page 46

Impact on Surroundings

The proposed extension and veranda integrate well with the existing pattern of development and are of an appropriate design and it is not considered that they will impact on the surrounding area.

Conclusion

It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted for the following reasons.

1. The proposed development due to its design, size and siting would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area nor would it unduly affect the amenities or privacy of adjoining or nearby residential properties having regard to Policies (II) CS2, (II) CS3, (I) GD1, (I) GD2, (II) GD3 and (II) H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development improves facilities at St George’s primary school having regard to Policies (II) CS1 and (II) CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 47


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/0773

Centre = 530011 E 199352 N

Page 48

Application Number: TP/07/0773 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 28th June 2007


Location: East Lodge Village, East Lodge Nursery, Botany Bay, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 8AS

Proposal: Construction of Crazy Golf Course (RETROSPECTIVE).


Tim Harris East Lodge Village East Lodge Nursery Botany Bay EnfieldMiddlesexEN2 8AS


Andrew Walkden, AW BD&C Belmont47, The Grove Gravesend London DA12 1DP

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:

1. That no equipment or structures shall be erected or installed on the crazy golf course hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt.


The application site is located within East Lodge Village, located on the south side of East Lodge Lane, within the Green Belt and Area of Special Character. The Village contains a number of buildings used for the sale of antiques and memorabilia.


This application seeks retrospective permission for the retention of a crazy golf course and associated payment booth, that has been created adjacent to the existing children’s play equipment. The golf course comprises irregularly shaped playing areas covered in a green artificial surface, edged with level brick kerbs, with natural grass non playing areas in between. The area is enclosed by a 900mm high picket fence. The payment booth comprises a timber shed measuring 3.6m x 1.8m and standing a maximum of 3m in height. Attached to it is an open sided canopy measuring 2.3m x 1.8m. The plastic trees etc that were previously installed on the crazy golf course have now been removed and do not form part of this application.

Page 49

This application is reported to Planning Committee as the Council owns the land to which the application relates.


TP/00/1783 Planning permission granted for the use buildings on the site for retail (A1) with ancillary food and drink. This permission is subject to a number of conditions controlling the nature and extent of the retail activities. In this respect Condition 3 of this planning permission limits to use of the buildings on site to the ‘sale of antiques and memorabilia, and the retail sale of arts and crafts goods which have been produced on the premises’.

TP/02/2186 Planning permission granted for the erection of a new toilet block adjacent to the existing complex of buildings forming the ‘Village’.

TP/04/0994 Planning permission granted for the construction of children’s play area. This comprised a 1948 Toy Set Roundabout and Victorian Swing Boats.

TP/04/0995 Planning permission granted for the retention of decking adjoining the existing café.

TP/00/1783/VAR1 Planning permission granted for the variation of condition 3 of the planning permission (TP/00/1783) for the establishment of the antiques village to allow for the use of units 8,9 and 10 as an organic farm produce outlet.

Consultations

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of 3 nearby properties. No responses have been received.

External

None

Internal

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Policy 3D.8 Green Belt


(I)G1 To support strongly the principle of the Green Belt (II)G1 To resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt (II)G6 Areas of special character (II)G11 Criteria for extensions in the Green Belt.


Page 50

None

Other Policy Issues

PPG2 Green Belt

Analysis

The permitted use of the site is for the sale of antiques and memorabilia and the retail sale of arts and crafts goods, which have been produced on the premises. Associated with this, the applicant has sought to provide additional facilities to cater for families. These include the café and children’s play equipment, both of which are approved, and the crazy golf the subject of this application. The applicant has also made provision on site for the housing of a variety of farm animals as a visitor attraction. This facility does not form part of this application.

The crazy golf course is ‘open’ by its very nature and is therefore appropriate in principle in the Green Belt. The artificial surface is limited in extent and therefore on the whole the development does not detract unduly from the character of the site or the wider Green Belt. The ancillary payment booth is limited in size and scale and is acceptable in this setting.

Accordingly, the development is considered acceptable and it is recommended that permission be granted for their retention for the following reasons:

1 The proposed crazy golf course and ancillary payment booth are limited in terms of their size and scale and have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings on site. In this respect the development has appropriate regard to Policies (I)G1, (II)G1, (II)G6 and (II)G11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 51


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/0774

Centre = 530011 E 199352 N

Page 52

Application Number: TP/07/0774 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 21st June 2007


Location: East Lodge Village, East Lodge Nursery, Botany Bay, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 8AS

Proposal: Single storey infill extension and canopies to south and east elevation for display area for vintage amusement machines (retrospective).


Tim Harris East Lodge Village East Lodge Nursery Botany Bay EnfieldMiddlesexEN2 8AS


Andrew Walkden, AW BD&C Belmont47, The Grove Gravesend London DA12 1DP

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED


The application site is located within East Lodge Village, located on the south side of East Lodge Lane, within the Green Belt and Area of Special Character. The Village contains a number of buildings used for the sale of antiques and memorabilia.


This application seeks retrospective permission for the retention of an infill extension that has been erected between a new toilet block and the terrace of ‘retail’ units and the retention of an open sided timber lean to attached to the end wall of the new toilet block. The infill extension and lean to have been used for the storage of antiques/memorabilia and equipment displayed and/or used on the site.

This application is reported to Planning Committee as the Council owns the land to which the application relates.


TP/00/1783 Planning permission granted for the use buildings on the site for retail (A1) with ancillary food and drink. This permission is subject to a number of conditions controlling the nature and extent of the retail activities. In this respect Condition 3 of this planning permission

Page 53

limits to use of the buildings on site to the ‘sale of antiques and memorabilia, and the retail sale of arts and crafts goods which have been produced on the premises’.

TP/02/2186 Planning permission granted for the erection of a new toilet block adjacent to the existing complex of buildings forming the ‘Village’.

TP/04/0994 Planning permission granted for the construction of children’s play area. This comprised a 1948 Toy Set Roundabout and Victorian Swing Boats.

TP/04/0995 Planning permission granted for the retention of decking adjoining the existing café.

TP/00/1783/VAR1 Planning permission granted for the variation of condition 3 of the planning permission (TP/00/1783) for the establishment of the antiques village to allow for the use of units 8,9 and 10 as an organic farm produce outlet.

Consultations

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of 3 nearby properties. No responses have been received.

External

None

Internal

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan



(I)G1 To support strongly the principle of the Green Belt (II)G1 To resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt (II)G6 Areas of special character (II)G11 Criteria for extensions in the Green Belt.


None

Other Policy Issues

PPG2 Green Belt

Analysis

Page 54

The permitted use of the site is for the sale of antiques and memorabilia and the retail sale of arts and crafts goods, which have been produced on the premises. The proposed extensions are used for purposes ancillary thereto.

The infill extension effectively totally encloses an area previously approved as a covered walkway, between the new toilet block and the end of the terrace of retail units. The area concerned equates to approximately 12 square metres. Its enclosure has no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and is in keeping with the character and appearance of the Village buildings as a whole.

The timber lean to is similarly small in scale, covering an area of approximately 13 square metres. Given its siting and modest scale, it has no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings.

Accordingly, the proposed extensions are considered acceptable and it is recommended that permission be granted for their retention for the following reasons:

1. The proposed extensions are used for purposes ancillary to the approved use of the site, are limited in terms of their size and scale and have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing buildings on site. In this respect the development has appropriate regard to Policies (I)G1, (II)G1, (II)G6 and (II)G11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 55


Scale 1/1055 Date 13/8/2007

TP/07/0786

Centre = 535649 E 198134 N

Page 56

Application Number: TP/07/0786 Ward: Enfield Highway Date of Registration: 4th June 2007


Location: EASTFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL, EASTFIELD ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 5UX

Proposal: Single storey extension to nursery.


Chris Luck (Head Teacher), Eastfield school NURSERY,EASTFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL EASTFIELD ROAD ENFIELDEN3 5UX


John Keefe, Ream Partnership 52b, Alston Road BarnetEN5 4EY


1. C08 Materials to Match




The subject property is an existing single-storey building located within the ground of East Primary School, Eastfield Road. It is currently used as a nursery.

Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a single-storey extension to the side of the building. The extension is 2.4m deep, 5.15m wide, 2.25m high to the eaves and 3.5m high to the top of a hipped roof.


LBE/91/0005 - Erection of a single storey nursery school for 30 children with associated hard and soft play areas – APPROVED

Consultation

Public

Letters were sent to 43 neighbouring properties.

Page 57

One comment was received by the occupier of a nearby property (no address supplied), the comments are as follows:

- Does not object to the extension itself - Objects to the prospect of new pupils joining the school, leading to the exacerbation of

existing parking problems.

Internal

Director of Education has made no comment.

Environmental Health has made no comment.

Property Services has made no comment.

Finance and Corporate Services have made no comment.

External

None.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction


(I)GD1 Regard to surroundings (I)GD2 Quality of life and visual amenity (II)GD3 Aesthetic and functional design (II)GD6 Traffic (II)GD7 Parking

UDP Interim Amendments

SDC1 Sustainable assessment


PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

Analysis

Impact on Character

The subject property is surrounded by play areas associated with the nursery. As such, the proposal would not affect the visual setting of the building or the surrounding school. In terms of the building itself, the proposed extension features matching materials and a hipped roof integrated into the existing roof. As a result, the proposal is considered in keeping and character with the existing building. The proposal is therefore considered in compliance with Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 58

Impact on Adjoining Properties

Due to the modest size of the extension and the relative isolation of the subject property from nearby residential properties, it is not considered that the proposal would impact on the amenities of these properties.

Parking

According to the submitted plans, the extension is for the purposes of providing a boiler room and extra storage space. It is not considered that the proposed would lead to additional parking demand or traffic impacts having regard to Policies (II)GD6 and (II)GD7 of the Unitary Development Plan. It is acknowledge that there be parking issues associated with the school in general but these concerns are not material to this particular application.

Conclusion


1. The proposed extension due to its size, design and siting does not unduly affect the amenities of adjoining or nearby residential properties or detract from the character of the local area, having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 59


Scale 1/1250 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/0889

Centre = 531269 E 193262 N

Page 60

Application Number: TP/07/0889 Ward: Winchmore Hill Date of Registration: 3rd May 2007


Location: 491, GREEN LANES, LONDON, N13 4BS

Proposal: Part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension.


Mrs N Ezel 491, GREEN LANES LONDONN13 4BS


Mr Aziz Gulibahar, Blitzgold & Associates 178, BAKER STREET ENFIELDEN1 3JS

Note for Members

Although a proposal of this nature would normally be dealt with under delegated authority, at the request of Councillor Hurer, the application is being reported to the Committee for consideration.

Recommendation: that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. The proposed side extension due to its size, siting and excessive overall rearward projection would give rise to a greater sense of enclosure in respect of the ground floor flat at No. 493 Green Lanes which has habitable windows on its rear and flank elevation and give rise to conditions through a loss of outlook and light, detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent property. This would be contrary to Polices (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)H12 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 4B.7 of the London Plan.


A two storey semi detached property located on the western side of Green Lanes to the north of the town centre of Palmers Green. The surrounding are is comprised of a mix of residential, commercial and retail uses.

The ground floor is occupied by an accountant whilst the first floor contains two self contained flats. No.493 Green Lanes lies to the north and is separated by a 2m wide access way: it contains residential at both ground and first floor.


Permission is sought for the construction of a part single, part 2 storey, side and rear extension. The ground floor element to the side / rear would involve a 11.8 metres deep extension infilling an existing recess at the rear of the premises and would provide additional office accommodation at ground floor level for the accountants office as well as kitchen /staff area to the rear.

Page 61

The 2.8 metre deep first floor extension will increase the size of the rear bedroom of the first floor flat.

No additional parking is proposed

Relevant Planning Decisions:

Subject property:

TP/99/0084 – Conversion of ground floor into self contained flats - Granted

No.489 Green Lanes

TP/90/0061 – single storey rear extension approved October 1990

Consultations

Public:

Consultation letters were sent to 13 neighbouring properties. No letters of objection were received

External: none

Internal: none

Relevant Policies

London Plan

4B.7 Respect Local Context and Communities


(I)GD1 Regard to surroundings (I)GD2 Development to improve the environment (II)GD1 Developments appropriately located (II)H8 Privacy (II)H12 Residential Extensions (II) GD6 Traffic generation. (II) GD7 Parking requirements (see also Appendix A1.4) (II) GD8 Access & servicing


None


PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPG13 Transport

Analysis

Page 62

There are three key elements to this proposal; namely:

a) A single storey side extension b) A single storey rear extension. c) A first floor rear extension.

a) Single Storey Side Extension

To the rear, there is a stepped recess to the existing premises: a common feature of many of these properties, also evident at the adjacent property, No 493 Green Lanes. The proposed side rear extension would infill this recessed area projecting rearwards 11.8 metres level with the existing flank wall of the main premises. It would be inset from the boundary with 493 Green Lanes by 2.1m: the boundary comprising a 1.8m high fence. Furthermore, the extension will have a height of 2.1m to eaves level and 2.8m to the top of the mono pitch roof. Five new windows and a new door would face the boundary with No.493 Green Lanes (comprising two office and 3 wc windows)

The adjacent property is occupied at ground and first floor level by flats. Three windows exist in the ground floor of this property including one rear facing window which is the nearest ground floor window. There are other windows directly facing the extension serving kitchen / utility areas. Importantly, these windows are the only source of light into the ground floor flat’s living room and kitchen area. The flank and rear facing windows will be 4m and 3m away from the subject building respectively.

With regard to residential extensions, Policy (II) H12 of the UDP states that extensions should not normally project more than 2.8 metres or beyond a line taken at 45 degrees from the mid point of the nearest ground floor window. Whilst the position of the proposed side extension off the boundary is noted, it is considered that an extension of the depth and size proposed would unacceptably add to the sense of enclosure and adversely affects the residential amenities of the ground floor accommodation through a loss of light and outlook. In addition, a 45 degree line from the nearest rear facing window would also be bisected.

Therefore I am of the opinion that the excessive depth of the proposed side/rear element of the proposal does not accord with Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)H12 of the UDP which seeks to protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.

b) Rear Extension

The proposed single storey rear extension would extend the rear of the existing premises and link into the side extension whilst also abutting the boundary with 489 Green Lanes. It would measure 2.8m deep x 3.2m high (to top of balustrade) x 6.3m wide.

Policy (II) H12 is once again applicable in terms of its relationship to the adjoining property. However, the proposed depth means that the extension would only project 1.5 metres beyond the rear of this premises and given its occupation as a dental surgery, it is considered that there would be no adverse effects associated with this element of the proposal.

c) First Floor Rear Extension

The proposed first floor rear extension would project 1 .3 metres beyond the rear of the adjoining premises: 489 Green Lanes. Although the upper floor of this premises is in residential occupation, the projection complies with a 30 degree line taken from the nearest window and it is considered that there would be no adverse affect on the amenities of that property.

Page 63

The increased depth of the first floor will also be visible from the adjacent property, 493 Green Lanes. However, given the size of the projection and the overall separation (approx. 7.5 metres) no objection is raised in terms of loss of light and outlook notwithstanding the assessment at (a) of this report.

It should also be noted that the extension incorporates the provision of a stairwell and small balcony area to the rear. Whilst the structure in itself will have no adverse affect on the amenities of the adjoining commercial premises, the balcony could potential give rise to issues of overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjacent property at 493. However, there is an existing balcony at first floor level and although it would be sited slightly further back, there would be no material increase in overlooking and loss of privacy.

Parking

No additional car parking is proposed. Nevertheless, as there are four parking spaces on the forecourt serving the premises and Green Lanes enjoys a high PTAL rating, no objection is raise din terms of parking

Conclusion

In the light of the above, it is considered that the proposal is unacceptable.

Page 64


Scale 1/2500 Date 13/8/2007

TP/07/1158

Centre = 534178 E 198690 N

Page 65

Application Number: TP/07/1158 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 18th July 2007


Location: FORTY HILL C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL, FORTY HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 9EY

Proposal: Single storey extension to south elevation.


Richard Yarwood FORTY HILL C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL FORTY HILL ENFIELDEN2 9EY


John Keefe, Ream Partnership 52b, Alston Road BarnetEN5 4EY

Note to Members

This application is reported to Committee, as it is a Council maintained school.






The application site is located on the south side of Forty Hill, just to the west of Maiden’s bridge within the Forty Hill Conservation Area, the Green Belt and Area of Special Character. The school is also locally listed.

Proposal

Permission is sought for the erection of a single storey extension with a pitched roof to the rear of the extended assembly /dining room which itself is located to the rear of the frontage building. The extension is approximately 9.5 m in width and 3 m in depth. It is to be constructed of brickwork to match existing and a slate covered pitched roof. The accommodation provided is for the storage of PE equipment on site as a result of the current chair store being required as part of an enlarged kitchen to enable on site cooking facilities to be provided.


Page 66

There is an extensive planning history relating to the site. The most recent applications are: -

TP94/0509- Erection of single storey extension at rear of school building to provide additional classroom accommodation Approved 20-09-94

TP/93/0440 – Erection of single storey extensions to existing school building to provide additional classrooms and associated facilities. Approved 24-08-93

TP/92/0609- Erection of single storey extension for use as new assembly hall and ancillary accommodation. Approved 12-11-92

Consultation

Public

A press notice was published in the local press. No objections received.

Internal

None

External

Thames water – No objections

Forty Hill and Bulls Cross study Group – No comments

Relevant Policy

The London Plan



(I) CS1 Provision of community services (II) CS2 Siting and design of buildings (II) CS3 Community facilities (I) GD1 Regard to surroundings (II) GD3 Aesthetics and functional design (II) C1 To preserve or enhance areas or sites of archaeological, architectural or historic

interest.(II) C11 Buildings of local architectural or historic interests. (II) C12 Management of historic buildings (II) C16 Special architectural historic interest of listed buildings (I) G1 Resisting inappropriate development in the Green Belt (II) G2 Appropriate uses in the Green Belt (II) G6 Area of special character (II) G11 Ensure that new developments do not act to the detriment of the landscape.


None

Page 67

Analysis

Principle of Development

Existing educational establishments, such as this primary school are considered acceptable uses with in the Green Belt. Subject to design and size, extensions thereto are permissible, both in the Green Belt and Conservation Areas. The proposed development is considered necessary to provide improved facilities for the school. No additional students or staff are proposed.

Amenity Issues

The proposed extension is relatively small and is designed to relate to the existing building. No external doors or fenestration are proposed, with access to the store direct from the adjoining hall to minimise any security issues.

Impact on Surroundings

The extension is to be located to the rear of the school building utilising a banked area that is not suitable for use by pupils and has a minimal impact in that it is well screened. The proposed extension is considered to be of an appropriate design in relation to the main building to which it is to be added and it is not considered that it will have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Green Belt, Forty Hill Conservation Area, Area of Special Character or the locally listed building.

Conclusion


1. The proposed development due to its design, size and siting would not detract from the character and appearance of the Green belt, Forty Hill Conservation Area, Area of Special Character or the locally listed building having regard to Policies (II) CS2, (II) CS3, (II) G2, (II) G6, (II) G11and (II) C11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development improves facilities at Forty Hill primary school having regard to Policies (II) CS1 and (II) CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 68


Scale 1/5000 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/1223

Centre = 534575 E 199450 N

Page 69



Location: CAPEL MANOR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BULLSMOOR LANE, ENFIELD, EN1 4RL

Proposal: New road way and crossover to Bullsmoor Lane including internal and external access works and additional 13 car parking spaces together with additional teaching spaces and parents room.


The Goveners & Head Teacher CAPEL MANOR PRIMARY SCHOOL BULLSMOOR LANE ENFIELDEN1 4RL


Mr Graeme Little, Plat-Form LLP Unit 52B Regents Studios 8, Andrews Road LondonE8 4QN




3. C14 Details of Access and Junction




7. Before the development hereby approved is occupied the existing vehicular footway crossing to Bullsmoor Lane which is to be closed shall be reinstated.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the street scene and pedestrian safety.



School campus situated to the south of Bullsmoor Lane. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and Forty Hill & Bulls Cross Conservation Area.

Page 70

Proposal

The proposal involves the provision of a new access road with access and egress off Bullsmoor Lane, the formation of a new vehicular access and the closure of an existing access, the provision of a new internal circulation layout with car parks, the provision of 13 additional parking spaces and the provision of additional indoor and outdoor (279 sq.metres) teaching space and landscaping.


None.

Consultation

Public

59 surrounding properties were consulted. No replies received.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan


(I)GD1 Appropriate regard to surroundings (I)GD2 Improve the environment (II)GD3 Design (II)GD6 Traffic generation (II)GD7 Parking (IIGD8 Site access and servicing (I)C1 Conservation (II)C30 Conservation (II)G1 Green Belt (II)G2 Green Belt

Analysis

Whilst the proposal involves the provision of additional buildings and extensions within the Green Belt this is confined to the existing area of school buildings and there will be no greater impact on its open character or amenity.

The design of the proposed buildings and additions is satisfactory and complements the existing school buildings and serve to preserve the character of the conservation area.

In addition an extensive landscape scheme will serve to enhance the appearance of the school within its green belt and conservation area setting.

The proposed access arrangements improve the accessibility of the school to vehicles and pedestrians and improve internal circulation and access/egress onto Bullsmoor Lane.

It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the following reasons:

Page 71

1. Having regard to Policies (II)G1 and (II)G2 of the Unitary Development Plan and PPG2 – Green Belts the proposals would not serve to detract from the open character and amenity of the Green Belt.

2. Having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (II)GD3, (I)C1 (II)C30 the proposals have appropriate regard to their surroundings and serve to preserve the character of the conservation area.

3. The proposals serve to improve access to and circulation within the site having regard to Policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 72


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/1234

Centre = 535769 E 194106 N

Page 73

Application Number: TP/07/1234 Ward: Jubilee Date of Registration: 20th June 2007


Location: COMMERCIAL PREMISES, 5, PICKETTS LOCK LANE, LONDON, N9 0AS

Proposal: Change of use from storage and distribution (Class B8) to a Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) De-manufacturing facility.


Environcom LTD Pavilion 3 2nd Floor St James Business Park LinwoodPA3 3AT


Egniol Consulting LTD Primtec House Hulme Lane Lower Peover KnutsfordCheshireWA16 9QQ

Recommendation:

That subject to the referral of the application to the Greater London Authority and no objections being raised, the Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions

1. C12 Details of Parking/Turning Facilities

2. C13 Details of Loading/Unloading/Turning Facilities

3. No use of the premises shall commence until a scheme for highway improvement works along Picketts Lock Lane, that includes road markings and road signage to the highway between the site access and junction with Meridian Way to restrict parking at any time has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall then be implemented prior to the commencement of use or otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests highway safety and free flow of traffic.

4. The use herby approved shall not commence until such time as a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved travel plan shall there after be implemented and adhered to.

Page 74

Reason: In the interests of sustainability and due the level of on site parking, to ensure that traffic generated from the site is minimised

5. Prior to the commencement of the use details regarding the provision of secure, covered and lockable cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason : To ensure the satisfactory provision of facilities so as to accord with Unitary Development Plan standards.

6. All storage and processing of the waste electrical and electronic equipment shall be carried out within the existing building and there shall be no tipping, stockpiling or storage of the waste electrical and electronic equipment or any storage containers within any of the open part of the site.

Reason: (i) in the interests of visual amenity and to protect the character & appearance of the surrounding area and in particular, the special characteristics of the adjoining Green Belt and Lee Valley Regional Park.

(ii) residential amenities of surrounding properties.

7. The facility hereby approved shall not be open to the general public and no members of the general public shall be allowed to deposit Electrical and Electronic Equipment direct at the premises.

Reason : to ensure the operation accords with the operations set out in the Planning Statement submitted and to ensure the use does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety on the adjoining roads or residential amenity of the surrounding area.

8. The development shall not commence until details of and additional or alterations to existing external lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained as such.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

9. The building(s) hereby approved shall be occupied as one business unit and shall not be subdivided and occupied by separate businesses unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the adopted parking and servicing standards and does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety on the adjoining roads or residential amenity of the surrounding area.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, (as amended) or any amending Order, the premises shall only be used as a Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment De-manufacturing facility and shall not be used for any other purpose within Use Class B2, or for any other purpose.

Reason: to ensure the use of the premises remains appropriate and does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to the appearance of the premises when viewed from the adjoining Green Belt, Lee Valley Regional Park or the surrounding area, residential amenity or the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highways

Page 75



The application site is presently vacant but was formerly used by Coca Cola for the storage and distribution of soft drinks. The site extends to approximately 1.8ha and is located immediately to the north east of the junction of Pickett’s Lock Lane and Meridian Way. The existing large industrial building on site has a gross floor area of approximately 11,800m2. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is gained directly from Picketts Lock Lane.

A vehicle parking area and service yard is located on the southern part of the site, between the large industrial building and Picketts Lock Lane. A second, smaller service yard is located in the north-western part of the site, vehicular access to this service yard is gained via an access road, which runs, within the site, along the western side of the industrial building.

Immediately to the south of the site, on the southern side of Picketts Lock Lane, there are two storey residential properties. To the north and east is the extensive Lea Valley Leisure complex together with the new Regional Athletic Stadium which is also designated Green Belt and an Area of Special Character within the Lee Valley Regional Park. To the west of Meridian Way is the London- Stansted railway line, with a series of four storey residential apartment blocks beyond.


The proposal involves a change of use of the existing premises at 5, Picketts Lock Lane from (Use Class B8) storage and distribution to a Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) de- manufacturing, facility. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment consists of items such as fridges, freezers, washing machines, televisions, cookers, cathode ray tubes etc. Before the de- manufacturing processes takes place, the incoming waste will be sorted inside the building and those larger items which are capable of repair and reuse will be withdrawn. The repair of these items will be undertaken off- site by a Social Enterprise Business.

The proposed de- manufacturing process will take place entirely within the building and will enable 95 % of incoming waste to be recycled. It is anticipated that the majority of incoming waste will be sourced from North London, within the M25 corridor. The proposed de- manufacturing facility is not a scrap yard type of operation. The use involves the processing of waste electrical and electronic equipment in order to recover recyclables. All storage and processing of waste will be carried out within the building and there will be no tipping or stockpiling of waste on either the yard area which fronts onto Picketts Lock Lane or on the yard area in front of the Meridian Way loading bay. Approximately 60,000 tonnes of waste equipment will be processed per annum. The proposed use would not lead to the storage of any hazardous materials in notifiable quantities on site.

The use would operate 24 hours per day/ 7 days a week. The proposed use is likely to generate approximately 63 two-way movements of incoming delivery vehicles per day and approximately 17 two-way movements of outgoing vehicles per day. The majority of deliveries to the site (up to 95 %) will take place between 07.00 and 19.00, Mon To Friday. The proposed use will employ approximately 150 semi skilled staff.

No external alterations to the building are proposed. Thirty-five car parking spaces along with parking for HGV vehicles would be provided within the existing yard fronting onto Picketts Lock Lane. Access in to the site would be off Picketts Lock Lane. The applicants have also provided a Planning Statement, Noise Assessment and Transport Statement in support of their proposal.

Page 76


None relevant to proposal

Consultations

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 276 neighbouring properties. In addition, notice was published in the local press. No individual letters of objection where received.

However, an objection was received from Cllr. Andrew on behalf of the residents about the proposal causing further problems for them.

Petition

A petition containing the 38 signatures and objecting to the proposal was received raising the following points of objection: -

- Already have sewage works & composting plant within area and another waste disposal plant on their doorstop. - Plant will handle 60,000 tons of waste products per year resulting in large movements of traffic to & from plant - Main access to site is along Meridian Way turning in to Pickets Lock Lane, which is an accident black spot. - 24 hour operating result in noise and disturbance to residents in close proximity. - Complained many times regarding previous company about forklifts & noise through the night. - Concerned about method of storage of waste products, which they hope will not be stored on forecourt of premises make eyesore for residents. - Issue of safety regarding extraction, storage and disposal of gas used in appliances dismantled. - Residents in Pickets Lock Lane don’t want another waste disposal unit on door step.

External

The Environment Agency and Thames Water raise no objection raises no objection.

Natural England wishes to make no comments other than to note that they would expect the Environment Agency to comment on any potential issues associated with water quality and contamination if necessary.

Any comments from the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority will be reported to the meting

Internal

Environmental Health have considered the proposal and in particular the noise assessment report and do not object: the noise assessment report is considered acceptable.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

3B.11 Environmental Industries 3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development 3C.16 Tackling Congestion and Reducing Traffic

Page 77

4A.1 Waste strategic policy and targets 4A.2 Spatial policies for waste management 4A.3 Criteria for selection of sites for waste management & disposal 4B.7 Respect Local Context and Communities 5E.1 Strategic Priorities for North London


(I) GD1 - New Development to have appropriate regard to its surroundings (I) GD2 - New development to improve environment and quality of life (II) GD1 - Changes of use to be appropriately located (II) GD6, 7 & 8 - Traffic, parking & servicing (II) EN27 -To maintain effective and environmentally beneficial system of waste collection (II) EN28 - To make provision for sites catering for disposal of waste (II) EN29 - To ensure recycling of as much waste as possible (II) EN30 - To take in to account matters relating to land, air, noise & water Pollution (II) E10 - Proposal for B1 & B2 adherence to Councils standards (II) E15 - Environmental safeguards (II) G20 - Developments in proximity to Green Belt don’t detract from it (II) G30 - Developments in or adjacent Lea Valley Regional Park


(II)T19 Cycle parking standards


PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

PPG13 Transport

Analysis

Principle

The site is identified within the Interim Amendments to the Unitary Development Plan as being within an “Other Employment Area”. ”Other Employment Areas” comprise all those premises in the Borough occupied by uses within Class B1, B2 and B8, situated outside the Prime and Local Employment Areas and accepts that other non employment forms of development may sometimes be appropriate on these sites. However, where the proposed change of use involves the retention of employment use, the policy would be generally supportive of such a scheme. The site is also located within the London- Stansted - Cambridge corridor in the London Plan where both employment and housing are to be encouraged. In addition, the principle of the proposed use would also accord with Planning Policy Statement 10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste), The Mayor’s policy for waste in the London Plan policies 4A.1, 4A.2 and 4A.3 as well as Policies (II) EN 27,28 and 29 of the Unitary Development Plan. The main issues to consider therefore in determining the acceptability of the proposal are felt to be traffic, access, noise, as well as impact on neighbouring residential amenities.

Traffic Generation/ Access/ Servicing / Parking

Page 78

The applicant’s in support of their proposal have provided a transport assessment. The previous usage of the site generated in the order of 280 HGV movements each day. This would represent an overall reduction in heavy good vehicle movements compared with the previous use.

50% of these vehicles are expected to come from Civic Amenity Sites in the North London Area within the M25 while the remaining 50 % would come from businesses, which would also, for the most part be located in North London within the M25. The site would not accept waste electrical / electronic material directly from the general public. The type of vehicle would vary from vans to large skip wagons. These vehicle movements equate to a throughput of approximately 60,000 tonnes per annum.

The plant will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week with three shifts rotation patterns. Sixty staff will work between 06.00 to 14.00, 60 staff between 14.00 to 22.00 and 30 staff will work overnight from 22.00 to 06.00. A total of 35 parking spaces together with 7 HGV loading bays are to be provided within the service yard area. There is therefore, a short fall in parking given that 60 persons could be on site at any one time and during shift changes. This could result in some overspill parking on to the adjacent highway namely Picketts Lock Lane. Although this highway could accommodate the additional parking without compromising highway safety or the free flow of traffic, given the proximity to the junction of Meridian way, a Grampian condition is recommended that the use shall not commence until a scheme for highway improvements along Pickets Lock Lane, that includes road markings and road signage to the roadway between the site access and junction with Meridian Way to restrict parking, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In addition a condition regarding a work place travel plan is also to be imposed to encourage alternative sustainable transport methods to the site. In the light of these measures, the parking provision is considered sufficient to ensure issues of highway safety. Moreover, although Picketts Lock Lane serves residential properties, the number of residential dwelling fronting the highway is minimal and it is considered any on street parking would not affect residential amenities.

In summary subject to appropriate conditions no objections are raised on highway grounds.

Noise

The proposed use would operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The applicant’s in support of their application have produced a noise assessment report in accordance with BS 4142:1997. Environmental Health is satisfied with the noise assessment carried out and have raised no objection.

All the storage and processing of the waste material will be carried out within the building. It is considered that the noise levels generated within the building are unlikely to result in any adverse noise during the day or night time. The majority of deliveries to and from the site up to 95 % will take place between 07.00 and 19.00, Mon – Friday. However, to retain flexibility for deliveries outside of these hours in order to satisfy the needs of particular customers (e.g. food retailers wishing to remove and replace chillier/ freezer equipment outside normal trading hours, the applicant seeks 24 hour operation.

Given that the previous use operated by Coca Cola operated 24 hours a day/ seven days a week and that the total number of lorry movements & timing of movements would be less than the previous use it is not considered the proposed use would adversely impact on the residential amenities of properties in Picketts Lock Lane in terms of adverse noise notwithstanding the objections raised by residents.

Green Belt and Lea Valley Regional Park

Page 79

To the east, the site adjoins Green Belt and also falls within the Lea Valley Regional Park where Policies (II) G20 and (II) G30 of the UDP are relevant. As all the proposed operations are to be carried out internally within the building and there is no external storage outside the building, it is not considered that the proposed use would have any significant detrimental impact on the character or setting of the adjacent Green Belt or the Lea Valley Regional Park.

Economic / Regeneration Impact

The proposed change of use of the premises to a Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment De- manufacturing facility would also employ approximately 150 semi- skilled full time staff, most of who would be recruited from the local area.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed use of the building as a Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) de- manufacturing facility would not adversely impact on the surrounding roads in terms of traffic generation or highway safety, or adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining residents in terms of adverse noise and disturbance. The application though, will need to be referred to the Greater London Authority under category 2B of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) 0rder 2000 as the throughput would exceed 50,000 tons per year and is therefore referable. Subject therefore to the referral of the application to the Greater London Authority, and no objection being raised, it recommended that Planning permission be granted for the following reasons.

1.The proposed change of use of the building to a Waste Electrical and Electronic equipment (WEEE) de-manufacturing facility would accord with policies to promote the recycling and re-use of waste having regard to Planning Policy Statement 10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management), policies 4A.1, 4A.2 and 4A.3 of the London Plan and Policies (II) EN28, 29 and 30 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2.The proposed change of use of the building to (WEEE) de- manufacturing facility subject to appropriate conditions would not adversely impact on the surrounding highway network having regard to policies (II) GD6, 7 and 8 of the Unitary Development Plan and PPG13.

3. The proposed change of use of the building to (WEEE) de-manufacturing facility would not adversely impact on the residential amenities of surrounding residents in terms of noise having regard to Policies (I) GD1, (I) GD2, and (II) EN30 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed change of use of the building to (WEEE) de manufacturing facility would have appropriate regard to its surroundings having regards to Policies (II) GD1 and (II) E10 of the Unitary Development Plan

5. The proposed change of use of the building (WEEE) de manufacturing facility would not have detrimental impact on the adjacent Green Belt or the Lea Valley regional Park having regard to Policies (II) G20 and (II) G30 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 80


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/1260

Centre = 534692 E 197022 N

Page 81

Application Number: TP/07/1260 Ward: Southbury Date of Registration: 5th July 2007


Location: SUFFOLKS PRIMARY SCHOOL, BRICK LANE, ENFIELD, EN1 3PU

Proposal: Construction of detached building to provide a new dining hall, kitchen and associated works together with new covered walk way / link to main building. (Revised scheme)


The Governors & Headteacher SUFFOLKS PRIMARY SCHOOL BRICK LANE ENFIELDEN1 3PU


Graeme Little, Plat-form LLP Unit 52B Regents Studios 8, Andrews Road LondonE8 4QN

Note to Members:

An application for a similar development at Suffolks Primary School was previously approved at Planning Committee on 18/10/2006. The current application proposes some amendments to that earlier approval.

Recommendation: That following the expiry of the consultation period and the receipt of no material representations, planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1. C06 Details of Phasing of Construction



4. C10 Details of Levels


6. C12 Details of Parking/Turning Facilities

7. C14 Details of Access and Junction

8. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas


Page 82

10. C18 Details of Tree Protection





15. C41 Details of External Lighting

16. C57 Sustainability

17. The development shall not commence until detailed drawings showing the design of the secure cycle store, including existing and proposed levels, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle store shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the development is used.

Reason: In the interest of sustainability and security


Site and surroundings

Suffolks Primary School is located immediately to the south of Bishop Stopford School. There is no direct road frontage, with vehicular access onto Brick Lane, to the north of Bishop Stopford School, shared with that adjoining school.

Along the southern boundary of the site is a vehicle auction centre and along the eastern boundary are the rear gardens of the dwellings fronting Hammond Road and Broadfield Square. There is a pedestrian access from Hammond Road between 15 & 17 Hammond Road.

At present, the school has a shared dining hall facility with Bishop Stopford School, within the grounds of that adjoining school.

Proposal

The proposal is for the construction of a detached building to provide a new dining hall, kitchen and associated works together with new covered walk way / link to main building.

The application and proposed works are to be read in conjunction with the recent approval at the adjoining Bishop Stopford School site for the demolition of the existing dining facility and the construction of a new 2 storey, part single ‘Design and Technology’ building with a raised steel and glass covered walkway linking the eastern wing of the school to the new technology block (ref: TP/06/1072).

The proposed building will be sited to the front of existing classrooms, on a paved area used as part of the playground. It will house the dining hall, kitchen, office, food store, plant room and toilet facilities. The proposed building will be 25.8m in width, 9m in depth, and 5.6m in height to the top of a mono-pitch roof. The fall of the roof will be towards the classrooms and the proposed new covered play area / courtyard link to the main building.

Page 83

The proposed new covered play area / courtyard link to the main building will be between 5.1m & 8.5m in depth, 20.9m in width, and it will be between 3.8 & 5.3m in height.

A covered ‘picnic area’ is proposed to the south of the building. The proposed canopy will be between 3.7m & 8.1m in depth, 10.4m in width and it will be between 3.2 and 3.9m in height.


LBE/87/0027 - Erection of two classrooms adaptation of existing accommodation to form a nursery unit incorporating new canopy formation of car parking area (involving demolition of fire damaged building) and extension of access road. – granted with conditions – 01/01/2000

TP/06/1510 - Construction of a detached building to provide a new dining hall, kitchen and associated works together with new covered walk way / link to main building. – granted with conditions -

Also relevant is the application relating to Bishop Stopford School:

TP/06/1072 - Improvement works to school involving demolition of existing dinning block and erection of part single storey, part 2 storey detached block with first floor bridge link to existing building; erection of part single, part two storey reception building; two storey extension to west wing of existing main building; ground floor extension to Orchard Building to provide canteen together with alterations to pedestrian and vehicular access, car parking layout and associated works and landscaping. – granted with conditions – 31/08/2006.

Consultation

Public

Letters have been sent to 159 neighbouring properties. No comments have been received to date. Any comments received will be reported to Committee.

Internal

The Director of Education advises that the application, which is being carried out in conjunction with an improvement scheme at the adjoining Bishop Stopford School, is fully supported.

The AD Environmental Health advises that there are no objections to the proposal.

External

None.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan


Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction

Page 84


(I)CS1 Provision of community services

(II)CS2 Siting and design of buildings

(II)CS3 Community facilities

(I)GD1 Regard to surroundings

(II)GD3 Aesthetics and functional design

(II)GD6 Traffic

(II)GD7 Car parking standards

(II)H8 Privacy

(II)T16 Access for pedestrians and people with disabilities

(II)T18 Pedestrian priority

(II)T19 Provision for cyclists




PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

Analysis

Principle of development

The principle of this development has been established through the granting of planning permission in October 2006 (ref: TP/06/1510). Amendments sought to that approval include:

An increase in the pitch of the roof from 10- to 12-degrees, resulting in an increase in the height of the building of 0.225m;

Mechanical ventilation to the dining hall replaced with 3no. monodraught ‘Windcatcher’ natural ventilation chimney with integrated solar panels;

Skylights replaced with 8no. monodraught ‘Sunpipes’;

An additional window to the east elevation;

The number of windows in the south elevation reduced from 9no. to 6no; and

Timber rain screen cladding to the building.

Amenity issues

In terms of impact on the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers, the proposed structures may be visible from the rear gardens of those properties fronting Broadfield Square, however, there is a distance of approximately 240m from the rear of the proposed picnic area canopy to the nearest rear garden and a distance of approximately 290m to the rear of the nearest dwelling. Moreover, there is a screen of existing mature trees of various species over 4m in height, obscuring the view

Page 85

to the proposed structures. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not unduly affect the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers.

The reduction of windows on the south elevation improves the visual appearance of this elevation and the introduction of a window on the east elevation helps to break up an otherwise solid wall.

The introduction of the Windcatchers or the sunpipes will not unduly impact on the outlook of neighbouring properties, as they will be largely screened from view by the retained trees immediately to the south of the proposed development.

Impact on surroundings

The proposed structures are quite different in terms of roof design, from the existing buildings on the site, which have pitched roofs, although it is not uncommon to have mono-pitch roofs for canopies. However, the proposed design does integrate well with the existing pattern of development and again, they are well screened from surrounding residential dwellings, therefore the impact on the appearance of the area is considered to be minimal.

Landscaping

New planting is proposed for the development. This will consist of trees within the new visitor parking area, a herb garden immediately to the south of the new dining hall/kitchen, and climbing plants on screens between the car park and structured playground area, and on the screen for the picnic area.

All existing trees are to be retained and a suitably worded condition would be placed on any approval to ensure that a protective fence is in place around the trees during the construction period.

Transportation

The parking layout is to be revised and a new access point created onto Brick Lane.

There are currently 30no. parking spaces within the site. This will be increased to 38no. spaces, comprising of 14no. visitor bays, 24no. staff bays (including 4no. disabled bays). In addition, there will be x2no. disabled drop-off bays beneath the proposed covered play area and the provision of two sets staff cycle parks near to two of the disable bays, providing a total of 11no. secure cycle parks. The fire-appliance turning circle remains unchanged. This element of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

A new vehicle access point, to be shared with the Bishop Stopford School, is to be created approximately 52m of the existing access point. This will improve access into the respective sites by having a more direct route into the site. This element of the proposal was considered as part of the application for the Bishop Stopford School and is therefore considered to be acceptable.


A Sustainability Assessment form has been completed and submitted with the application. Sustainability is increased through the introduction of sunpipes and the natural ventilation chimneys. The application has achieved a satisfactory score.

Conclusion

Page 86


1. The proposed development due to its design, size and siting would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area nor would it unduly affect the amenities or privacy of adjoining or nearby residential properties having regard to Policies (II)CS2, (II)CS3, (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The development does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining highways having regard to Policies (II)GD6 and (II)GD7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed development improves facilities at Suffolks Primary School having regard to Policies (II)CS1 and (II)CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 87


Scale 1/1250 Date 15/8/2007

TP/07/1317

Centre = 531134 E 200244 N

Page 88



Location: ST SIMONS NURSERY, CATTLEGATE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN2 9DS

Proposal: Change of use of commercial building to light industrial (Class B1(c)) and horticultural involving alterations to external appearance, new up corrugated roof and formation of parking and turning facilities incorporating 25 car parking spaces and 1 lorry space with loading area.


Abraham & Stevenson The Old Bakery Offices Pook Lane AshburtonDevonTQ13 7BB


Timothy Edens, Planning Consultant 29, CANFORD CLOSE ENFIELDEN2 8QN







6. C30 Restriction of Open Storage


8. C49 Restricted Use Class

9. No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the hours of 0700 to 1800 on Mondays to Fridays, 0700 to 1300 on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining or nearby residential properties and in accordance with the hours imposed by the Inspector.

Page 89

10. That details of secure cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Such cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with approved details before use of the development hereby approved commences.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability



The applicants’ property is sited north of Cattlegate Road located in the Metropolitan Green Belt within the Crews Hill Defined Area. There is no formal parking spaces on site and is accessed via a predominantly single-track access road.

To the south there is a vegetation buffer between the applicants property and the garden nurseries to the south. There are grassed paddocks both the eastern and western sides of the site. An existing greenhouse covers most of the site with some ancillary buildings in the surrounding in a poor state of repair. The remaining area of the site is covered mostly with grass and scrub vegetation to the south and east of the glasshouse and on the west side of the access track, contributing to the rural character of the site.

The main glasshouse has a total of ten bays, of which six bays are currently used for the purpose of manufacture of timber fencing, gates and doors, together with associated storage. The remaining four bays are disused but formerly had a horticultural use.

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the change of use of a commercial building to light industrial (Class B1(c)) and horticultural involving alterations to external appearance, new corrugated roof and formation of parking and turning facilities incorporating 25 car parking spaces and 1 lorry space with loading area.


An application for the redevelopment of the site by the demolition of the glasshouses and the erection of a commercial building (ref: TP/05/1769) for the purposes of manufacture of timber fencing, gates and doors, together with associated storage was refused planning permission as it was considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, it resulted in an intensification of the use of the site, and didn’t provide parking in accordance with Unitary Development Plan standards. The application was allowed on Appeal, with certain Conditions imposed.

LDC/04/0106 Use of part greenhouse for storage and manufacturing purposes. Refused on 30/04/04.

LDC/04/0507 Use of part of glasshouse for the manufacture of timber fencing, gates and doors together with associated storage. Granted on 25/02/05.

Consultation

Page 90

Public

Letters were sent to four neighbouring properties in addition to the statutory publicity.

Four letters of objection have been received, including comments received from the Crews Hill Residents Association, raising the following points:

– The Environmental Crime Unit has an interest in this site.

– Council has recently refused permission for a joinery works there, which was upheld on appeal, in accordance with the prohibition of industrial development in the Green Belt.

– The site is not zoned for industrial use in the LBE UDP.

– The site is within the Green Belt and the Crews Hill Defined Area.

– Insufficient information to know exactly what is being proposed horticulturally, however due regard should be had to the planning policies of the London Borough of Enfield.

– Since works have started it is much more visible.

– Overdevelopment of the site.

– The use of inappropriate materials.

– A hedge has been removed and a floodlight erected.

– Increase of volume and weight of traffic passing through Culver Garden Centre and residential areas, thereby increasing risk to the general public.

– No provision for HGVs to turn around.

– The drainage ditch indicated on the plans is a main waterway, which has been covered up.

Internal

None.

External

No comments have been received from the London Green Belt Council.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

Policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development

Policy 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London

Policy 3C.16 Tackling congestion and reducing traffic



(I)G1 Support principle of green belt

(I)G2 Developments to improve the environment

(II)G1 Resist proposals for the new buildings or the extension of buildings

Page 91

(II)G2 Proposed development does not damage the open nature of the Green Belt or its landscape character

(II)G6 Area of special character

(II)G11 To ensure that new developments in the green belt do not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding landscape.

(II)G45 New developments in the Crews Hill Defined Area incorporated landscaping measures.

(I)GD1 Appropriate regard to surroundings

(II)GD3 Aesthetics and functional design

(II)GD6 Traffic

(II)GD7 Car parking standards

(II)GD8 Site access and servicing



Other Policy considerations

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

PPG2 Green Belts

PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

PPG13 Transportation

Analysis

Principle of development

The principle of this type of development would normally constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, the Inspector, on a previous Appeal, determined that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development were present, as the site was within a semi-commercial conclave with industrial premises to the north and south, and there is a ‘substantial cluster of garden centres on Cattlegate Road’.

In allowing the Appeal, the Inspector imposed conditions relating to:

1. Approval by the LPA of access, circulation and landscaping;

2. Time limited permission;

3. The building is only to be used for light industrial purposes within Use Class B1(c) of Use Classes Order; and

4. Restriction on hours of use and deliveries

In addition, a Certificate of Lawfulness was issued in 2005 (LDC/04/0507) confirming that part of the glasshouse has been used for the purpose of woodworking, manufacture and storage on a continuous basis for more than 10 years prior to the date of the application.

Page 92

Impact on surroundings / Amenity

The proposed development reduces the footprint of the original building by 260m2, and various outbuildings with a total footprint in excess of 176m2 are to be removed thus reducing the visual impact of the building on the surrounding area and helping to improve the openness of the site. The plywood and white plastic panels, along with the uPVC corrugated sheeting on the roof, are different to the traditionally employed materials, namely glazing, however they will help to improve the appearance of the building. A suitably worded condition can be imposed on any approval to ensure that an appropriate coloured paint finish is applied, suitable to the surrounding Green Belt.

Landscaping is proposed, in accordance with Condition 05 imposed by the Inspector at Appeal. A suitably worded condition would be imposed on any approval to ensure appropriate planting and protection of any existing plantings that will be retained.

Transportation

The Inspector noted that access and servicing arrangements were very casual in the vicinity. The Inspector also noted that whilst parking provision was below Unitary Development Plan standards, more could be provided within the site, as could a loading and waiting bay.

The current proposal increases the amount of parking provision from the previously proposed 10 to 25 spaces. Some of the additional spaces, and a 13m diameter turning circle, is provided are provided in the area of open space created by the partial demolition of some of the existing glasshouse structure.

The Inspector also considered that due to the distance to the highway, it would be highly unlikely that the development would give rise to parking on the adjacent highway.


A sustainability assessment was submitted with the application. This has received a satisfactory score.

Conclusion

As the proposed development is similar to that allowed on Appeal, it would be very difficult to resist the current application. The proposal will improve the appearance of the structures, it will reduce the total footprint of built development on the site, thus helping to improve the openness of the surrounding Green Belt. Approval is recommended for the following reasons:

1 Having regard to the Inspectors decision in relation to reference TP/05/1769, the reduction in the amount of built development on the site and the associated increase in openness, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy (II)G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposal provides an opportunity to enhance the appearance of the site for the benefit of the wider Green Belt, the Crews Hill Defined Area and the amenities of adjoining occupiers. In this respect the development complies with Policies (I)G2, (II)G2, (II)G11, (II)G45, (I)GD1 and (I)GD2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed development will not give rise to undue traffic generation and appropriate provision is made for access and car parking. In this respect the

Page 93

development complies with policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 94


Scale 1/2500 Date 15/8/2007

TP/87/0074/VAR1

Centre = 536437 E 197117 N

Page 95

Application Number: TP/87/0074/VAR1 Ward: Enfield Highway Date of Registration: 15th March 2007


Location: 1371, Mollison Avenue, Junction With Stockingswater Lane, Enfield, EN3 7NJ

Proposal: Variation of condition 2 of approval granted under ref: TP/87/0074 to allow retail use ancillary to existing warehouse use (class B8) together with associated revised car parking layout.


Dreams Plc Knaves Beach High Wycombe HP10 9QY


Dreams Plc Knaves Beach High Wycombe HP10 9QY

Recommendation: That subject to referral to Government Office for London, planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 the showroom area outlined in red and drawing No. E2415DE07 shall be used for the display and retail sale of beds, mattresses, divans, futons, headboards and bedsteads in conjunction with the use of the ground floor of the building for the storage and distributing beds and mattresses and shall not be used for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the use is appropriates to the Primary Industrial Area Location and to safeguard the retail viability of Town Centres.

2. Public access to the premises shall be restricted to area outlined in red on drawing number E2415DE07.

Reason: To ensure that the use is appropriates to the Primary Industrial Area Location and to safeguard the retail viability of Town Centres.

3. That the areas identified for staff, customer and lorry parking on drawing number 'E2415DE07' shall be maintained for that purpose only and shall not be used by customers for parking.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice conditions of safety or traffic flow on the adjoining highway.


5. C46 No Subdivision

Page 96

6. Before the use is commenced, details of directional signage to the retail car parking shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.



Warehouse building situated on the east side of Mollison Avenue north of its junction with Stockingswater Lane and Braithwaite Road located within the Brimsdown Primary Industrial Area.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to vary condition 2 of the permission granted under ref. TP87/0074 in respect of the erection of a food warehouse (9,184 sq. m.) to allow the limited sale of non-food related bulky goods.

The proposed net sales area comprises of 990 sq m on the ground floor only. A total of 65 car parking spaces, (three of which are disabled spaces) are provided in the area between the premises and Mollison Avenue. A total of 4 employees will be employed in the proposed ancillary retail area. The proposed opening hours for the showroom are intended to be Monday to Wednesday and Saturday 0830 to 1830hrs, 0830 to 20.30hrs Thursday and Friday and on Sundays and Bank holidays 1100 to 1700hrs.

Relevant planning history

TP/87/0074 – Erection of food warehouse comprising of food warehouse, ancillary offices, caretakers flat together with the provision of car parking and servicing with gatehouse, granted with conditions.

Consultation

Public

29 neighbouring properties were consulted, in addition to the posting of a site and press notice. No letters of objection have been received and one letter of support has been received.

Internal

Head of Economic Development – The applicant has failed to make an overwhelming case for the showroom needing to be alongside the warehouse. Furthermore there is the potential for the proposed use to extend to smaller bed related items, namely linens, duvets, covers and pillows, and would become a ‘normal’ retail use. Thereby generating further customer attraction to a site that does not appear to have adequate car parking provision, resulting in increased congestion harming the operational requirements for existing businesses. The growth of further retail activities could erode the local industrial base and the vitality and viability of the town centres. If planning permission is granted strict controls be applied to ensure the retail activities are curtailed in future, namely personal permission and range of goods that can be sold.

External

Page 97

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority – no objection subject to a condition imposing the submission, approval and implementation of a scheme of landscaping.

Policy

London Plan

Policy 3B.1 Developing London’s Economy


(I)GD1 Appropriate regard to surroundings (II)GD1 Developments are appropriately located (II) GD6, 7 & 8 Access, parking & servicing (II)E2 B1-B8 uses concentrated within Primary Industrial Areas (II)E9 Ancillary retailing in the Primary Industrial Area (I)S1 Wide range of viable shopping & service facilities are provide (I)S3 Safeguard vitality & viability of local shopping

Interim Amendments

Paragraph 4.5.4 Prime Employment Areas Supplementary Planning Guidance (1996)

National and Regional Policy

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPS6 Planning for Town Centres PPG13 Transport

Analysis

Appropriateness of location

The premises are located within the Brimsdown Primary Industrial Area wherein, in accordance with Policies (II)GD1 and (II) E2, it is the Councils normal intention to concentrate activities falling within the B2-B8 Use Classes.

Policy (II) E9 provides that ancillary retailing may be permissible in Primary Industrial Areas (PIA), where such uses are small scale and ancillary to the primary use.

The application site is not classified as a Town Centre, Local Centre or parade in the UDP. The main issues of consideration in assessing such proposed developments is contained in PPS6 with the following criteria:

The need for the development; That the development is of an appropriate scale; That there are no more central sites for the development; There are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; That locations are accessible.

Enfield Town Centre now has the benefit of an extended modern shopping centre, opened in August 2006, with a further 15,290 sq m of retail floorspace; an increase in more than a quarter of

Page 98

available floorspace. This has strengthened the town centre position in terms of attraction and quality.

The appellants identified only one potential unit within the recently completed development at Palace Exchange, with a floor area of 207 sq metres. However as their prospective customers need be able to load their pay and take items directly into their vehicles, rather than carry them to a nearby car park, this town centre location was deemed not suited to the applicant’s needs.

In regard to the nearest shopping district at Ponders End High Street, this large local centre has no vacant retail units of any size.

Accordingly, it is considered that the specific nature of the Dreams Plc’s operation i.e. bed bases and mattresses are by in large not available for sale elsewhere within the local area (with the exception of ‘Argos Extra’ on Southbury Road), and would not therefore give rise to trade loss from other shopping centres and in particular, Enfield Town.

The proposed net sales area comprises of 990 square metres and is restricted to the ground floor. This represents only 9% of the total floorspace. The range of goods to be sold directly relates to the use of the majority of the ground floor of the building for storage and distribution of Dream’s bed products.

The retail impact of the proposal would not be significant and is considered the proposal is acceptable by virtue of being limited in scale and genuinely ancillary to main distribution activity, the principle of non-food related bulky item retail use is already established in neighbouring units, the premises is well served by the local highway network and that there would be no adverse effect on local residential amenity or the wider environment.

Impact upon neighbouring properties

The nearest residential property is 115 metres from the subject site, there are a number of large industrial units, a classified road and a rail line between the established residential area and the application site. It is considered that the proposed development will have no material impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties.

Highways

The site is adjacent to the junction at Mollison Avenue and Stockingwaters Lane, which is a left-in left-out configuration serving the immediate industrial sites. The creation of a showroom is likely to create additional visits to the site, however it is not likely to have any significant affect the performance of the local highway network.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

1. The proposed ancillary retail sales does not detract from the vitality and viability of Enfield Town Centre and other shopping centres, consistent with Policy (I)S1, (I)S3, (II)GD1 and (II)E9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development due to its size siting and design, does not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (II)GD1, & (II) E2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 99

3. The proposed development does not prejudice the provision of on site parking nor would it lead to additional kerbside parking and therefore, does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining highways having regard to Policies (II)GD6 (I)GD7 (II) GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 100

TOWN PLANNING APPEALS

Appeal Information for Period: 01/07/2007 to 10/08/2007

Section 1: New Town Planning Application Appeals

Section 2: Decisions on Town Planning Application Appeals

Page 101

SECTION 1 NEW TOWN PLANNING APPLICATION APPEALS

1

Application No.: AD/07/0081 Ward:Chase

Appeal Type: Written Evidence

Appeal Received date: 07-Aug-2007

Location: CRICKET PAVILION, EAST LODGE LANE, ENFIELD, EN2 8AS

Proposal: Installation of two non illuminated free standing signs to entrance of access road.

Application No.: PA/07/0002 Ward:Winchmore Hill


Appeal Received date: 24-Jul-2007

Location: Green Dragon Lane Path, Green Dragon Lane, London, N21

Proposal: Installation of a telecommunications monopole to a maximum height of 11.75 metres with 3 antennae and equipment cabinet at base.

Application No.: PA/07/0003 Ward:Highlands



Location: Site, West side of The Ridgeway, Opposite Junction With, Glebe Avenue, Enfield, EN2 8PB

Proposal: Installation of a telecommunications mock telegraph pole to a maximum height of 8 metres incorporating antenna and with equipment cabinet at base.

Application No.: PA/07/0006 Ward:Haselbury



Location: SITE, grass verge outside 20, Lambs Terrace, East Side Of, Great Cambridge Road, London, N9 9UG

Proposal: Installation of a telecommunications monopole to a maximum height of 11.7 metres incorporating 3 No. antenna and 2 No. equipment cabinets at base.

Page 103

2

Application No.: TP/06/0578 Ward:Chase

Appeal Type: Hearing


Location: GLASGOW STUD FARM, BURNT FARM RIDE, ENFIELD, EN2 9DY

Proposal: Conversion of existing two dwellings and stables into 12 residential units (1 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed, 2 x 3-bed, 2 x 4-bed and 1 x 5-bed with 1-bed annex building) involving construction of 1st floor to units 6 and 7, installation of dormer windows to units 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, accommodation in roof space of units 8 and 9, rear conservatory to unit 10, single storey extensions to units 4 and 12, formation of front and rear gable ends and provision of associated car parking.

Application No.: TP/06/1362 Ward:Southbury



Location: 43 & 45, Central Avenue, Enfield, EN1 3QD

Proposal: Conversion of no. 45 Central Avenue into 4 no. self contained flats (comprising 2 x studio, 2 x 1- bed) involving erection of a part single, part 2-storey side and rear extension together with alterations to and realignment of boundary with no. 43 Central Avenue and associated car parking at front.

Application No.: TP/06/2194 Ward:Ponders End



Location: 14, CHURCH ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 4NT

Proposal: Rear conservatory (RETROSPECTIVE).

Page 104

3

Application No.: TP/06/2414 Ward:Lower Edmonton



Location: 52, GORDON ROAD, LONDON, N9 0LU

Proposal: Conversion of premises to two self-contained flats (RETROSPECTIVE)




Location: 53, POYNTER ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 1DN

Proposal: Conversion of single family dwelling house into 2 x 1-bed self contained flats.

Application No.: TP/07/0030 Ward:Enfield Highway



Location: 3, NURSERY CLOSE, ENFIELD, EN3 5JZ

Proposal: Subdivision of site to provide 2 residential units (comprising a 4-bed single dwelling and a 2-bed ground floor flat) involving conversion of garage to a habitable room and a single storey side extension and off street parking at front.




Location: 56A, SOUTHBURY ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 1YB

Proposal: Change of use of first floor from residential to office (class A2) (RETROSPECTIVE)

Page 105

4

Application No.: TP/07/0208 Ward:Palmers Green



Location: 372, GREEN LANES, LONDON, N13 5XQ

Proposal: Demolition of garage at rear and erection of a new garage with first floor office accommodation within pitched roof.

Application No.: TP/07/0247 Ward:Winchmore Hill



Location: 73, HILLFIELD PARK, LONDON, N21 3QJ

Proposal: Alterations to roof to form side and rear dormer windows.

Application No.: TP/07/0308 Ward:Jubilee



Location: 5, BEATRICE ROAD, LONDON, N9 8AP

Proposal: Single storey rear extension (RETROSPECTIVE)

Application No.: TP/07/0373 Ward:Grange



Location: 11-14, THE TOWN, ENFIELD, EN2 6LQ

Proposal: Extension of 2nd floor restaurant together with erection of conservatory and raised patio with retaining perimeter wall on roof to provide additional seating.

Page 106

5




Location: 45, MUNSTER GARDENS, LONDON, N13 5DU

Proposal: First floor side extension (Revised scheme).




Location: Site, West side of Hoppers Road, North Of Junction With, Downes Court, Winchmore Hill, London, N21 3PU

Proposal: Installation of telecommunications mock telegraph pole to a maximum height of 8 metres (including antenna) and equipment cabinet at base.

Application No.: TP/07/0392 Ward:Bush Hill Park



Location: 61 & 63, LEIGHTON ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 1XN

Proposal: Subdivision of site and erection of 2 semi detached 3-bed single family dwellinghouses with off street parking at front.

Application No.: TP/07/0450 Ward:Southgate



Location: 1, CHARTER WAY, LONDON, N14 4JS

Proposal: First floor side extension and front bay at first floor (amendment to approval granted under ref. TP/06/0405).

Page 107

6




Location: 83, LEIGHTON ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 1XW

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and erection of part single, part two storey side and rear extension to provide a 2-bed single family dwelling house together with erection of a front porch to existing dwelling.




Location: 18, PRIVATE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 2EH

Proposal: Single storey rear extension.




Location: 16, BROOMFIELD AVENUE, LONDON, N13 4JN

Proposal: Rear roof terrace. (RETROSPECTIVE)




Location: 3, BEECH AVENUE, ENFIELD, EN2 9DB

Proposal: Side dormer window

Page 108

7




Location: 441, ALMA ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 7RT

Proposal: Single storey rear extension.

Application No.: TP/07/0760 Ward:Haselbury



Location: INDUSTRIAL PREMISES, 2A, LION ROAD, LONDON, N9 9DW

Proposal: Partial demolition and alteration to existing workshop and change of use to office together with erection of a detached 2-storey 2-bed house at side with associated car parking and access.




Location: 55, ECCLESBOURNE GARDENS, LONDON, N13 5JD

Proposal: Conversion of single family dwelling house into 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats involving single storey rear extension and rear and side dormer windows, together with 2 garages at rear and widening of existing access to Oakthorpe Road.

Application No.: TP/07/1040 Ward:Bush Hill Park



Location: 12, ROWANTREE CLOSE, LONDON, N21 3EE

Proposal: Side and rear dormers.

Page 109

8




Location: 79, WESTMINSTER ROAD, LONDON, N9 8RD

Proposal: Conversion of 2 storey attached dwelling house into 2no. 1xbed self-contained flats.

Application No.: TP/07/1063 Ward:Cockfosters



Location: 78, WAGGON ROAD, BARNET, EN4 0PP

Proposal: Single storey side extension, part single, part two storey front extension, formation of sun terrace to second floor at front, pergola to front, alterations to external look of building and amendment to first floor bay granted under ref. TP/05/1032/VAR1.

Page 110

SECTION 2 DECISIONS ON TOWN PLANNING APPLICATION APPEALS

1

Application No.: PA/06/0016 Ward:Highlands

(Delegated - 29-Aug-2006 - REFUSED)


Appeal Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 06-Aug-2007

Location: Site, south side of Merryhills Drive, Adjacent Boxers Lake Open Space, opposite 174, Lonsdale Drive, Enfield, EN2 7NF

Proposal: Installation of a telecommunications mock telegraph pole to a maximum height of 8 metres incorporating antenna and with equipment cabinet at base.


(Delegated - 14-Jan-2003 - REFUSED)


Appeal Decision: Appeal withdrawn Decision Date: 08-Aug-2007

Location: 14, GROVE GARDENS, ENFIELD, EN3 5PG

Proposal: Loft conversion incorporating rear dormer window and formation of gable end.


(Delegated - 13-Jul-2006 - REFUSED)


Appeal Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 24-Jul-2007

Location: REDGATES NURSERY, 1791, GREAT CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN8 8EX

Proposal: Demolition of conservatory and erection of extension to bungalow to increase height by providing first and second floor accommodation together with single storey side and rear extension to create a five bed single family dwelling.

Page 111





Location: 41, CHURCH HILL, LONDON, N21 1LE

Proposal: Replacement windows and doors





Location: 15, LODGE DRIVE, LONDON, N13 5LA

Proposal: Rear conservatory (retrospective)


(Delegated - 02-Aug-2006 - REFUSED)



Location: REAR OF, 206-210, HERTFORD ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 5BH

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide a 2-storey block of 2 semi detached single family dwellings (comprising 1 x 2-bed & 1 x 3 bed) with part under croft parking.

Page 112

Application No.: TP/06/1099 Ward:Town



Appeal Decision: Appeal allowed subject to condition(s)

Decision Date: 04-Jul-2007

Location: 88, GORDON HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 0QS

Proposal: Installation of a low level bicycle store at front


(Planning Committee - 14-Sep-2006 - REFUSED)



Location: Lincoln Court, And, 70-86, London Road, Enfield, Middx, EN2

Proposal: Construction of 3rd and 4th floors to existing block to provide an additional 16 x 2-bed flats with balconies at rear and terraces to 4th floor at front and rear together with associated car parking.


(Delegated - 05-Oct-2006 - REFUSED)


Appeal Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 01-Aug-2007

Location: 8a, COLMORE ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 7AL

Proposal: Change of use from Day Care Centre to Residential Care Home / Independent Hospital .

Page 113


(Delegated - 15-Nov-2006 - REFUSED)



Location: 86, CHASE SIDE, LONDON, N14 5PH

Proposal: Use of public footpath as external seating area


(Delegated - 28-Sep-2006 - REFUSED)



Location: 17, BROOMFIELD AVENUE, LONDON, N13 4JJ

Proposal: Conversion of premises to 5 self-contained residential units (comprising 1 x studio, 1 x 2 bed, 3 x 1 bed) - RETROSPECTIVE


(Delegated - 28-Sep-2006 - REFUSED)



Location: 9, BROOMFIELD AVENUE, LONDON, N13 4JJ

Proposal: Conversion of premises to form 5 self-contained residential units (comprising 1studio, 1x 2 bedroom and 3 x 1 bedroom) - RETROSPECTIVE

Page 114





Location: The New Crown, 80-84, Chase Side, Southgate, N14 5PH

Proposal: Use of public footpath for seating enclosed by removable screens.

Application No.: TP/06/1625 Ward:Upper Edmonton



Appeal Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 09-Jul-2007

Location: 82, DYSONS ROAD, LONDON, N18 2DL

Proposal: Conversion of single family dwelling house into 2No. 1 bed self contained flats (retrospective).

Application No.: TP/06/1643 Ward:Turkey Street




Location: 74, BULLSMOOR LANE, ENFIELD, EN3 6TN

Proposal: Vehicular Access and constructuion of hardstanding.

Page 115






Location: 39, DURANTS ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 7AN

Proposal: Change of use from single family dwelling to office use on ground floor and conversion of first floor into 1 bed self contained flat together with single storey rear extension.

Application No.: TP/06/1731 Ward:Upper Edmonton



Appeal Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 06-Aug-2007

Location: 173 & 175, PASTEUR GARDENS, LONDON, N18 1AJ

Proposal: Two storey front infill extension and canopy porch to front.

Application No.: TP/06/1823 Ward:Highlands




Location: 191-193, The Ridgeway, Enfield, Middx, EN2 8JR

Proposal: Demolition of existing buidings and redevelopment of site for residential purposes, comprising 12 flats with accss to Spring Court Road. (Outline application - layout, scale and access)

Page 116

Application No.: TP/06/1846 Ward:Cockfosters




Location: 12, BEECH HILL, BARNET, EN4 0JP

Proposal: Erection of replacement detached 6-bed single family dwellinghouse with double garage and front and rear dormer windows.


(Delegated - 08-Dec-2006 - REFUSED)




Location: 169A, HERTFORD ROAD, LONDON, N9 7EL

Proposal: Construction of second floor to provide a 2-bed self contained flat (revised scheme).


(Delegated - 16-Jan-2007 - REFUSED)




Location: Kingswell House and, Land To The Rear Of, 453, Southbury Road, Enfield, EN3 4HR

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and mixed use redevelopment of part 2, 3 , 4 and 5 storey buildings to provide 130 residential units (comprising 41 x 1 bed, 79 x 2 bed and 10 x 3 bed) together with 448 m2 of retail (Class A1), public and private amenity open space, childrens play area, provision of surface and under croft parking for 85 spaces with through vehicular access from Kingsway to Emilia Close.

Page 117






Location: 16, QUEEN ELIZABETHS DRIVE, LONDON, N14 6RB

Proposal: Alterations to the roof to form a side and rear dormer window.

Application No.: TP/06/1953 Ward:Southgate Green





Location: 14, THE RIDGEWAY, LONDON, N14 6NU

Proposal: Single storey extension to garage at front with mono pitched roof over (revised scheme).






Location: 70, POYNTER ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 1DL

Proposal: Conversion of single family dwelling house into 2 x 1-bed self contained flats

Page 118





Location: 16, BYCULLAH AVENUE, ENFIELD, EN2 8DN

Proposal: Redevelopment for the erection of two 2-storey semi-detached dwellings at the rear with associated parking (outline application - layout, scale and access).

Application No.: TP/06/2069 Ward:Edmonton Green




Location: 49, NORTHERN AVENUE, LONDON, N9 9QY

Proposal: Single storey side and rear extension





Location: 108, LEIGHTON ROAD, ENFIELD, EN1 1XW

Proposal: Subdivision of site and erection of an end of terrace 2-storey 1-bed house.

Page 119





Location: 8, LANGSIDE CRESCENT, LONDON, N14 7DR

Proposal: First floor side extension and two storey side extension.





Location: 11, CORRI AVENUE, LONDON, N14 7HL

Proposal: Single storey side / rear extension and first floor side and rear extensions.


(Delegated - 01-Feb-2007 - REFUSED)



Location: 191-193, The Ridgeway, Enfield, Middx, EN2 8JR

Proposal: Demolition of existing buidings and redevelopment of site for residential purposes, comprising 11 flats with access to Spring Court Road. (Outline application - layout, scale and access)

Page 120

- 1 -

MUNICIPAL YEAR 2007/2008 REPORT NO. 71 MEETING TITLE AND DATE: Planning Committee 30th August 2007 REPORT OF: Stephen Tapper Assistant Director of Planning & Transportation Environment, Street Scene and Parks

Contact officer and telephone number: Julian Jackson (0208 379 3857)

3.0 The importance of BVPI 109 3.1 The Government gives high priority to efficiency in planning services, and

has set councils challenging targets in respect of the speed of processing planning applications.

Subject: Monitoring Performance in respect of BVPI109 - Speed of determining planning applications

Agenda – Part: 1

Wards:

Item: 6

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 It is proposed that the Committee be kept informed about progress in meeting Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 109 targets by bringing reports on a quarterly basis.

1.2 This report shows performance achieved for the first quarter of 2007/ 2008

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the performance of the service against BVPI (109) targets for determining all categories of planning applications in the first quarter of 2007/2008 is noted.

Agenda Item 6Page 121

- 2 -

3.2 In 2004/05 the Government set councils the following targets in respect of the three parts of BVPI 109:

a) “Major” applications – 60% to be determined in 13 weeks. b) “Minor” applications – 65% to be determined in 8 weeks. c) “Other” applications – 80% to be determined in 8 weeks.

3.3 BVPI 109 is important because performance against its targets has been one

of the assessment criteria for Planning Delivery Grant. As a result of the council’s performance against development Control targets between July 2006 and March 31st 2007 Enfield have been provisionally allocated the second highest award in the country for Development Control Performance

3.4 The Council committed to show improvement in its BVPI 109 performance in the CPA 2002 Action Plan, and it is also one of the weighted PIs in the CPA 2005.

4.0 Considerations for 2007/08 4.1 The Council set itself the Government’s national target of 63% in 13 weeks for

performance on Major applications in 2006/07. This was a significant challenge. However through careful management of every Major application, the service achieved 82.89% by March 31st 2007. Whilst the national target for major applications in 2007/2008 remains at 60%, due to the progress made we have set ourselves a target of 77%. This is the threshold for the upper quartile.

4.2 We have set ourselves 2007/08 targets of 85% and 93% respectively for the

Minor and Other categories, and these are well above the Government’s targets. The graph attached with this report outlines the progress made in determining the three categories of application over the first quarter of the 2007/2008 financial year. For the Minor and Other categories of applications the service continue to perform at a high level achieving a 86.42% and 93.27% respectively. For major applications the percentage of applications determined within 13 weeks stands at 71.43%.

4.3 The government have not altogether decided on the successor of the

Planning Delivery Grant. However it is clear that the government will expect high level performance in Development Control to continue as part of the emerging reforms outlined in the Planning White Paper.

Page 122

BV

109 -

1st

Qtr

2007-

08 (

Cu

mu

lati

ve)

71.4

3%

71.4

3%

0.0

0%81.6

7%

86.4

2%

85.3

7%

95.4

8%

94.7

4%

93.2

7%

0.0

0%

10.0

0%

20.0

0%

30.0

0%

40.0

0%

50.0

0%

60.0

0%

70.0

0%

80.0

0%

90.0

0%

100.0

0%

AP

RIL

MA

YJU

NE

Mo

nth

%age

MA

JO

R %

AG

E

MIN

OR

%A

GE

OT

HE

R %

AG

E

Page 123

public document pack - enfield...planning committee contact: natalie cole or jane creer committee...

Documents