Application Number: LBC/06/0036 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 6Th November 2006

LBC/06/0036

Application Number: LBC/06/0036 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 6th November 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: FORTY HALL, FORTY HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 9EU

Proposal: Alterations to courtyard wall for access to toilet block, together with alterations to existing toilets and access.

Applicant Name & Address:

Parks Department, London Borough of Enfield CHARLES BABBAGE HOUSE 1, ORTON GROVE ENFIELD EN1 4TW

Agent Name & Address:

Paul Malone, Ingleton Wood LLP 10, Lake Meadows Business Park Woodbrook Crescent Billericay Essex CM12 0EQ

Note to Members

These proposals require both planning permission and listed building consent. See LBE/06/0036, the report on the planning application, elsewhere on this agenda, for full details of this proposal.

Recommendation: That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 the Director of Environment, Street Scene and Parks be invited to make an application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who should be invited to attach the following conditions to any approval:-

1. That development shall not commence until details to a scale of 1:5 of the new opening and gate in the courtyard wall adjacent to the male WC as shown for illustrative purposes on drawings 204 C and 205 C have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The new opening and gate shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the listed building.

2. That development shall not commence until details of the method of fixing of the proposed gate in the courtyard wall adjacent to the male WC as shown for illustrative purposes on drawings 204 C and 205 C have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The gate shall be fixed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the listed building.

3. That development shall not commence until details of all materials for the new arch in the courtyard wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The arch shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the listed building.

4. That development shall not commence until details to a scale of 1:5 and materials for the new door to the accessible WC have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The door shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the listed building.

5. That development shall not commence until details of facing materials to the proposed ramp edges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The ramp shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the listed building.

6. All new works and works of repair and reinstatement shall match exactly the existing adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture, profile and workmanship and in the case of brickwork, facebond and pointing, unless shown otherwise on the drawing or other documentation hereby approved or required by a condition attached to this consent.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the Listed Building.

7. C53A Time Limit - Listed Building Consent

LBE/06/0038

Application Number: LBE/06/0038 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 6th November 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: FORTY HALL, FORTY HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 9EU

Proposal: Alterations to existing toilets and access.

Applicant Name & Address:

Parks Department, London Borough of Enfield CHARLES BABBAGE HOUSE 1, ORTON GROVE ENFIELD EN1 4TW

Agent Name & Address:

Paul Malone, Ingleton Wood LLP 10, Lake Meadows Business Park Woodbrook Crescent Billericay Essex CM12 0EQ

Recommendation: That planning permission be deemed to be GRANTED, subject to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992, subject to the following conditions:-

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the listed building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the Listed Building.

7. C53A Time Limit - Listed Building Consent

Site and surroundings Forty Hall is a grade I listed building situated within Forty Hill and Bulls Cross Conservation Area, the Green Belt and Area of Special Character. It is also included on the National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. The Forty Hall site also contains a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The toilet block is a modern incursion situated to the east side of the courtyard and to the rear of Forty Hall itself.

Proposal Permission is sought for the refurbishment of the public toilets with alterations to the approaches to the entrance doors to provide ease of access to ambulant/wheel chair users as part of the Disability Discrimination Act requirements 1995. It is also proposed to provide a new access through the courtyard wall to gain access to the toilet block directly from the courtyard/café area (which has recently been refurbished) as well as from the park. This necessitates breaking through the wall to form a gated opening with a design to respect the main courtyard screen gates.

Relevant planning history There are a number of planning applications relating to Forty Hall but none relevant to this application.

Consultation

Public

The Forty Hill and Bulls Cross Study group were consulted and raised the following observations on the modified scheme: -

• Request careful consideration to selection and use of materials especially path surfaces. • Rationale for gate design is unclear • Group concerned that details in respect of signage and lighting have not been specified. • Group suggest conditions be placed on development in respect of restricting times of use, maintaining security and safety and restricting unauthorised use of the new access.

The application was advertised as development affecting a listed building in the Forty Hill Conservation Area.

Internal

None

External

English Heritage raises no objections to the internal alterations to the toilets, or the changes to the doorway, providing the door is of high quality. No objection to the principle of ramped access, again high quality materials to be used. Concerned with the insertion of 2 doorways through the wall due to loss of original fabric and the changes to the crenellations and would not support the opening nearest the female WC. Suggest extending the ramp further between the door to the accessible WC and that to the female WC (Outside the courtyard) which would enable equal access to Male, Female and the accessible WC by utilising the one proposed opening nearest the male WC. The proposed gate design is unconvincing, in that it does not fit within the proposed opening (and, therefore, also appears squat) and its detailing and sections appear to be an unconvincing copy of the historic iron gates elsewhere. English Heritage therefore recommend that application should be amended to minimise alterations to the grade 1 listed wall.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

4B.7 Respect local context and communities 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.6 Sustainable Design and Construction

Unitary Development Plan

(I) GD1: Regard to surroundings (I) GD2: Improving the environment (II) GD1: Appropriate location for new developments (II) GD3: Aesthetics and functional design (I) C1: Preserving and enhancing, areas, sites, buildings and landscape features of archaeological, architectural or historic importance. (II) C1: To ensure that buildings of architectural or historic interest are preserved or enhanced. (II) C12: Managing and maintaining historic buildings. (II) C17: To resist substantial built development within historic cartilages (II)C19: Historic landscapes

(II) C27: To ensure that the setting of buildings of architectural/historic interest is protected. (II) C30: New buildings and alterations in the Conservation Area to reflect/complement traditional characteristics of the area. (II) G1: To resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt (I) G2: Improvement and enhancement of Green Belt.

Interim UDP Amendments

(II) SDC1 Sustainable Design and Construction

Other Policy considerations:

Planning Policy Guidance PPG 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

Analysis

Principle of development

There is no objection in principle to the works proposed. The internal alterations to the toilet block are considered Permitted Development under Part 12, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.Planning permission and listed building consent is however sought for the alterations proposed to the Courtyard Wall. This application if deemed to be granted planning permission will required to be notified by the applicant to the Secretary of State (Government Office for London) under Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990, regulation 13 and the Secretary of State will reconsult English Heritage again on the proposal.

Impact on the listed building

The proposed works have been modified since the initial application was made, in line with English Heritage’s recommendation and in order to minimise the alterations proposed to the courtyard wall and be more sympathetic to the original fabric of the listed building.

The proposals will allow the courtyard café area to have a direct link to the refurbished toilet block. Currently the route to the public toilets involves a route through the main gates and along a small section of road which is not ideal for wheel chair users. The installation of a single portal opening in the wall on the male toilet side only with the pathway extended to reach the female toilet is now proposed instead of the 2 openings originally proposed. It is not intended to carry out any alterations to the castellated wall or paving on the female toilet side of the courtyard.

The details submitted of the gate and entrance adjacent to the male WC is for illustrative purposes. The quality of the gate depends on the final detailing and the quality of the craftmenship and is proposed to be dealt with by condition. Forty Hall, its surroundings buildings and landscape all contribute to an interesting and sensitive historic location. It is essential that the highest standards are maintained in all works however small.

Other matters raised in consultation

The application does not include any details in respect of signage and lighting. If any alterations were proposed this would require a further planning application. No conditions have been

included to restrict the use of the new access and toilet block, as the same restrictions to the opening of the toilets will apply as currently in place.

Sustainable Design and Construction

The completed Sustainability Assessment submitted with this application scores in excess of 50% which is considered to be acceptable. On this basis it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy (II) SDC1, Sustainable Design and Construction (Interim Amendments)

The application is accompanied by an access statement in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requirements.

Conclusion

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

1. The proposed alterations have appropriate regard to the buildings architectural and historic interest and in this respect complies with Policies (I) C1 and (II) C12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal provides improved facilities in accordance with policy (II) GD11of the Unitary development Plan.

3. The sustainability measures identified in the sustainability assessment form submitted are considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of interim Policy (II) SDC1 of the Unitary Development Plan, therefore achieving a suitable level of sustainable design and construction.

PA/06/0027

Application Number: PA/06/0027 Ward: Palmers Green Date of Registration: 7th December 2006

Contact: Andy Higham 020 8379 3848

Location: Site, south side of Hedge Lane, Opposite Junction With Mintern Close, Edmonton, London, N13 5ST

Proposal: Installation of a telecommunications monopole to maximum height of 11.7 metres including 3 antennae and associated equipment cabinets at base.

Applicant Name & Address:

T-Mobile (UK) Ltd Hatfield Business Park Hertfordshire AL10 9BW

Agent Name & Address:

Hifzul Moosa, Commpro Telecommunications Unit 4, Wentworth Business Park Maple Court Tankersley South Yorkshire S75 3DP

Recommendation: That prior approval is not required and that the details of the siting and appearance are APPROVED for the following reason:.

1. The proposed siting and design of the telecommunications equipment and associated cabinets would not have any unduly adverse effects on the character and amenity of the locality having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)EN6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Site and Surroundings

The site is located on the southern side of Hedge Lane opposite Mintern Close and immediately to the north of the boundary with Hazelwood Playing Fields. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with Mintern Close comprising a development of three storey blocks of flats whilst to the east and west, are two storey semi detached and terraced dwellings.

Amplification of Proposal

Approval is sought for the installation of an 11.7 metre monopole with 3 antennae enclosed in a Glass Reinforced Plastic shroud. Two associated cabinets, one on either side of the pole, are proposed at ground level to house ancillary equipment.

Relevant Planning Decisions

No relevant history for the site.

Consultations

Public

Consultation letters were sent to 407 neighbouring properties. Notice was also displayed at the site and published in the local press. One letter of objection has been received raising the following concerns:

- ‘Precautionary approach’ should be adopted - Lack of time to respond to letter given the Christmas holiday period. - Assume that the Council is selling/letting a part of the Recreation Ground for this mast.

Any further representations received will be reported at Committee.

Internal

None

External

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Policy 3B.7 Improving London’s ICT Infrastructure Policy 4B.7 Respect Local Context and Communities

Unitary Development Plan

(I) GD1 New development have regard to its surroundings. (I) GD2 New development improve quality of life and visual amenity. (II) GD1 New developments are appropriately located. (I) EN1 Quality of the environment throughout the Borough (II) EN6 Siting of telecommunications apparatus.

Interim UDP Amendments

None

Other Policy Considerations

PPG 8 Telecommunications

Analysis

This is an application for prior approval and as such, the issues we are able to consider are limited to those relating to siting and appearance.

In addition, Para. 54 of PPG8 states that “Planning Authorities should have regard to any technical constraints on the location and proposed development. Material considerations include the significance of the proposed development as part of a national network. In making an

application for planning permission or prior approval, operators may be expected to provide evidence regarding the need for the proposed development.”

For this application, the applicant has submitted additional justification that there is an identified need for this equipment in this location to ensure 3G coverage in the locality. The applicant has also provided information on the alternative locations considered within the defined search area for this mast. These were subsequently rejected for a variety of reasons including technical, location and availability and this information has been taken into account.

Visual Amenity issues

The proposed mast would be located between two existing streetlamps, approximately 10.0 metres high. It is considered that the mast, at 11.7 metres high, although taller than the existing streetlamps, would not be unduly out of keeping with the appearance of street furniture within the existing street scene. Moreover, the addition of this mast into the street scene would not result, it is considered in visual clutter, detrimental to the appearance and character of the locality.

The mast and the large cabinets are not considered to result in a visually obtrusive feature, due to their size and sting, and would therefore not unduly detract from the visual amenities of the street scene or neighbouring properties.

Siting

The site is approximately 25 metres from the nearest residential properties both opposite the site, in Mintern Close, and to the east of the site on Hedge Lane. The site is approximately 55 metres from the nearest residential neighbours on Madeira Road, to the west of the site. Having regard to these distances and the context of the street scene, , it is considered that the proposed mast would not appear unduly intrusive in the outlook of these neighbouring and nearby properties

Health concerns

Objectors have raised concerns about the health impacts of the proposed telecommunications equipment due to the proximity to residential properties and schools. The concerns raised by residents regarding potential health risks are noted. Whilst health risks and the fear of health risks may be material planning considerations, the government planning advice in respect of telecommunications installations set out in Planning Policy Guidance 8 “Telecommunications” is that if the proposed installation meets ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary to further consider health aspects and concerns about them. The applicant has certified that the installation complies with the above guidelines. No objection on this ground is therefore raised.

Conclusion

When assessing this application, weight has been given to a similar proposal, in terms of it’s siting adjacent to open space and the distance from residential properties, to an application for prior approval on Bourne Hill, (ref: PA/05/0020). In this case, the Council refused the application and determined that prior approval was required. However, on appeal, the decision of the Planning Inspectorate was to allow the appeal and grant approval. In this case the Inspector considered that the monopole and associated equipment would not “appear prominent or intrusive” and so would “not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area”. In relation to the proximity to residential neighbours the Inspector found that “concerns about the perceived risk to the health and safety of the local community do not justify withholding approval”.

In light of the circumstances of this proposal, and the recent appeal decision, it is therefore recommended that prior approval is not required

1 The proposed siting and design of the telecommunications equipment and associated cabinets would not have any unduly adverse effects on the character and amenity of the locality having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)EN6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/06/1866

Application Number: TP/06/1866 Ward: Chase Date of Registration: 25th October 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: WATER TOWER, THE RIDGEWAY, ENFIELD, EN2 8AH

Proposal: Conversion of water tower to 4-bed dwelling with roof terrace involving erection of lower ground floor and basement extension at side incorporating underground swimming pool.

Applicant Name & Address:

Xen Ioannou, Zencastle Corp Ltd PO Box 35487 NW8 7WA

Agent Name & Address:

Sergios Sergiou, Studio 136 Architects 136, Woodcock Hill Kenton Middx HA3 0JN

Notes for Members

This application was reported to Planning Committee on 21st December 2006, when Members deferred consideration pending a site inspection. A site visit took place on 20th January 2007 and the application is therefore reported back for Members consideration.

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

1. That within 1 month of the date of decision details of the external finishing materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance.

2. That within 1 month of the date of decision details of the surfacing materials to be used within the development including footpaths, access roads and parking areas and road markings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surfacing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved detail before the development is occupied or use commences.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety and a satisfactory appearance.

3. That within 1 month of the date of this decision plans detailing the existing and proposed ground levels including the levels of any proposed buildings, roads and/or hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that levels have regard to the level of surrounding development, gradients and surface water drainage.

4. C11 Details of Enclosure

5. That prior to occupation of the development hereby approved details of trees, shrubs and grass to be planted on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or occupation of the development whichever is the sooner. Any planting which dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced with new planting in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance and ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety.

6. That within 1 month of the date of this decision details of earthworks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the dwelling.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposed extension is satisfactorily integrated into its setting and ensure the mounding proposed does not prejudice existing trees on site

7. C18 Details of Tree Protection

8. That within 1 month of the date of this decision a full tree survey of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey shall identify all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained. No retained tree or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard {3998 (Tree Work)} If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the existing trees and hedgerows, which contribute to the landscape character of the site are retained.

9. C21 Construction Servicing Area

10. That within 1 month of the date of this decision details of facilities and methodology for cleaning the wheels of construction vehicles leaving the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities and methodology shall be provided prior to the commencement of site works and shall be used and maintained during the construction period.

Reason: To prevent the transfer of site material onto the public highway in the interests of safety and amenity.

11. C25 No additional Fenestration

12. C28 Restriction of Permitted Dev - Buildings

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any amending order, no walls, fences, gates or any other means of enclosure shall be erected on any part of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the setting of the locally listed building and the character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt.

14. That within 1 month of the date of this decision detailed drawings, including sections, to a scale of 1:20 or larger, of the proposed new window openings and windows within the Water Tower shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation.

Reason: In order to safeguard the architectural and historic interest of this locally listed building.

15. That all new works and works of repair and reinstatement to the Water Tower shall match exactly the original in terms of materials used, colour, texture, profile and workmanship, and in the case of brickwork, facebond and pointing.

Reason: In order to safeguard the architectural and historic interest of this locally listed building

16. That within 1 month of the date of this decision details of alterations to the existing access to the site to improve visibility splays shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

17. That within 1 month of the date of this decision details of all external pipework, including soil pipes and rainwater goods, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to safeguard the architectural and historic interest of this locally listed building

18. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

Botany Bay Water Tower a locally listed building on the north side of The Ridgeway and located with the Green Belt, Area of Special Character. The building is now redundant.

Amplification of Proposal

This application is a revised scheme following the grant of planning permission for the conversion of the building to residential use, including a ground floor extension cut substantially into the ground and linked to the tower by a corridor. This application seeks consent for the retention of a larger extension to the building, beneath that already approved (although larger in footprint) and therefore below natural ground levels. The main tower remains to be converted to provide 4

bedrooms, involving the introduction of 3 new floors and a staircase to top of the tower. The extension will provide the main living rooms, with a swimming pool, home cinema, gym and associated accommodation below ground level. A patio area is formed, effectively over the roof of the of the lower level accommodation and mounding is proposed at existing ground levels around the extension. Access to the site remains via the existing point of access onto The Ridgeway.

Relevant Planning Decisions

LBE/04/0024 Planning permission granted for conversion of water tower to 4-bed dwelling house with roof terrace involving erection of lower ground floor extension at side.

Consultations

Public

One letter of objection has been received from Ward Councillor Dey.

External

None

Internal

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Policy 3D.8 Green Belt Policy 3A.1 Increasing London’s housing supply Policy 3A.2 Borough housing targets Policy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction

Unitary Development Plan

(I)G1 To support strongly the principle of the Green Belt. (II)G1 To resist inappropriate development except in very special circumstances (II)G5 & 6 Areas of special character (II)G11 Criteria for design of new development in Green Belt (I)C1 To ensure buildings of architectural or historic interest, together with their character and setting are preserved or enhanced. (II)C11 To apply the same policies and standards to locally listed buildings as those on the statutory list (II)C17 Normally to resist substantial built development within the historic curtilages of listed buildings (I) & (II)H1 To increase the housing stock (II)GD6 Traffic implications (II)GD7 Parking standards (II)GD8 Access and servicing

UDP Interim Amendments

Cycle parking standards Sustainable design and construction (SDC1)

Other Policy Considerations

PPG2 Green Belts PPG3 Housing PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment

Analysis

The Principle

Given the locally listed status of this building it is appropriate to find an alternative use for it that secures its future. This proposal will achieve that. PPG2 Green Belts advises that the re-use of existing buildings does not necessarily constitute inappropriate development, subject to certain criteria. It is considered that this proposal generally fulfils those criteria as amplified below and therefore the principle of this development is considered acceptable.

Impact on the character of the building

Planning permission has already been granted for a single storey extension to the side of the building. The additional extension proposed as part of this planning is below ground level and therefore will have no further undue impact on the setting of the locally listed building. All other elements of the scheme, including the alterations to main building to make it habitable, remain as previously approved.

Impact on the Green Belt

This existing building is of permanent and substantial construction and therefore suitable for re- use in Green Belt terms. The proposed extension, including the additional element below ground, has been designed so as to minimise its impact on the openness of the site. It is considered, therefore that the proposal will not have a materially greater impact than the former use on the openness of the Green Belt. However, given this is a large site and residential use will bring with it permitted development rights, it is appropriate to remove these by condition.

Traffic, access and parking

The use of the property as a single dwelling will not lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic on the existing highway network. The proposal continues to involve using the existing vehicular access to the site. No objection has been raised in principle to this. However, as visibility into and out of the site is poor at present, the opportunity should be taken to improve this. A condition requiring the submission of details of alterations to the access to improve visibility is recommended.

The site is capable of meeting the Council’s car parking standards without having any adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Sustainable Design and Construction

A good score has previously been achieved against the Councils sustainable development assessment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the bringing back into beneficial use of this redundant building is to be welcomed. The proposed additional extension sought as part of this application, given its location below ground level, will not have any materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In the circumstances it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the following reasons:

1 The proposal provides for the bringing back into beneficial use of this locally listed building. In this respect the proposal complies with Policies (I)C1 and (II)C11 of the Unitary Development Plan. 2 The proposed alterations to and extension of the building as proposed respect the character and architectural and historic interest of the building. In this respect the proposal complies with Policy (I)C1, (II)C11 and (II)C17 of the Unitary Development Plan 3 The proposal involves the re-use of an existing building of permanent and substantial construction and the development will not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt. In this respect the proposal complies with Government advice as contained in PPG2, Green Belts and Policy (I)G1 the Unitary Development Plan. 4 The proposed extension to the building has been designed to respect the landscape character of the site. In this respect the proposal complies with Policies (II)G5, (II)G6 and (II)G11 of the Unitary Development Plan. 5 The development will not result in a significant increase in traffic on the existing highway network and is able to comply with the Council’s standards in respect of access, parking and servicing. In this respect the proposal complies with Policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/06/2104

Application Number: TP/06/2104 Ward: Winchmore Hill Date of Registration: 24th October 2006

Contact: Andy Higham 020 8379 3848

Location: 3A, LAKESIDE ROAD, LONDON, N13 4PS

Proposal: Conversion of first floor flat into 2 self contained flats (comprising 1 x 1-bed and 1 x 2- bed) involving a rear dormer window.

Applicant Name & Address:

Adrian Palazzetti 1, Warwick Cottage Shenley Herts WD7 9BX

Agent Name & Address:

Giustino Palazzetti 18, THE MALL LONDON N14 6LN

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

1. The development shall not commence until details of proposed sound proofing of the internal walls between the application site and nos 1 and 5 Lakeside Road, between the ceiling of the application site and the ground floor unit and of the internal walls between the newly created flats has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved level of sound proofing shall be installed before occupation in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the flats hereby approved and permanently maintained as such

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers.

2. The development shall not commence until revised plans detailing the internal rearrangements of the bedroom and living room at first/second floor unit, to result in only a single living area on the first floor, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such.

Reason: To minimise disturbance between the occupiers of the new development.

3. The development shall not commence until details of the design of a minimum of 2 pedal cycle stands which shall be secured, covered and lockable have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. The facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied and shall be permanently maintained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory details are submitted and to ensure that the development complies with Unitary Development Plan Policies.

4. C08 Materials to Match

5. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas

6. C19 Details of Refuse Storage

7. C25 No additional Fenestration

8. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

A two storey mid-terrace property, which has been converted into two self contained flats within a residential area. The property is near to Palmers Green Town Centre and benefits from forecourt parking available to the first floor flat.

Proposal

Permission is sought for the subdivision of the existing first floor flat into 2 self-contained flats comprising a 1 bed and a 2-bed unit together with a rear dormer window.

No increase in parking provisions proposed.

Relevant planning history:

TP/02/2352 - Conversion of roof space to form self-contained studio flat involving construction of rear dormer window was refused in April 2003 for the following reason:

1 The rear dormer window, by reason of its excessive size and siting, results in the introduction of a visually intrusive and incongruent form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the property when viewed from the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies (I) GD1, (I) GD2, (II) GD3 and (II) H15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed studio flat would result in an over-intensive use of the property, and together with the increased activity, general noise and disturbance and additional vehicular movements associated with the proposed level of occupation, would detract from the residential amenities of the surrounding residential properties. This would be contrary to Policies (I) GD1 and (I) GD2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/00/0871 – a single storey rear extension was approved in July 2000

Consultation

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 17 neighbouring properties. In response, 3 letters have been received from the occupiers of the ground floor flat at 3 lakeside Road, no 1 and 5 Lakeside Road who object to the proposal on the following grounds

Amenity issues

- Increased noise and disturbance

- Overdevelopment of the property particularly as the property is smaller compared to many other houses in the road - No refuse area (could be required via a planning condition) - Increased noise and disturbance - Sound insulation not sufficient in these old Edwardian properties the conversion would ensure mixed uses in adjacent rooms i.e. kitchen next to bedrooms. This application would ensure that a kitchen is next to the master bedroom at no. 5 Lakeside Road - Main entrance to the proposed 2 flats will be unacceptable as the main bedroom of the ground floor flat is next to the main entrance to the flat

Transportation issues

- Increased traffic - Parking - No space for additional parking - Lakeside Road is the first free parking off Aldermans Hill

Miscellaneous issues

- Issues with the structural condition of the building (not a planning matter) - Increased need for services i.e. gas, water and electricity (not a planning matter) - Already problems with drains (not a planning matter) - Fire Safety (relevant requirements under building regs) - Required service metres would be detrimental to the appearance of the front aspect.

Internal

None

External

None

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing 3A.2 Borough housing targets 3A.3 Efficient use of stock 3A.4 Housing choice 3A.14 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population 3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development 3C.22 Parking Strategy

Unitary Development Plan

(I) GD1 Development to have appropriate regard to its surroundings. (I) GD2 Development to improve the quality of the environment. (II) GD3 Aesthetic and functional design (II) GD6 Traffic generation. (II) GD7 Parking requirements (see also Appendix A1.4) (II) GD8 Access & servicing (II) H1 To increase the housing stock in the Borough (see also Appendix A1.9) (II) H9 Provision of amenity space (see also Appendix A1.7)

(II) H16 Flat conversions

UDP Interim Amendments

None

Other Policy considerations

PPS 3 Housing PPG13 Transportation

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Flat Conversions

Analysis

Principle

As the property is already converted into self-contained flats, the further subdivision could be acceptable providing all other relevant planning concerns such as residential amenity, layout and parking are satisfactorily addressed.

Internal Space Requirements

Within the UDP is adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on flat conversion. This states that in the case of one and two bedroom flats, the minimum net internal floor space of the converted accommodation should be 45sqm and 57 some respectively. The one bed flat satisfies this requirement and whilst the two bed flat is marginally below at 55.2 sqm, this deficiency is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Moreover, the rooms are of a reasonable size and arrangements and it is considered that the standard of accommodation would be satisfactory.

Amenity, Noise and Disturbance

A previous application was refused under reference TP/02/2352 for the conversion of roof space to form self-contained studio flat involving construction of rear dormer window by virtue that the additional studio flat would result in an over-intensive use of the property, and together with the increased activity, general noise and disturbance and additional vehicular movements associated with the proposed level of occupation, would detract from the residential amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

Whilst noting this decision, which in itself is a material consideration, more recent guidance has been published in the form of PPG3 / PPS3 must also be noted. This reinforces the need to maximise in appropriate circumstances, the provision of residential units especially those appropriate and affordable for single person occupation.

Notwithstanding this, the comments of the adjacent property raising concern over a kitchen being next to their master bedroom are noted as is the fact that the further subdivision and layout would result in the first floor having two sets of main living accommodation above the ground floor flat as opposed to one. However, on balance, whilst the situation is not ideal, it is considered that soundproofing would overcome these concerns. No objection is therefore raised on grounds of layout or stacking.

A similar proposal was approved under delegated authority at 13 Grovelands Road, which is in close proximity to the application site. In this circumstance a relevant soundproofing condition was considered sufficient to outweigh any potential noise and disturbance from the proposal.

Parking

Car parking standards as set out in Policy (II) GD7 of the Unitary Development Plan have been relaxed in light of PPG 3 and PPG13 and generally, 1 space per residential unit is now sought. Two off street car parking spaces are available to the front of the property and the Applicant states that the occupants of the ground floor flat make use of on street parking as the use of the forecourt belongs to the first floor flat and the rear garden belongs solely to the ground floor flat. As a result, one space would be available for the existing first floor flat and the additional first floor flat. Whilst overall, the provision would not meet our normal requirements, given the absence of parking to the ground floor flat, there would be adequate parking for the two first floor units.

In addition, Transportation are of the opinion that the provision of 2 spaces is ample to satisfy the requirements of this development when the good links to local public transport and amenities are taken into consideration.

Amenity Space

The amenity space appears to be provided for the sole use of the ground floor flat and therefore no provision will be made for either of the upstairs flats, which is not unusual. The property is in close proximity to Broomfield Park and therefore it is considered that a refusal on this basis would be difficult to substantiate.

Rear Dormer Window

The application also involves the construction of a rear dormer window. Policy (II) H15 of the Unitary Development plan specifies that rear dormers should only be accepted if they are: a) of an appropriate size and location within the roof plane; b) in keeping with the character of the property; and c) Not dominant when viewed from the surrounding area.

The proposed dormer would be inset from the edges of the roof and below the ridge line of the roof and it is considered that it is of an acceptable size and proportion in comparison to the roof into which it is to be installed.

There is a distance of 32m to the rear wall of the property opposite which fronts Derwent Road, which is considered sufficient having regard to our standards to avoid giving rise to any undue overlooking and loss of privacy .

Conclusion

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

1 The proposed conversion of the first floor flat into 2 no. self contained units, having regard to the floor space and internal stacking and subject to compliance with the associated planning conditions, would not give rise to levels of noise, activity and general disturbance that would be detrimental to the amenities and general living conditions of adjoining and nearby properties nor detract from the residential character of the surrounding area having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I) GD2, (II)GD3, and (II)H16 appendix A1.9 of the Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance on flat conversions.

2 The proposed conversion of the first floor flat into 2 no. self contained units is provided with sufficient off street parking (two spaces) , in light of the existing situation and the location near to Palmers Green Town Centre and public transport options 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 and (I)GD7 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as advice contained within PPG 13 (Transport).

3. The proposed rear dormer, due to its size and siting, would not detract from the appearance of the property or the visual amenities of the surrounding are having regard to Policies (II)H15 and (II)GD3of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/06/2152

Application Number: TP/06/2152 Ward: Ponders End Date of Registration: 23rd November 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: FLOUR MILL, WHARF ROAD, ENFIELD, EN3 4TF

Proposal: Installation of four flour storage silos

Applicant Name & Address:

Mr David Wright, G.R. Wright & Sons Ltd FLOUR MILL WHARF ROAD ENFIELD EN3 4TF

Agent Name & Address:

Roger Warr, William Palmer Practice Ltd 4, Postwood Green Hertford Heath Herts SG13 7QJ

Recommendation: That subject to any Direction from the Government Office for London following referral of this application, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. That the proposed silos shall be finished externally in materials to match the existing silos.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

2. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

Ponders End Flour Mills are located on the north side of Wharf Road, bounded by the River Lea to the east and Meridian Way to the west. The site is designated as a Conservation Area and is located within the Green Belt and the Lea Valley Regional Park; a number of the buildings on the site are Grade II Listed. The site is fully operational and is occupied by G.R Wright and Sons.

Amplification of Proposal

This application seeks permission for the erection of four new flour silos standing approximately 22m in height. The silos are to be located central to the site in an area already accommodating an existing 7 silos.

In support of their proposal the applicants advise:

“ Corn Mills have been on the site since the 13th Century but in 1789 a new building replaced all previous structures on the site and much of it is retained today.

The Wright family took over the ownership of the Ponders End Flour Mills in 1870 and since that date the mill complex has gradually expanded incorporating new innovative features. They were the first to introduce the Continental Rolling Mills and later electrical power for the milling machine following the removal of water power when the King George V Reservoir was constructed in 1909”.

They go on to advise that “Although the mill building and private residential elements occupy a large proportion of the site they are closely grouped around the mill house garden. The mill buildings are surrounded by water meadows and waterways, bounded by new road systems to the north, west and the Wharf Road access to the south. The introduction of 4 new silos will not extend the grouping into the surrounding site but merely infill remaining spaces within that grouping…. The Ponders End Flour Mill is regarded as a unique example of Enfield’s industrial heritage but it is also a highly efficient modern food production unit which has to continually adapt and improve the production and storage facilities to comply with EU Standards and the exacting requirements of the customers. Therefore, it is regarded as a ‘Special Circumstance’ in the respect of development within the Green Belt.”

Relevant Planning Decisions

TP/88/1679 Planning permission granted for the erection of 3 wheat-feed storage silos with associated bulk loading shelter.

TP/97/1288 Planning permission granted for part 3 storey, part 4 storey warehouse and packaging unit. Now implemented.

TP/02/1872 Planning permission granted for the installation of four new flour storage silos, flour loading facility and single storey extension to existing store building.

Consultations

Public

No objections have been received.

External

British Waterways, Thames Water and the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority raise no objections.

English Heritage advise that they ‘do not wish to offer any comments’.

The Environment Agency has confirmed that they do not require a Flood Risk Assessment to support this application.

Internal

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Policy 3D.8 Green Belt Policy 4B.10 London’s built heritage Policy 4B.11 Heritage Conservation

Unitary Development Plan

(I)G1 To support strongly the principle of the Green Belt. (II)G1 To resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt unless special circumstances pertain. (II)G11 Criteria for development in the Green Belt. (II)G30 Development within LVRP. (I)C1 Character and setting of Conservation areas to be preserved or enhanced. (II)C30 New development in Conservation Areas to replicate, reflect or complement the traditional characteristics of the area. surroundings. (I)E1 To foster Enfield as a location for business.

Interim UDP Amendments

None

Other Policy Considerations

PPG2 Green Belts PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment

Analysis

Principle

The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore very special circumstances must be identified if the development is to be approved.

Whilst this site is designated Green Belt, it is a long established flour mill. The reasonable expectations of the company for expansion to ensure its continued use as such, particularly bearing in mind its Conservation Area designation and the listed status of a number of buildings on site, and its unique character, must be balanced against the normal presumption against built development. Given this development will secure the continued use of the site for this long established purpose and the jobs associated with it, the development proposed is considered acceptable in principle.

Impact on the character of the area

The proposed silos are to be located in amongst the existing complex of silos. Accordingly, their erection will have no undue greater impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt than the existing structures. This complex is located beyond the enclosed curtilage of Mill House and the siting of the new silos means that they will have no greater impact on the setting of the Listed Building, nor the character and appearance of the Conservation Area than the existing structures. The silos are to be finished to matched the existing structures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed development is considered acceptable and approval is recommended. However, as the application has been advertised as a departure from the provisions of the UDP, the application must be referred to the Government Office for London if this recommendation is agreed, to give them the opportunity to decide if the application ought to be called-in for determination by the Secretary of State.

Reasons for Granting

1 The silos are required to support the existing established business on site and ensure the site’s continued historic use for flour production which is of importance for the continued use of the Listed Buildings on site for their original purpose and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Such circumstances are considered to constitute the very special circumstances necessary to justify this inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In this respect the development complies with Policy (II)G1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 2 The siting of the proposed silos amongst the existing flour silos will have no greater impact on the open character of the Green Belt, the setting of the Listed Buildings nor the character and appearance of the Conservation Area than the existing structures. In this respect it is considered that the development complies with (II)G11, (I)C1 and (II)C30 of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/06/2172

Application Number: TP/06/2172 Ward: Southgate Date of Registration: 22nd November 2006

Contact: Andy Higham 020 8379 3848

Location: REGAL HOUSE, 27, OLD FARM AVENUE, LONDON, N14 5QR

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a 3-storey block of 8 flats (comprising 4 x 1-bed, 4 x 2-bed) incorporating accommodation in roof space with front and rear dormer windows, and erection of a 2-storey block of 6 flats (comprising 4 x 2-bed flats and 2 x 1 bed) incorporating accommodation in roof space with front and rear dormer windows with surface and basement car parking and associated access to Old Farm Avenue.

Applicant Name & Address:

George Philippou C/o Agent

Agent Name & Address:

Carolyn Apcar, Apcar Smith Planning Kinetic House Theobald Street Borehamwood Herts WD6 4PJ

Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions.

1. C57 Sustainability

2. C07 Details of Materials

3. C09 Details of Hard Surfacing

4. C10 Details of Levels

5. C11 Details of Enclosure

6. C14 Details of Access and Junction

7. C15 Private Vehicles Only - Garages

8. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas

9. C17 Details of Landscaping

10. C19 Details of Refuse Storage

11. C21 Construction Servicing Area

12. C22 Details of Const. Vehicle Wheel Cleaning

13. C24 Obscured Glazing

14. C25 No additional Fenestration

15. Details of the technical specification for the vehicle lift including details of noise emissions shall b submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The lift to be installed and operated in accordance with these approved details

Reason: to ensure the proposal does adversely affect the free flow f traffic on the highway and does not have an adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers through noise and disturbance.

16. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings:

The application site comprises an existing factory / industrial unit (B1/B8), located in a residential area with a Nursing Home (Hugh Myddelton House) to the north and maisonettes / flats in Isabella Close to the south. Dwellings on Pine Close adjoin the western (rear) boundary.

Amplification of Proposal:

Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 3-storey block of 8 flats (comprising 4 x 1-bed & 4 x 2-bed) at the front of the site incorporating accommodation in roof space with front and rear dormer windows, and the erection of a 2-storey block of 6 flats (comprising 4 x 2-bed flats & 2 x 1 bed flats) at the rear of the site incorporating accommodation in roof space with front and rear dormer windows with surface and basement car parking and associated access to Old Farm Avenue.

Relevant Planning History:

TP/03/2029 Planning permission was granted in outline in November 2003 for the use of the site for residential purposes.

TP/05/0085 Planning permission was refused in March 2005 for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 3-storey block of 8 flats and a 4-storey block of 8 flats with surface and basement car parking and access to Old Farm Avenue on grounds relating to overdevelopment, impact on residential amenities, layout of basement car park and forecourt arrangement. This application was dismissed on appeal in May 2006.

TP/05/1141 Planning permission was refused in September 2005 for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 3-storey block of 8 flats (comprising 4 x 1-bed, 4 x 2-bed) incorporating accommodation in roof space with front and rear dormer windows, and erection of a 2-storey block of 4 x 2-bed flats with surface and basement car parking and associated access to Old Farm Avenue.

TP/05/1783 Planning permission was granted in January 2006 for the demolition of existing building and erection of a 3-storey block of 8 flats (comprising 4 x 1-bed, 4 x 2-bed) incorporating accommodation in roof space with front and rear dormer windows, and erection of a 2-storey block of 4 x 2-bed flats at the rear of the site with surface and basement car parking and associated access to Old Farm Avenue.

Consultations:

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 51 neighbouring properties. In response, 3 letters of objection were received, raising all or some of the following concerns:

- Over-development of site - Loss of outlook and privacy from overlooking - Loss of light - Open space will become claustrophobic - Increase in traffic movements - Impact on trees and shrubs - Noise from car movements

In addition, 1 letter was received with no opinion as long as the development complies with Council policy.

Internal

None.

External

Environment Agency has no objection stating that the application has a low environmental risk.

Thames Water has no objection.

Relevant Policy

London Plan

The following policies of the London Plan (GLA) – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2004) may also be of relevance:

3A.1 Increasing Supply of Housing 3A.2 Boroughs Housing Targets 3A.3 Efficient Use of Housing Stock 3A.4 Housing Choice 3A.14 Addressing the needs of London’s diverse population 3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development 3C.22 Parking Strategy 4A.7 Energy efficiency and renewable energy 4B.3 Maximising the potential of Sites 4B.6 Sustainable Design and Construction 4B.7 Respect local context and communities

Unitary Development Plan

(I) GD1 Developments have appropriate regard to surroundings (I) GD2 Developments to improve environment (II) GD1 New developments to be appropriately located (II) GD3 Aesthetic and functional design (II) GD6 Traffic considerations (II) GD7 Car parking requirements (II) GD8 Access and servicing (II) GD10 Development integrated into locality

(II) GD11 Access for people with disabilities (I) H1 Contribute to strategic housing needs (II) H1 Increase housing stock (II) H7 Density (II) H8 Maintain privacy and prevent overlooking (II) H9 Amenity space

Interim UDP Amendments:

(II) T19 Cycle parking (II) SDC1 Sustainable Design and Construction

Other Material Considerations:

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPG3 Housing PPG13 Transport

Analysis:

Principle:

The principle of redeveloping this site in the form now proposed was first established by the outline planning permission (ref: TP/03/2029) and more recently, by the grant of planning permission under ref: TP/05/1783. The current scheme differs from this recent approval mainly in respect of the rear block: the only alteration to the frontage block is in respect of the number of parking spaces in the underground car park and as a consequence, the “Analysis” focuses solely on the alterations to the approved scheme. There are no alterations to the siting of either blocks

Also of relevance to the consideration of this application is TP/05/0085 which was allowed on appeal

Impact on Character and Appearance of Surrounding Area:

Essentially, the approved scheme has been revised to accommodate an additional 2 one- bedroom flats in the rear block. This additional residential accommodation necessitates altering the design, reverting to that considered at appeal (ref: TP/05/0085) by the Planning Inspector. This involves a flat crown roof arrangement which although resulting in a bulkier building, does not exceed the height of the recently approved scheme (8.3 metres). The Inspector commented that “the rear block would be substantially screened from public view points and with the proposed excavation, its height would not be unduly prominent nor its general design, out of place”.

The proposed dormer windows are of an acceptable design and appearance and taking into account the conclusions of the Inspector, no objections are raised to the increased size and revised design of the proposed rear block in terms of its appearance and integration into the character of the area.

The increase in the number of units to 14, increases the density to 315 hrph. Previously, density in respect of the approved 12-unit scheme (ref: TP/05/1141) and 16-unit scheme (ref: TP/05/0085) was 245hrph and 368 hrph respectively. Policy (II)H7 recognises that densities of up to 240 hrph may prove acceptable in town centre locations and those benefiting from a range of public transport options but the proposed figure is above this upper limit. More recent guidance in the form of PPG3 advocates greater flexibility in the application of density standards to maximise

development. Furthermore, the London Plan gives a range of densities which it considers acceptable given the character and accessibility of the site and in this case, a density range of 200- 300hrph is considered desirable. Clearly, this is not a town centre location but Southgate town centre is within the 10 minutes walking distance identified within the London Plan where a range of public transport options are available.

Whilst the density would be slightly above the range identified in the London Plan, numerical compliance with policy however, is only one dimension of the assessment of whether a scheme is appropriate to its surroundings. Thus, being mindful of the conclusion reached by the Inspector who accepted development of the design and massing now proposed but with a higher density, no objection is raised on this ground.

Impact on neighbouring properties:

A concern associated with the proposed rear block has been its relationship to the residential properties on Pine Close due to the proximity and height of the development leading to overlooking and a loss of privacy. In fact, the scheme dismissed on appeal (ref: TP/05/0085) was upheld solely on this reason.

To address this concern in the previous approval (ref: TP/05/1141), the rear block was repositioned a further 2m from the rear boundary to increase the distance of this block from the rear boundary to 9.8m. The properties to the rear having gardens at a depth of 6m providing an overall minimum separation of 15.8 metres. Although this still did not meet policy, given the reduced height of the building through the excavation and lowering of the ground level together with the introduction of screening, this was considered acceptable to mitigate against any impact on the occupiers of the properties to the rear in terms of the scale and bulk of the building.

With regard to this scheme, the introduction of flats in the roof space has the potential again to raise concerns over the relationship with these adjacent properties. The appeal scheme proposed three flats in the roof space, with one flat orientated so it was on the rear of the building, with all windows facing Pine Close and was dismissed by the Inspector, because of this relationship with the properties to the rear. It should be noted that although louvers were proposed on the rear elevation to minimise overlooking, the Inspector did not consider that in the long term they would be maintained, and thus overlooking would result, especially as one flat had all its windows facing these properties.

This current application now amends this, by proposing two flats within the roof space of the rear block, each orientated so that the windows on the rear elevation are kitchen and bathroom and there is an internal have a 1.7m cill height to prevent overlooking. It is thus considered that the additional flats would not give rise to overlooking or loss of privacy.

With reference to the relationship of the rear block to Isabella Close and Hugh Myddelton House, it was considered that the building due to its siting and height above original ground level would not give rise to any adverse affects on residential amenity.

Parking and Access:

The approved scheme provides 16 car parking spaces together with pedal cycle storage facilities. To improve vehicle circulation within the underground car park, the number of spaces has been reduced to 14. This level of provision however, still equates to 1 space per unit and given the proximity to Southgate town centre, no objection is raised on this ground.

Access to the basement car park is via a lift. No objection is raised to this approach, nor was such an arrangement objected to on the previous applications.

Sustainable Design and Construction:

The submitted sustainability form has received a grade of 65%, which is sufficient to ensure the development is energy efficient.

Conclusion:

Overall, the proposed alterations to the previously approved development are considered acceptable as regards their relationship with neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be approved for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development would not detract from the residential amenities, appearance or character of the surrounding area having regard to Polices (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD1, and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development would not detract from the residential amenities of adjoining properties having regard to Polices (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed development would increase the supply and availability of housing within the Borough in accordance with Policy (II)H1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 The proposed development would not unduly prejudice the residential amenities of adjoining properties nor detract from the visual amenities of the street scene having regard to Polices (II)GD3 and (II)H12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5 The provision of adequate parking provision together with cycle parking provision, is considered sufficient to avoid giving rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining highways having regard to Polices (II)GD6 and (II)GD7 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as advice contained in PPG3 and 13 and the London Plan.

TP/06/2263

Application Number: TP/06/2263 Ward: Cockfosters Date of Registration: 16th November 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: Slopers Pond Farm, Stagg Hill, Hadley Wood, Barnet, EN4 0PX

Proposal: Change of use of agricultural building to bio-diesel plant, converting oil seed rape to bio-diesel.

Applicant Name & Address:

Robert Haywood, Hayward & Partners Slopers Pond Farm Stagg Hill Hadley Wood Barnet Herts EN4 0PX

Agent Name & Address:

Note to Members

This type of application would normally be determined under delegated powers; however, the applicant is a Member of Planning Committee.

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

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or any amending Order, the premises shall only be used as for the housing of plant associated with the production of bio-diesel, for storage or for purposes associated with agriculture and it shall not be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the Green Belt.

2. The production of bio-diesel from oil seed rape shall be confined to crops grown on Slopers Pond Farm.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the Green Belt and to safeguard highway conditions on the adjoining highway network.

3. The access and exist of vehicles associated with the production of bio-diesel on the farm shall only be from the access point to Stagg Hill. There shall be no access associated with the production of bio-desel from Waggon Road.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the occupiers of properties in Waggon Road.

4. The shall be no storage of materials associated with the production of bio-diesel within 10 metres of the banks of Salmons Brook.

Reason: To prevent materials entering the water course and causing pollution.

5. Details of the construction of any storage facilities required for oils, fuels or chemicals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved detail before the production of bio-diesel commences.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and in the interests of the protection of the open character of the Green Belt.

6. The development shall not commence until details of sewerage infrastructure to receive any foul water discharged from the use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The sewage infrastructure shall be provided in accordance with the approved detail before the production of bio-diesel commences.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

7. The development shall not commence until drainage, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the use is commenced.

Reason: To prevent increased risk of surface water flooding and improve water quality.

8. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and surroundings

Slopers Pond Farm is an agricultural holding sited within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The farm is located to the north of Waggon Road and west of Stagg Hill, in Hadley Wood. The site comprises a farmhouse and numerous agricultural buildings, some of which are used as livery stables.

Amplification of proposal

The proposal involves the use of an agricultural building for converting oil seed rape to bio-diesel.

Approximately one quarter of the building would be used to house the plant with the remainder being used for oil seed rape storage. The main reaction tank has a capacity of 240 litres.

The applicant has advised that initially 120 hectares of oilseed rape will be grown but this area may be expanded if the venture is successful. The anticipated production level is 1750 litres per hectare with one crop per year giving an annual production of approximately 210,000 litres.

Relevant planning decisions

The building in question was approved and built in 2003.

Consultations

Public

Consultation letters were sent out to 50 neighbouring properties. 39 replies have been received from residents of Waggon Road (17), Beech Hill Avenue (1), Beech Hill (1), Kingwell Road (4),

Claremont Road (3), Helena Close (1), Lancaster Avenue (6), Sandridge Close (1), Crescent West (2), Courtleigh Avenue (2), Duchy Road (1) raising the following objections:

Significant levels of traffic generated by delivery of raw material and collect the products Additional traffic will generate congestion and noise Storage of dangerous and flammable substances and chemicals The development is not related to agriculture Inappropriate use on the fringe of a residential area Introduction of an industrial use into the countryside Inappropriate development in the Green Belt Contrary to Green Belt principles and does not enhance the area and landscape Out of character No genuine agricultural need Concern that such a plant is to be built on farmland Noise and disturbance Smell Loss of outlook and privacy Pollution Health implications Implications for potential pollution of Salmons Brook Effects on horses and other animals in the surrounding area Potential for seepage of pollutants into the soil

The Hadley Wood Association object to the proposal on the following grounds:

• There have been 15 applications submitted in the last six years and residents consider that further development is inappropriate • Possibility of processing imported material in the future will cause major traffic problems Inappropriate regard to the surrounding residential area Pollution, noise and added traffic activity Detriment to residential amenity The use will detract from the character of Enfield Chase

Internal

Environmental Health and Regulation raise no objections.

External

The Environment Agency raise no objection, subject to conditions.

Relevant policy

The London Plan

Policy 3D.8 Green Belt

The Unitary Development Plan

(I)G1 Green Belt Policy (II)G1 New Development within the Green Belt (II)G2 Uses appropriate in Green Belt (II)G6 Development within Areas of Special Character (I)GD1 New Developments have appropriate regard to surroundings

(II)GD6 Traffic generation

National policy

PPG2 Green Belts PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Analysis

The main consideration is whether the use proposed is appropriate in the Green Belt. In this regard paragraph 3.7 of PPG2 provides that;

With suitable safeguards the re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of Green Belts, since the buildings are already there. It can help to secure the continuing stewardship of land, especially by assisting farmers in diversifying their enterprises, and may contribute to the objectives for the use of land within Green Belts.

In this case the production would result from an agricultural crop and in that sense it would be ancillary to the agricultural use.

The proposal accords with the criteria set out in paragraph 3.8 for the re-use of buildings within the Green Belt and therefore it is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The proposal would not detract from the character or appearance of the Enfield Chase Area of Special Character.

The applicant has confirmed that no crops will be imported onto the farm (the subject of recommended condition 1) and that estimated production will result in two collections per week by 20 ton lorries. It is considered that the use will not give rise to any significant traffic generation and a condition is recommended restricting access connected with the use to the Stagg Hill (A111) access.

The applicant has also confirmed that the process is enclosed and that there are no emissions. The system under consideration does not use water washing as part of the process and therefore there is no discharge of soapy water.

Whilst the views of residents of Hadley Wood are noted the nearest residential property is in Waggon Road sited some 295 metres from the agricultural building. The farm buildings are not visible from this point. Subject to the recommended conditions the proposal has no material implications in respect of residential amenity.

Conclusion

The application is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

Reasons for granting planning permission

1. The proposed development will not detract from the character, appearance and amenity of surrounding Metropolitan Green Belt or Area of Special Character having regard to Policies (I)G1, (II)G1, (II)G6 and (I)GD1 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 3D.8 of The London Plan and PPG2 – Green Belts.

2. The proposal 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, of the Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposal does not give rise to conditions prejudicial to residential amenity having regard to Policy (1)GD1 of the Unitary development Plan.

TP/06/2308

Application Number: TP/06/2308 Ward: Town Date of Registration: 22nd November 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: Rear Of, 150, Gordon Hill, London, EN2 0QT

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide 2 x 2 storey blocks of residential units (comprising 3 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed - Block A and 1 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed - Block B) involving rooms in roof with rooflights to front, associated car parking, access road and new vehicular access from Gordon Hill (A DUPLICATE APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED UNDER REF: TP/06/2312).

Applicant Name & Address:

Joe Loveridge 150, GORDON HILL ENFIELD EN2 0QT

Agent Name & Address:

David Barnard 4, BARBER CLOSE LONDON N21 1BE

Note for Members

This application is almost identical to that reported under reference TP/06/2312 elsewhere on the agenda. The only difference being that this application omits the dormer windows to the front elevations of Blocks A and B and proposes instead additional roof lights to provide natural lighting to the accommodation proposed within the roofspace. As the considerations are generally the same with both applications, the report has not been repeated and Members are asked to refer to report reference TP/06/2312.

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

1. C05 Details of Development - Landscaping

2. The proposed landscaping scheme shall include screen planting on the west and east boundaries of the site, and to the north of Block B, such planting to be carried out prior to occupation of the development and maintained permanently thereafter, unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.

Reason: To assist the integration of the development within the local area and safeguard the amenity of surrounding residential properties.

3. C07 Details of Materials

4. C09 Details of Hard Surfacing

5. C10 Details of Levels

6. C11 Details of Enclosure

7. C14 Details of Access and Junction

8. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas

9. C18 Details of Tree Protection

10. C19 Details of Refuse Storage

11. C21 Construction Servicing Area

12. C22 Details of Const. Vehicle Wheel Cleaning

13. C24 Obscured Glazing

14. C25 No additional Fenestration

15. That development shall not commence on site until details of access to the proposed cycle store have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle store and access shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall thereafter be maintained.

Reason: To ensure the development complies with UDP standards

16. C51A Time Limited Permission

TP/06/2312

Application Number: TP/06/2312 Ward: Town Date of Registration: 22nd November 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: Rear Of, 150, Gordon Hill, London, EN2 0QT

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide 2 x 2 storey blocks of residential units comprising (Block A 3 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed, Block B 1 x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed) involving rooms in roof with rooflights and dormer windows to front, associated car parking, access road and new vehicular access from Gordon Hill.

Applicant Name & Address:

Joe Loveridge 150, GORDON HILL ENFIELD EN2 0QT

Agent Name & Address:

David Barnard 4, Barber Close N21 1BE

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

1. C05 Details of Development - Landscaping

Reason: To assist the integration of the development within the local area and safeguard the amenity of surrounding residential properties.

3. C07 Details of Materials

4. C09 Details of Hard Surfacing

5. C10 Details of Levels

6. C11 Details of Enclosure

7. C14 Details of Access and Junction

8. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas

9. C18 Details of Tree Protection

10. C19 Details of Refuse Storage

11. C21 Construction Servicing Area

12. C22 Details of Const. Vehicle Wheel Cleaning

13. C24 Obscured Glazing

14. C25 No additional Fenestration

Reason: To ensure the development complies with UDP standards

16. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

The application site is a plot of land forming part of the curtilage of 150 Gordon Hill, a large end- of-terrace Victorian house on the south side of the road, not far from the junction with Lavender Hill. The plot is bigger than average for the area, extending to some 65m in overall depth and spreading out behind the adjoining residential properties. The overall area is some 0.14ha.

Gordon Hill is characterised by substantial terraced houses built in the early part of the last Century. These are two storeys in height, although some have accommodation in the roof-space served by front dormer windows. There is also some infill housing from the post-war period, including a 2-storey block of 4 maisonettes at 136-142, which backs onto part of the application site.

Amplification of Proposal

This a revised application following the grant of planning permission in June 2005 for the erection of 2 x 2 storey blocks comprising a total of 8 x 2 bed flats. This application continues to propose 2 blocks, of largely the same footprint and position as previously approved. However, this scheme differs in that it is proposed to provide additional accommodation in the roof space of the blocks through the inclusion of dormer windows in the front elevation and roof lights to the rear; the ridge height of buildings would be increased by approximately 40cm. This results in an amendment to the mix of accommodation, which now comprises 4 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed flats. The elevational appearance of the blocks is also to be amended through the inclusion of bay windows at both ground and first floor level. The scheme continues to make provision for 13 parking spaces served off a new access road located between Nos. 148 & 150 Gordon Hill.

A second application, reference TP/06/2308, has also been submitted and is reported elsewhere on this agenda. This application is almost identical but omits the dormer windows to the front elevation of the blocks and proposes the use of rooflights only to provide natural light to the accommodation in the roofspace.

Relevant Decisions

TP/87/0569. 2-storey block of 6 flats. Refused. Appeal dismissed.

TP/92/0598. Conversion of No.150 into 4 flats and erection of 5 houses on land to the rear. Appeal against Non-determination. Dismissed 27/11/92. ‘Effect on character and setting of MOL, loss of privacy to adjoining residents’.

TP/04/1800 Erection of two 2-storey blocks comprising 10 flats. Refused. Overdevelopment; insufficient amenity space; privacy and overlooking issues; loss of outlook from adjoining properties; traffic noise and disturbance; insufficient car and cycle parking; unsatisfactory access, servicing and refuse storage arrangements.

TP/05/0336 Erection of two 2-storey blocks comprising 8 x 2 bed flats, together with provision of 13 parking spaces and new vehicular access to Gordon Hill. Permission granted 21 June 2005.

Consultations

Public

Letters have been sent to the occupiers of 79 adjoining and nearby occupiers. As a result, 7 letters of objection have been received, including one from the Gordon Hill Residents Association. The objections raised can be summarised as:

• overdevelopment of the site • density of development would further exceed surrounding development • amenity space would be below UDP standards • overlooking would be increased • modern block of flats is out of character with existing properties in Gordon Hill • Larger units with additional numbers of bedrooms will lead to higher rates of traffic flow. • Concern about feasibility of service vehicles being able to enter and leave the site • Increased number of bedrooms will lead to an increased need for parking • Gordon Hill is a busy and dangerous road and to add further traffic will exacerbate the situation. • Since the earlier approval, No.150 Gordon Hill has been converted to flats and this should be taken into account when considering amenity space provision • New flats will increase the amount of artificial lighting and this poses a risk to health • Noise and disturbance during construction. • Increase in noise and activity from new occupants • Affect value of nearby property.

Cllr Rye has also raised objections to the development on grounds that the area has been the subject of a considerable amount of development in recent years and this has had a significant effect on the amenities of existing residents. “This increased development has aggravated significantly existing parking and traffic problems. The majority of properties in Gordon Hill itself do not have off street parking which means that the road is fully parked across any 24 hour period. This is exacerbated by the proximity of Gordon Hill Station and the shops in Chase Side. It is also used as a cut through road to access both The Ridgeway, M25 and Enfield Town.” He considers that the increase in density now proposed will increase occupation levels, density and exacerbate the parking and traffic problems referred to.

External

None

Internal

None

Relevant Policy

London Plan

Policy 3A.1 Increasing London’s housing supply 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 Policy4B.3 Maximising the potential of sites Policy 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction

Unitary Development Plan

(I) GD1 Appropriate Regard to Surroundings. (I) GD2 Improve the Environment. (II) GD3 Aesthetic and Functional Design. (II) GD6 Traffic Generation. (II) GD7 Car parking Standards. (II) GD8 Site Access and Servicing. (II) H1 Increase in the Housing Stock (II) H7 Residential Densities. (II) H8 Privacy and Overlooking. (II) H9 Amenity Space. (II)T13 Access onto public highway (II) T19 Needs of Cyclists.

Interim UDP Amendments

Cycle parking standards Sustainable Design and Construction

Other Policy Considerations

PPS1 Delivering sustainable development PPG3 Housing PPG13 Transport

Analysis

Principle

The principle of the development of this site for residential purposes, including the erection of 2 x 2 storey blocks, accommodating 8 x 2 bed flats has already been accepted. The issues to consider in relation to the current application relate to:

i) Whether the increase in density proposed as a consequence of providing additional bedrooms in the roof space, will detract from the character of the area and/or the amenities of the occupiers if adjoining residents;

ii) whether the use of the roof space as proposed will lead to an increase in overlooking and loss of privacy for adjoining residents; iii) whether the increase in the size of flats proposed will lead to an undue increase in traffic and an increased demand for car parking over and above the approved scheme.

Intensity of Development

The density of development on the recently approved scheme is quoted in the report as 161hrph. However, a check of the site area reveals that the site area used for the calculation (0.18ha) is incorrect. The net site area is 0.14ha giving a density as approved as 171hrph. The increase in the number of habitable rooms associated with the current application increases the density to 200hrph. This is at the upper end of the range in terms of UDP policy, but within the range of 200 –250hrph suggested by the London Plan as appropriate for this type of site. Whilst the density would be above the prevailing density for Gordon Hill, given that many properties in the area have very long gardens and consequently large plots, such a numerical calculation should not be the sole test of the compatibility of a development with the surrounding area. It is also important to consider the size and scale of the buildings proposed and their relationship to surrounding properties, together with issues such as traffic generation and parking demand.

Amenity space provision remains the same as proposed under the approved scheme, which at the time equated to 74% of the floor area of the blocks, just marginally below the 75% standard. Given the gross floor area of the buildings has increased through the use of the loft space, the level of amenity space as a percentage of the floor area of the buildings has clearly reduced and would be below the standard set down in the UDP. Moreover, the pressure on the space could theoretically increase as larger flats could lead to an increase in the number of people living on site and particularly in the number of children. Notwithstanding, and having regard to current advice in PPG3 amongst others on the need for flexibility in the application of standards, it is considered that the amenity space provided, being primarily in two distinct and significant areas of space (one 188sq.m and the other 230sq.m in area) will provide areas of usable space. These areas are complimented by smaller areas of landscaping to assist in providing a setting to the blocks. On balance, therefore, the level of amenity space is considered acceptable.

Impact on surrounding properties

The increased density proposed as part of this application is achieved through use of the roof space to the blocks previously approved, otherwise they remain largely the same in terms of their footprint and siting, with the exception of the provision of bay windows to the front elevation. These add only a marginal amount to the footprint of the building and are a welcome improvement to the elevational appearance of the buildings. Accordingly, save for a marginal increase in height (approx 40cm) the buildings will have no greater undue impact on the character of the area nor the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties in terms of light or outlook, than the previously approved scheme.

The introduction of accommodation in the roof space does involve the introduction of dormer windows and roof lights at roof level. Front dormer windows are a feature of some properties in Gordon Hill and are therefore acceptable in principle. The orientation of Block A, whose front elevation faces into the site (ie does not directly face the rear of the Gordon Hill properties) means that the introduction of dormers and roof lights will not give rise to any undue overlooking. The orientation of Block B, which directly faces the rear of No.150 Gordon Hill, means that overlooking could potentially be more of an issue. However, the separation distances involved, over 27m from the front face of the dormer to the rear wall of No.150 Gordon Hill, means that minimum distancing standards are achieved and overlooking/ loss of privacy would not be an issue.

Traffic, Access and Parking

The level of traffic generated by the development of 8 flats on the site has been accepted. The provision of an additional 4 bedrooms within the scheme will not lead a significant increase in traffic over and above that already accepted.

UDP standards would require the provision of 17 spaces to serve the development now proposed, including 3 spaces for visitors. The proposal makes provision for 13 spaces, equating to 1.6 spaces per unit. Having regard to the accessibility of the site, and the advice contained in current Government guidance together with London Plan policy, this level of provision is considered appropriate and should not give rise to a significant demand for on street parking in Gordon Hill.

The access road to the site is 4.8m wide. There is adequate space for refuse vehicles to manoeuvre on site and exit in a forward gear, and the access road is wide enough to allow two large cars to pass side by side. The footway depth adjacent to the access point from Gordon Hill means acceptable visibility splays are possible for both the footway and the carriageway.

Although the cycle storage provision appears acceptable in number, there does not appear to be any direct access to the bike storage area or the adjacent refuse enclosure. However, this can easily be overcome by altering some of the landscaping and can be addressed through appropriate conditions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is considered that the revisions to the approved scheme proposed as part of this application are considered acceptable and will not give rise to any undue harm to character of the surrounding area, the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties nor conditions of safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway. Approval is therefore recommended for the following reasons:

1 The proposals represent an acceptable level of development for this backland site and would have no significantly detrimental effect on the character of the surrounding area. Consequently, they would be in accord with Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan, which seek to ensure that new developments are appropriate to their surroundings.

2 The development would provide reasonable amenity space for the recreational use of the occupiers and the setting of the proposed buildings. The proposals would therefore be acceptable with regard to Policy (II) H9, and Appendix A1.7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed development would not unreasonably prejudice the outlook or privacy of adjoining properties in Gordon Hill or cause significant loss of daylight or sunlight to adjoining land. The proposals would thus be in accord with the aims of Policy (I)GD2; (II)GD3 and (II)H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 The proposal would make adequate provision for car and pedal cycle parking in accordance with the standards adopted by the Council. It would therefore be unlikely to give rise to kerbside parking in the adjacent streets or prejudice the free flow of traffic on the public highway. In this respect, the proposal is in accord with Policies (II) GD6, (II) GD7 and (II) T19 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5 The proposal makes adequate provision for access and servicing in accordance with the standards adopted by the Council, and the use of the proposed access road would not cause unreasonable loss of amenity to the occupiers of the adjoining houses at 146 and 150 Gordon Hill. It would thus meet the aims of Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, and (II)GD3, as well as Policies (II) GD6 and (II) GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/06/2328

Application Number: TP/06/2328 Ward: Highlands Date of Registration: 8th December 2006

Contact: David Snell 020 8379 3838

Location: GARAGES, BANBURY CLOSE, HOLTWHITES HILL, ENFIELD, EN2 8BL

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and erection of a part 2, part 4-storey block of 4 x 2- bed flats with undercroft access and parking, and two pairs of semi detached dwellings, comprising 2 x 2-storey and 2 x 3-storey houses with associated car parking .

Applicant Name & Address:

Mark Hayes, Christian Action Housing Association Benedict House 61, Island Centre Way Enfield Middx EN3 6GS

Agent Name & Address:

Jane Denham, Baily Garner 146-148, Eltham Hill London SE9 5DY

Note for Members

This proposal forms part of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Development Initiative (CDI). The aim of this initiative is the transformation of the redundant areas of Enfield’s housing estates and other brownfield Council owned sites for new housing with attendant community benefits. The focus is on seeking imaginative, high quality designs for new development that incorporate the principles of sustainability and take into account the character of the surrounding area.

Three rounds of resident’s consultation were held in February/March 2003, June/July 2003 and July/September 2004 prior to the planning application been submitted in order to explain to the general public the nature of the proposals. This exercise was completed in October 2004 at the Civic Centre with a catch-all event for those residents who had been unable to attend their estate based event.

The proposed scheme has previously been approved under Ref: TP/05/0507 subject to conditions. However, it has recently come to the Council’s attention that the Certificate of Ownership which is required as part of the application, was incorrectly completed. Network Rail owned a small part of the application site but notice was not served on them as owner. The oversight could invalidate the planning permission previously granted and thus, it is considered that the most appropriate action was to submit a fresh application for an identical scheme. The Council is currently in the process of purchasing this part of the site from Network Rail.

Recommendation

The Assistant Director (Planning and Transportation) be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. C07 Details of Materials

2. C09 Details of Hard Surfacing

3. C10 Details of Levels

4. C11 Details of Enclosure

5. C14 Details of Access and Junction

6. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas

7. C17 Details of Landscaping

8. C19 Details of Refuse Storage

9. C25 No additional Fenestration

10. C21 Construction Servicing Area

11. C22 Details of Const. Vehicle Wheel Cleaning

12. Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details, which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding.

13. No development shall take place until a survey is undertaken to determine whether there is any residential bat population on the site. Should any resident bat population be found on the site the survey shall identify mitigation measures to be implemented to maintain the population. The survey and any mitigation measures identified shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: To ensure any resident bat population is maintained on the site.

14. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

The site is long and narrow and consists of a car park with 34 garages. The garages are in a poor state of repair with only a minority in use. A double garage located on an adjacent plot at no. 14 Bankside has a legal right of access. The site is accessed from Banbury Close and is bounded on the north side by a railway reserve and on the south and west by semi-detached cottages. A block of flats and a large grassed area is located to the south east. The area is residential in character consisting of a large blocks of flats and semi-detached cottages.

Amplification of Proposal

Permission is sought by the Christian Action Housing Association for the demolition of existing garages and erection of a part 2, part 4-storey block of 4 x 2-bed flats with undercroft access and parking and two pairs of semi-detached dwellings comprising 2 x 2- storey and 2 x 3-storey

houses with associated car parking. The development comprises three separate development blocks situated in a row. The entrance block of 4 flats has a vehicular and pedestrian archway providing access to the rest of the development. The two pairs of semi-detached dwellings are identical in design and appearance.

Relevant Planning Decisions

TP/05/0507 - Demolition of existing garages and erection of a part 2, part 4-storey block of 4 x 2- bed flats with undercroft access and parking, and two pairs of semi detached dwellings, comprising 2 x 2-storey and 2 x 3-storey houses with associated car parking. Granted subject to conditions July 2005.

Consultations

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 95 neighbouring properties. Two letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 11 and 13 Bankside which raise all or some of the following points:

• Proposal will prevent access to our garage and to the rear gate of our garden • Overlooking, loss of light and privacy issues • Loss of trees will result in loss of habitat for bats • Out of character with the surrounding two-storey neighbourhood • Harm the visual amenities of the locality and neighbouring residential properties • The proposal represents over-development of the site • Loss of trees will harm the amenity value of the area • Insufficient car parking provision

External

Thames Water – no objection.

London Fire Brigade – no objection. “The plans have been reviewed and appear to comply with Approved Document B5”.

Any comments received from Network Rail, Enfield Disablement Association or the Metropolitan Police Service will be reported at the meeting.

Internal

Regeneration Unit – No objection.

Any comments received from Education, Cleansing, Legal and Property Services will be reported at the meeting.

Relevant Policy

The London Plan

3A.1 Increasing Supply of Housing 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets 3A.4 Housing Choice 3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development

3C.21 Improving Conditions for Cycling 3C.22 Parking Strategy 4A.7 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 4B.3 Maximising the potential of Sites 4B.6 Sustainable Design and Construction 4B.7 Respect local context and communities

Unitary Development Plan

(II)GD1 - new development appropriately located (I)GD3 - character / design (II)GD6 - traffic generation (II)GD7 - parking standards (II)GD8 - site access and servicing (II)H1 - increase housing (II)H6 - range of size and tenure of housing (II)H7 - density (II)H8 - privacy / overlooking (II)H9 - amenity space (II)T13 - access onto existing highway (II)T16 - adequate access for pedestrians and disabled persons (II)T17 - priority for pedestrians (II)T20 - needs of cyclists

Interim amendments

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

Other Policy considerations

Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing Planning Policy Guidance 13 – Transport

Analysis

Principle

The principle of the proposed development was established through the granting of planning permission for the same proposal in July 2005 (ref: TP/05/0507).

Density/Integration with Area

Density at 218 habitable rooms/ha is only slightly above the 150-200 hrph range specified by UDP policy. The assessment of appropriate density must also acknowledge PPG3 which encourages greater flexibility in the application of policies to promote higher densities on urban brownfield sites. As a result a numerical assessment of density must not be the sole test of acceptability and must also depend on the attainment of appropriate scale and design relative to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The previous planning permission for this proposed development considered the proposed density to be acceptable.

The development comprises the demolition of existing garages and erection of a part 2, part 4- storey block of 4 x 2-bed flats with undercroft access and parking and two pairs of semi-detached

dwellings comprising 2 x 2- storey and 2 x 3-storey houses with associated car parking. The site lies adjacent to the railway reserve on the perimeter of the estate and at the end of Banbury Close. There are therefore no street views as such. The development comprises three separate development blocks situated in a row. The entrance block of 4 flats has a vehicular and pedestrian archway providing access to the rest of the development. The two pairs of semi- detached dwellings located behind are identical. The railway reserve is heavily planted which serves as an effective screen to the north.

It is considered that the height of the proposal is in keeping with the heights of surrounding buildings. In particular, all the blocks maintain a two storey height on the south side as they are located close to the rear boundaries of the two storey housing facing Bankside. Towards the site entrance, on the south-eastern part of the site, the four storey element is in keeping with the height of the four storey block of flats adjacent to Banbury Close. To the north east of the site, on the other side of the railway lines, are blocks of three storey flats.

One objector raises concerns regarding the height of the proposed development, noting that all other buildings in the locality are two storeys in height. For the reasons identified above, it is considered that due to the siting of the two and four storey elements of the three blocks and the presence of other 4 storey development in the vicinity, the development would not appear obtrusive or out of keeping with the character and appearance of the locality.

The proposal will be constructed in traditional materials, namely brickwork and architectural masonry with tiled pitched roofs to match the adjacent properties. The design is contemporary and is not considered to be out of keeping or appear unduly intrusive in the context of the surrounding area.

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

The previous application found that the relationship of the proposed development with the existing properties was acceptable and will not unduly prejudice residential amenities in accordance with policy.

The distance between the south elevation of the flatted development closest to the 4-storey block of flats (nos 131 – 161) is 26.0m which is in accordance with policy. The distance between the west elevation of the flatted development facing the rear elevations of no’s 9 and 11 Bankside is 26.8m with 0.8m to the shared boundary. The high level windows on this elevation serve as a secondary source of light and would not enjoy outward views. It would not therefore give rise to overlooking or loss of privacy. The 2-storey height would reduce any overbearing impact or loss of light to an acceptable degree.

The distance between the proposed 2-storey flank elevation of the one semi-detached dwelling to the closest point of the flank elevation of no 11 Bankside is 8.2m with 0.4m to the shared boundary. The distance between the closest point of the proposed 2-storey flank elevation of the second semi-detached dwelling to the rear elevation of no 14 Bankside is 12.8m with 0.4m to the shared boundary. The flank elevations do not have any windows accordingly it would not give rise to overlooking or loss of privacy. The 2-storey height of the flank elevations would reduce any overbearing impact or loss of light to an acceptable degree.

Objectors have raised concerns regarding the impact on residential amenity through loss of light and overlooking. However it is considered, for the reasons identified above, that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on residential amenities in terms of overlooking or overbearing impact. Overall it is considered that the relationship with the existing properties is considered acceptable and accordance with policy and will not unduly prejudice residential amenities.

Amenity Space

Amenity space for the flats and semi-detached houses is below the level set out in Appendix A1.7 of the Unitary Development Plan. However, the previously approved scheme was considered acceptable on this basis. It was considered that the lack of amenity space was largely mitigated by the large grassed area located immediately adjacent to the proposal on Banbury Close and available for public use.

The line of Oak Trees on the railway embankment located just north of the northern boundary will not be affected. The screening provided by the existing belt of trees will therefore remain.

Parking and Access

Car parking provision is based on one space per unit. This level of car parking provision was considered acceptable in the previously approved application and is in accordance with PPG13. A double garage located on no. 14 Bankside has a legal right of access to Banbury Close and this will be maintained. The site is within walking distance of public transport such as the bus route on Holtwhites Hill and the Gordon Hill train station.

Bin storage for all residential units plus a cycle store for the flats have been provided.

The occupiers of no. 13 Bankside have objected to the application as the proposal would prevent access to their garage and rear gate of their garden. This issue was investigated during the previous application and it was found that the occupiers of no. 13 Bankside have no legal rights of way over the Council’s land and therefore they would need to make alternative arrangements for accessing the garage.

Bats

Both objectors have raised concerns relating to the presence of bats on the site. It is considered that a condition be imposed requiring a survey to determine the presence of any resident bats on the site should be undertaken, prior to any development. Any survey should also identify mitigation measures to be undertaken should bats be found to be present on the site.

Sustainable Design and Construction

A sustainability assessment form has been submitted and has received a score in excess of 50%. It is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily considered the issues relating to the proposed development.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the report has sought to establish that the proposal is consistent with relevant policy and the matters raised in objection are not sufficiently robust to impede the granting of approval, subject to conditions. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted for this application for the following reasons:

1. The use of the site for residential purposes would be in keeping with the composition and character of the surrounding area and contribute to the supply of housing within the Borough, in accordance with Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (I)GD1, (II)GD3 and (II)H1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed redevelopment of the site taking into account its height, siting and footprint does not represent over development and would result in a development that would not

detract from the character or appearance of the surrounding area having regard to Polices (I)GD1, (I)GD2 , (II)GD3, (II)H7 and (II)H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed siting of the development would not unduly prejudice the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties through overlooking and a loss of privacy having regard to Polices (II)H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed vehicular access will not give rise to additional vehicle movements that are prejudicial to the free flow and safety of vehicles using the adjoining highways having regard to Policies (II)GD6 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5. The level of parking provision shown is considered sufficient and unlikely to give rise to further on street parking or conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highways having regard to Policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

TP/06/2342

Application Number: TP/06/2342 Ward: Jubilee Date of Registration: 29th November 2006

Contact: Andy Higham 020 8379 3848

Location: Land To The Rear Of St. Edmunds Road, North of Hickory Close, Edmonton, N9

Proposal: Erection of four 2-storey blocks of 24No. two bed self contained units together with provision of 38 car parking spaces, 24 bicycle spaces and access via Hickory Close (revised scheme).

Applicant Name & Address:

Reliant Building Contractors 101, Elm Tree Court Elm Tree Road London NW8 9JJ

Agent Name & Address:

Mr Peter Fisk, Peter Fisk Associates Suite 7, Galley House Moon Lane Barnet EN5 5YL

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

1. C07 Details of Materials

2. C09 Details of Hard Surfacing

3. C10 Details of Levels

4. C11 Details of Enclosure

5. C14 Details of Access and Junction

6. C16 Private Vehicles Only - Parking Areas

7. The replacement parking for the residential development at Hickory Close, comprising 8 spaces, shall be provided and available for use prior to the occupation of the first unit of residential accommodation on the approved development.

Reason: to ensure adequate parking is maintained for he development at Hickory Close and to avoid conditions arising prejudicial to the free flow and safety of vehicles and pedestrians on the adjoining highway.

8. C17 Details of Landscaping

9. C19 Details of Refuse Storage

10. Prior to any development commencing, including any ground work / site clearance, details of routes for construction vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. All construction vehicles s shall adhere to these routes at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. No access shall be permitted via the accesses between Nos 83 / 85 and 107 / 109 St Edmunds Road at any time.

Reason: in order to safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers

11. C21 Construction Servicing Area

12. C22 Details of Const. Vehicle Wheel Cleaning

13. C23 Details of Archaeological Investigation

14. C25 No additional Fenestration

15. C33 Contaminated Land

16. C39 Details of Noise Insulation - External Source

17. C41 Details of External Lighting

18. C57 Sustainability

19. Details of proposed energy conservation measures and / or renewable energy measures, as identified in the submitted sustainability assessment received 29th November 2006, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: in order to promote sustainable construction practices in the interests of the wider built and natural environment and to comply with the requirement of adopted Council policy.

20. No buildings shall be erected within 4 metres of the outside edge of the Saddles Mill Stream culvert.

Reason: to protect the structural integrity of the culvert and ensure future access is not compromised.

21. Details of measures to protect the integrity of the culvert during construction shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The approved measures shall be adhered to at all times during construction.

Reason: to protect the structural integrity of the culvert.

22. The development shall not commence until drawings showing detailed landscape proposals to include structure, design, schedule of species , size and spacing of plants, a written planting specification (including preparation of tree pits, tree ties, planting beds, grassed areas and details of outdoor furniture) and a Maintenance Plan have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All planting within 8 metres of the Saddlers Mill Stream and any other landscaped areas within the site shall be of locally native plant species only or of UK genetic origin. The planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first season after completion or

occupation of the development whichever is the sooner. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the Maintenance Plan. Any planting which dies within 3 years of planting shall be replaced by the owner

Reason: the use of locally native plant species is essential to benefit local wildlife and to help maintain the regions natural balance of fauna and to provide a satisfactory external appearance for the development and within the surrounding area.

All planting within 8 metres of the Saddlers Mill Stream and any other landscaped areas within the site shall be of locally native plant species only or of UK genetic origin.

Reason: the use of locally native plant species is essential to benefit local wildlife and to help maintain the regions natural balance of fauna.

23. Prior to any development commencing including any clearance or ground works, an ecological survey and appraisal of the site shall be submitted to and in consultation with the Environment Agency, approved by the local planning authority. The survey shall establish a base position and include an assessment of the risk to the ecology of the site having regard to the requirements of PPS9 and : a) identify any rare, declining, protected or otherwise important flora or fauna or habitats within the site; b) assess the importance of the above features at the local level; c) identify any impacts of the proposed scheme on those features; d) propose mitigation for any adverse ecological impacts; e) propose enhancement measures to help improve the value of the site for wildlife propose management responsibilities and details of how biodiversity enhancement will be incorporated into the development.

Reason: in order to safeguard and enhance any ecological and / or biodiversity value of the site having regard to the principles of PPS9

24. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

The application site, which comprises 0.51 hectares, is situated to the rear of 85 – 147 St Edmunds Road on an area of overgrown and semi derelict land adjoining the Liverpool Street – Southbury Loop railway line. The surrounding area is residential in character. Immediately adjoining the southern boundary is a railway compound containing a sub station feed for the railway. Beyond that is Hickory Close, a more recent residential development of flats.

There is no formal access to the site although informal access exist via service roads between Nos 83 & 85 and 107 & 109 St Edmonds Road which also provide vehicle access to the garages at the rear of properties on the western side of the road

Amplification of Proposal

Permission is sought for the redevelopment of the site and the construction of four blocks providing 24 in total. Access would be created via Hickory Close with 38 parking spaces provided including 8 to offset those lost as a result of the access created via Hickory Close.

This application is a full detailed application and not one for the discharge of reserved matters as the siting and number of the residential blocks has been changed and this represents a material alteration to the siting approved by the outline planning permission.

Amplification of Proposal

Permission is sought for the construction of 4, two storey blocks containing 24 two bedroom self- contained flats.

Parking provision equates to 38 car parking spaces together with 24 bicycle spaces. Vehicular access to the site would be via Hickory Close.

Relevant Planning History

Outline permission for the use of the site for residential purposes involving redevelopment to provide 24 residential units (siting and access – all other matters reserved) was approved on appeal under ref TP/03/1279 in March 2005. In agreeing the principle, matters of siting and access via Hickory Close were agreed. It should be noted that no access was shown between Nos 83 & 85 and 107 & 109 St Edmunds Road. As a result of the decision however, details of design, external appearance, parking and landscaping were reserved for assessment at a later stage.

The indicative plans attached to the outline application showed 24 two-bedroom units housed within three, two-storey blocks.

In August 20006, an application was received proposing the erection of three 2-storey blocks of 24No. two bed self contained units together with provision of 38 car parking spaces, 24 bicycle spaces and access via Hickory Close (ref: TP/06/1599). After consideration, planning permission was refused in November 2006 on the following grounds:

1 The proposals include development in close proximity (3m) to the Saddlers Mill Stream (Main River). This will prejudice flood defence interests, may restrict necessary access to the watercourse in order for the Environment Agency to carry out its functions and may also restrict future attempts to return this section of culverted watercourse to a natural state. This would be contrary therefore to Policies (I)EN3, (I)EN6 and (II)GD12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The design and external appearance of the proposed development would result in the introduction of an incongruous and visually unacceptable form of development detrimental to the appearance of the development as well as its setting in and contribution to the character and quality of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Polices (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as the principle set out in PPS1 "Delivering Sustainable Communities".

Consultations

Public

Consultation letters have been sent to 202 neighbouring ad nearby properties. In addition notice was displayed on St Edmunds Road and published in the local presses. No letters of objection have yet to be received.

External

Environment Agency comment that their previous concerns have now been addressed and they no longer wish to raise an objection to the development. regarding the proximity of Saddlers Mill Stream..

English Heritage (Archaeology) has no objection in principle subject to a condition securing an archaeological investigation

Network Rail and Thames Water raise no objection

The Crime Prevention Office of the Metropolitan Police has no objection in principle

Internal

Education raises no objection

Construction Management – raises no objection in principle but highlight the presence of the culvert and request a condition be imposed preventing underground works within 4 metres from it.

Landscaping – no objection in principle but notes limited opportunity for tree planting – recommends shrub planting.

Relevant Policy

London Plan

The following policies of the London Plan (GLA) – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2004) may also be of relevance:

3A.4 Housing Choice 3A.14 Addressing the Needs of London’s diverse population 3C.1 Integrating Transport and Development 3C.21 Improving Conditions for Cycling 3C.22 Parking Strategy 3C.23 Parking in Town Centres 4A.7 Energy efficiency and renewable energy 4B.6 Sustainable Design and Construction 4B.7 Respect local context and communities

UDP Policy

(II)GD1 - development appropriately located (II)GD3 - character / design (II)GD6 - traffic likely to be generated (II)GD7 - parking standards (II)GD8 - site access and servicing (II)H1 - increase housing stock (II)H7 - density (II)H8 - privacy and overlooking (II)H9 - amenity space (II)T13 - access on to public highway (II)T15 - improve public footpaths (II)T19 - needs of cyclists (II)T21 - cycle parking standards

Interim UDP Amendments

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

Other Policy Considerations

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Communities PPG3/PPS3 Housing PPG13 Transportation

Analysis

Principle

The principle for redeveloping the site for residential purposes was established by the appeal decision on TP/03/1279. This decision also established the principle of developing the site for 24 units , the general siting of the blocks (including their relationship and effect on the neighbouring residential properties fronting St Edmonds Road) and access for the development via Hickory Close on to St Edmonds Road. It must also be noted that the application site is located within an area that is residential in character and development would also address the poor visual and environmental quality of the site. The provision of additional units of residential accommodation would also contribute towards the supply of housing within the Borough consistent with the thrust of Government and London Plan policy encouraging the greater use of existing urban land..

Local residents though have continued to express concerns regarding the proposed development. However, due to the appeal decision, no objection can be raised to the principle of residential development on the aforementioned grounds covered by the appeal decision on the outline scheme i.e. principle, siting and access.

Notwithstanding this, this is not an application for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to the grant of outline planning permission due to the need to reposition the blocks following the comments of Network Rail and to address concerns over the design and appearance of the development particularly the northern block. As a result, this is a freestanding detailed application. Considerable weight however, must be attached to the appeal decision and the principles established therein. What can be considered though are the acceptability of any differences that exist in the siting and access arrangements from that previously considered acceptable as well matters of design, external appearance, parking and landscaping.

Neighbour Comments

Although no actual objections have been received to the current proposal, previously, there has been a significant amount of local opposition to this development expressed in a large number of letters and a petition. This concerns has primarily been focused on the principle of development, the scale of the development, the adequacy of access and parking and its relationship to the residential properties on St Edmunds Road. The underlying concerns will be addressed as part of the assessment of this scheme.

Siting

Scheme Approved on Appeal

The scheme approved on appeal involved three two-storey blocks, 31, 29 and 31 metres in width separated by minimum 15 metre wide gaps.

The nearest residential properties are 93 – 131 St Edmunds Road which comprise two storey terraces. The proposed development provided at its closest 26 metres between facing elevations. This was in excess of the 22 metres recommended in Appendix A1.7. Moreover, a distance of 11

metres was maintained between the proposed blocks and the rear boundaries with the neighbouring properties. Consequently, the Inspector concluded that “at its closest, facing elevations would be 26 metres apart. This significantly exceeds the figure of 22 metres recommended in Appendix A.7 of the UDP. I consider that the separation distances would be sufficient to ensure that the proposed two storey blocks would not have dominating or overbearing visual impact when seen from the rear gardens and windows of the houses on St Edmonds Road. Furthermore, they would not cause any noticeable overshadowing or loss of daylight”

The development abuts the railway line and would be sited at its closest, 4 metres from the boundary with the railing. Network Rail has raised no objection to the principle of redeveloping the site for residential purposes. It is recognised however, that the residential units will be located in close proximity to a potential noise disturbance. There is no reason why this is unacceptable and has been accepted on other sites with similar proximity issues to railway lines but to mitigate the impacts and ensure the provision of reasonable level of accommodation, a condition was recommended requiring details of noise insulation.

Current Scheme

Initially, re-positioning of the approved blocks was due to the need to comply with a safeguarding line from Network Rail regarding the distance to their infrastructure. However, with the refusal of the last application on design grounds, a further revision has resulted in the northern block being split in two to create 4 blocks

Blocks A – this moves southwards by approx. 5 metres towards the development of Hickory Close. However, the nearest property is still over 80m away (Hickory Close) and the new position would not give rise to any adverse affects on the amenities of this development. Moreover, the relationship to the properties on St Edmonds Road would remain virtually as approved, still complying with our standards and thereby avoiding any material concern regarding overlooking, loss of privacy, outlook and residential amenity.

Block B – this moves southwards i.e. towards Hickory Close, by 9.5 metres and slightly eastwards (approx 1 metre towards the properties on St Edmonds Road). Again this results in only a marginal reduction in the distance to the residential boundary with the St Edmonds Road properties (now 13.m) and would still comply with our standards thereby avoiding any material concern regarding overlooking, loss of privacy, outlook and residential amenity.

Block C – this is divided in two (to create Block D) and moves southwards by approx. 13m. In this instance, Block C is set back increasing the separation to the residential boundary from 12 metres to 15 metres. As a result, the scheme still complies with our standards and thus avoids any material concern regarding overlooking, loss of privacy, outlook and residential amenity.

Block D – this is the additional block. Situated to the north of Block C by 4.5 metres, it would be 13.5 metres from the residential boundary and thus, compliant with the relevant standard in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

Part of the assessment of siting must also take into account the amount of development and degree of separation between the blocks. At the outline stage, the distances between Blocks A & B and B & C was 15m and16m respectively. The current proposal with the creation of the additional block results in separations between A & B of 12.5m, B & C of 12.5m and C & D of 4.5m. It must also be noted that whilst he lengths of Blocks A & B have remained as approved, with the division of Block C, the length of development visible to the residents of St Edmonds Road has increased from 31m (Block C) to 43m (combined Blocks C & D / 21.5 m each). Furthermore, the development now extends 4 metres further northwards.

Taking account of these alterations together with the previously stated concerns of residents of St Edmunds Road, it is not considered that the increase in the extent of development or the reductions in spacing between the various blocks would adversely affect the outlook of neighbouring properties on St Edmonds Road or the underlying appearance of the development in the area, given the two storey nature of the proposed development and the overall distances to the rear elevations of the dwellings.

Design/Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Area

Although design was not considered at the appeal stage, the decision was based on a two-storey scheme. This proposal accords with that principle and no objection is thus raised to this aspect which is in keeping with the prevailing form of the surrounding area.

Density equates to 141 hrph and thus is below the range of 150-200 hrph normally considered acceptable in such areas. Previously, density was 131 hrph and the change is due to the slight reduction in developable area.. Amenity space has decreased to 81% of gia (previously 89%) but notwithstanding this, overall, the scale and intensity of development is considered acceptable and does not significantly or materially differ from the principles established on appeal. I am satisfied the proposed development in terms of scale and intensity, would integrate acceptably into the surrounding area.

With regard to the issue of design, the indicative elevations of the “appeal” application envisaged three blocks with a symmetrical appearance. This was generally felt to be a visually acceptable form for the development which, with additional detailing, could have proved acceptable.

The previous scheme was refused primarily due to the effective narrowing of the developable plot (due to Network Rail requirements), which resulted in alterations to Block C and the introduction of a non symmetrical appearance with a different footprint and appearance, out of keeping with the appearance of Blocks A & B as well as the poor detailing of the blocks particularly emphasised by the lack of attention to the rear elevation i.e. facing the railway.

Blocks A and B now are identical as are Blocks C and D. However, all exhibit the same basic design reflecting that of the outline scheme and this is considered to be more acceptable. Further discussions are on going regarding the addition of further detailing and the outcome of this will be updated at the meeting. However, it is considered that the proposed design and improved external detailing would result in an acceptable form of development,

Further attention is also need to the design and siting of the cycle enclosures although the refuse stores attached to the flank elevations of the blocks are considered to be visual satisfactory

Access

Vehicle access is shown via Hickory Close: an existing residential development to the south of the application site and onto St Edmonds Road. This was accepted at the “appeal” as being adequate to serve a development of 24 residential units and no change other than some realignment is proposed. Parking for the development at Hickory Close is re-provided and thus, no objection is raised.

Parking

The indicative plans show the provision of 30 cars for the 24 residential units proposed. This results in a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit which in the light of PPG3, PPG13 and the London Plan, is considered sufficient. Again, this level of provision was considered sufficient at the “appeal” and

thus, no weight can be given to the issues raised by residents regarding access and the adequacy of parking.

Environment Agency.

Previously, the Environment Agency objected to the development’s close proximity (within 3m) to the Saddlers Mill Stream (Main River) which could prejudice flood defence interests, may restrict necessary access to the watercourse in order for the Environment Agency to carry out its functions and may also restrict future attempts to return this section of culverted watercourse to a natural state. Since that decision however, there have been further discussions and following the receipt of additional clarification, the Agency have confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its relationship to the culvert subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Sustainable Design and Construction

The SDC assessment results in a score of 59%. Although this does represent a pass, the assessment is weak in a number of areas and discussions will take place to encourage improved use of sustainable construction practice

Conclusion

In the light of the above, it is considered that the proposed scheme has overcome the previous reasons for refusal whilst maintaining appropriate regard to the principles established by the outline planning permission. It is therefore recommended that the scheme is approved for the following reasons:

1 The use of the site for residential purposes would be in keeping with the composition and character of the surround area and contribute to the supply of housing within the Borough having regard to with Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD1 and (II)H1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development of 4, two storey blocks, due to their size, siting and design together with the degree of site coverage and amenity space, would not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene or the surrounding area having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2 and (II)GD3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed development of 4, two storey blocks, due to their size, design and siting relative to the properties on St Edmunds Road, would not unduly affect the amenities of nearby residential properties through a loss of light, outlook or privacy, having regard to Policies (II)GD3 and (II)H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 The proposed flats would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for the future occupiers having regard to Policies (II) H1, (II) H7 and (II) H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5 The proposed use of Hickory Close to access the development of 24 residential units is considered acceptable and 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 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6 The proposed development of 24 residential units, would provide adequate parking and 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 and (II)GD7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7 The sustainability measures identified in the sustainability assessment form submitted on 29th November 2006 are considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of Interim Policy (II) SDC1 of the UDP, therefore achieving a suitable level of sustainable design and construction.

TP/02/0785/VAR3

Application Number: TP/02/0785/VAR3 Ward: Upper Edmonton Date of Registration: 15th November 2006

Contact: Andy Higham 020 8379 3848

Location: NORTH MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL, STERLING WAY, LONDON, N18 1QX

Proposal: Variation of reserved matters in respect of external appearance, siting, design, means of access and landscaping, submitted pursuant to conditions 05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 (hospital) of outline approval under Ref:TP/02/0785 for demolition, redevelopment, refurbishment, alteration and extension of existing buildings involving erection of a primary health care facility up to 5- storey's in height to include outpatients services, imaging, theatres, accident & emergency, wards and ancillary works, together with 698 surface parking spaces to serve hospital, accessed via existing entrance to Bull Lane and creation of new access points including those to serve accident and emergency on Bridport Road; variation to reflect alteration to height and appearance of proposed hospital building together with reorganisation of access and parking arrangements and minor external alterations to building.

Applicant Name & Address:

Eric Pincemin, Bouygues U K Elizabeth House 39, York Road London SE1 7NQ

Agent Name & Address:

Terry Sullivan, Nightingale Associates The Cherry Barn High Street Harwell OX11 0EY

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following Conditions:

1. That the development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with conditions imposed on the approval of reserved matters under ref TP/02/0785/RM1-5 and the details approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to Conditions 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 of the outline planning permission granted under ref: TP/02/0785

Reason: in order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the standards of the Council and to safeguard the visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area and the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highways

2. The alterations hereby approved to the external elevations shall be finished externally in material to match that of the development as approved under Condition 7 of TP/02/0785.

Reason: in order to maintain the appearance of the building within the surrounding area.

3. C51A Time Limited Permission

Site and Surroundings

North Middlesex Hospital occupies an area of 9.32 hectares with the main site, to the east of Bull Lane comprising 8.18 hectares. It is the latter which contains the application site. That to the west of Bull Lane contains the boiler house and other estate facilities. The Hospital comprises a mix of older and more recent development with the most recognisable features being the 11 storey high tower block and the four storey high “old nurses home” on the frontage of the site with the North Circular Road.

The surrounding area contains a mix of uses. To the east, the site is bounded by two storey terraced properties of Somerset Road whilst to the south, there are more two storey residential properties along Bridport Road. Also on Bridport Road facing the site is the Bull Lane/Commercial Road industrial area that is designated a Local Employment Area in the Interim Amendments to the UDP. Bull Lane bounds the site to the west beyond which is a residential development (Wigston Close): a development of 3 storey blocks of flats and the Hospital’s estate facilities. Along the northern boundary is the North Circular Road beyond which are residential development of 4 storey height.

The main vehicular access to the Hospital is from Bull Lane opposite its junction with Watermill Lane. Secondary access is also available via Sterling Way and the North Circular in the north eastern corner of the site. A total of 740 vehicles are able to park within the hospital grounds although there are only 700 spaces marked out. Bus routes 318 (North Middlesex Hospital to Stamford Hill) and 491 (Waltham Cross to North Middlesex Hospital) serve the site directly whilst routes 444, 34, 102 and 144 serve Bridport Road and Silver Street and 444 (Chingford – Turnpike Lane).

Amplification of Proposal

Permission is sought for a variation to the reserved matters previously agreed for the redevelopment of the hospital under ref: TP/02/0785/RM1-5 when approval was given to the detailed design, appearance and layout of the development. Essentially, the differences are as follows: the omission of the 3rd floor of the new hospital building (which would have comprised non fitted out space for two 30 bed wards); alterations involving a reduction in the scale of the building, to the external appearance of the approved development; the removal of the previously approved underground car park; the rationalisation of the car parking and access strategy whilst retaining the required 698 spaces

Relevant Planning History

TP/02/0785 – outline planning permission was granted in July 2003 for the demolition, refurbishment, alteration and extension of existing buildings together with a new development for health care purposes. The new development would be located to the south of the existing podium and tower building which would remain and extend southwards towards the southern boundary of the site with Bridport Road. Ancillary uses within the Hospital will include activities within Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1 including crèche, library, offices, clinics, consulting rooms, training centre etc. Overall, the proposed hospital development taking into account the 26538sq.m of

accommodation to be demolished, will result in a total of 27,070 sq.m of new build accommodation, an increase of 532sq.m above that currently available.

A total of 698 parking spaces were approved whilst vehicular access remained from Bull Lane and Sterling Way

In addition, an area of 1.95 hectares was identified for residential development on the eastern portion of the site. This will form a second phase of the overall comprehensive redevelopment of the site and no details have been submitted in connection with this element.

TP/02/0785/RM1-5 - Approval was given in May 2005 to the reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 5 (siting), 6 (design), 7 (external appearance), 8 (access) and 9 (landscaping) of the outline planning permission granted under ref: TP/02/0785 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Hospital and the development of part of the site for residential

TP/02/0785/VAR1 – a variation of reserved matters in respect of external appearance, siting, design, means of access and landscaping, submitted pursuant to conditions 05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 (hospital) of outline approval under Ref:TP/02/0785 for demolition, redevelopment, refurbishment, alteration and extension of existing buildings involving erection of a primary health care facility up to 5-storey's in height to include outpatients services, imaging, theatres, accident & emergency, wards and ancillary works, together with 698 surface parking spaces to serve hospital, accessed via existing entrance to Bull Lane and creation of new access points including those to serve accident and emergency on Bridport Road; variation to incorporate additional underground car parking, reorganisation of access and parking arrangements and minor external alterations to building, was approved in December 2005

TP/02/0785/VAR2 – a variation of condition 01 of outline approval under Ref:TP/02/0785 to extend the expiry date for the submission of reserved matters from three years to six years from the date of the decision notice granted dated 23 July 2003, thereby expiring 23rd July 2009, was approved in July 2006

Consultation

Public

Consultation letters were sent to 995 neighbouring residential properties and industrial premises. Notice was also published in the local press and displayed on site. One letter have been received in connection with this consultation process which raises th following concerns:

- 698 parking spaces is insufficient to serve the hospital with some 16oo staff - parking occurs on the surrounding residential roads and affects residential amenity - increase on street parking also creates congestion and affects safety - additional parking should be provided as part of this development.

External

TfL raise no objection in principle subject to the necessary agreements being entered into where the proposals affect Sterling Way

London Travel Watch raises no objection but have sought reassurance that pedestrian access from public transport has been considered. They also consider there should be priority to pedestrians not vehicles within the general layout of the site.

The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Environment Agency raise no objection

Internal

Regeneration, Cleaning and Community Protection raise no objection to this scheme

Relevant Policy

London Plan

The following policies of the London Plan (GLA) – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2004) are also relevant:

Policy 3A.14 Addressing the Needs of London’s diverse population Policy 3A.15 Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure and Community Facilities Policy 3A.17 Health Objectives Policy 3A.18 Locations for health care Policy 3A.20 Health impacts Policy 3c.16 Tackling Congestion and Reducing Traffic Policy 3D.12 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Policy 4A.6 Improving Air Quality Policy 4A.7 Energy efficiency and renewable energy Policy 4A13 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure Policy 4B.6 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 4B.7 Respect local context and communities

Unitary Development Plan

(II)C38 - resist development entailing loss of trees of acknowledged public amenity value (II)C39 - reasonable loss of trees subject to replacement (II)GD1 - development appropriately located (II)GD3 - high standard of design reflecting best aspects of areas character (II)GD5 - requirement for landscaping and planting scheme in all development proposals (II)GD6 - traffic likely to be generated (II)GD7 - parking / servicing standards (II)GD8 - site access and servicing (II)GD11 - access for people with disabilities (II)T1 - development in areas where appropriate levels of accessibility to the transport network exist (II)T3 - consideration of the needs of buses in all developments (II)T4 - maintenance and where possible improvement of public interchange facilities (II)T10 - environmental improvements in the form of traffic calming and other traffic management techniques (II)T13 - criteria for assessing the creation or improvement of access onto the public highway (II)T16 - adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in all development (II)T17 - high priority to the needs of pedestrians where they are expected to cross major traffic routes (II)T19 - needs of cyclists

(II)T20 - needs of cyclists in all junction improvements, traffic management and environmental improvement schemes (II)T21 - provision of cycle parking at appropriate locations (II)T27 - controlled parking zones and waiting restrictions in appropriate locations (II)T32 - parking facilities to take into account the need of people with disabilities (II)CS1 - facilitate through the planning process the work of various community services so that a full range of service s and facilities may be provided (II)CS2 - liaise closely to ensure siting and design of buildings accords with environmental policies

Interim UDP Amendments

(II)SDC1 - Sustainable Design and Construction (II)T19 - Cycle Parking

Other Material Considerations

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Communities (2004) PPG3: Housing (2000) PPG11: Regional Planning (2000) PPG13: Transport (2001)

Analysis

Background

Reserved matters for the hospital development showing detailed proposals for its construction were originally approved under ref: TP/02/0785/RM1-5. Subsequently, revised proposals were approved under ref: TP/02/0785/VAR1 amending the approved reserved matters to include: the creation of an underground car park providing 181 parking spaces, alterations to the eastern external elevation to accommodate entrance, alterations to the southern elevation to accommodate an external vent for the underground car park and alterations to the layout. Unfortunately due to new financial regulations introduced which govern the amount raised through PFI schemes, the provision of an underground car park is no longer achievable. These financial regulations have also resulted in the removal of the third floor which would have provided potential space for future expansion in the number of wards: it must be noted that this alteration does not reduce the number of beds being provided.

To avoid an unnecessarily long report therefore, this report focuses on the alterations to the previously agreed scheme.

Parking and the Omission of the Underground car park

This constitutes the main alteration to the scheme previously approved. The underground car park would have provided 181 staff parking spaces as well as space for 35 motorcycles and 66 pedal cycles and would have allowed the above ground parking layout to be rationalised thereby improving the setting of many of the buildings.

A minimum of 698 parking spaces needs to be provided in accordance with the outline planning permission and this figure is attained by the current revised scheme.

Like this scheme, that approved by the discharge of the reserved matters did not include a basement and at that point, the layout provided for the required 698 spaces on the surface. In principle therefore, there is no objection to the omission of the basement. Moreover, having considered the layout and impact on the appearance of the development, the proposal is similar to that previously accepted and accordingly, there is no objection raised in terms of the impact on the appearance of the development or the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

With regard to he provision of 698 spaces, 409 are proposed for visitors and 289 for staff. Staff parking will be in dedicated areas with controlled access. Visitor cars parks will be controlled through a “pay on foot” scheme. There will be a total of 16 disabled spaces and 27 easy access elderly / parent spaces.

Alterations to the External Layout including Access

The omission of the underground car parking area negates the require to provide an entrance / exit to it. However, as a result, the amount of surface car parking has increased in line with that accepted by the approval of the original reserved matters. In terms of the differences to the previous approval under ref: TP/02/0785/VAR1, the main alterations are:

a) additional staff parking along the Bridport Road frontage in front of the existing Pathology Labs a) additional staff parking to the rear of the Pathology Labs; b) minor reconfiguration of the main public parking area in front of the proposed development; c) additional staff parking along the Sterling Way frontage around the proposed Energy Centre and existing library complex; d) relocation of cycle store closer to main entrance. e) Segregation of emergency and public vehicular access to A&E from Bridport Road through creation of additional entrance to public car park. This enables ambulances to have their own parking / turning area. f) Rationalisation of vehicle circulation and parking layout across site.

Although generally acceptable, these alterations are currently being assessed and an update on their acceptability will be provided at the meeting

External Alterations

The main external alteration to the approved development is the reduction in height of the rear element of the new hospital building due to the omission of a floor. As approved, the rear element (facing the retained Pymmes Building), was 4 storeys in height. This has now been reduced to 3storeys.

This alteration has no effect on the design concept of the overall development and if anything, places greater emphasis on the “rotunda” and “atrium” features which form the entrance and house the main concourse linking the existing to the proposed hospital. Furthermore, the reduction in height assists the relationship of the new building with the two-storey Pymmes Building, situated to the east. There is no alteration to the plant situated on the roof other than a slight reduction in the height of the plant enclosure

The reduction in height will also improve the relationship with and outlook from the nearest residential properties on Bridport Road which face the hospital.

As a result, no objection is raised in terms of its design and appearance.

Sustainability

A sustainability assessment scored 73%. Consequently, this development is acceptable in terms of sustainable design and construction is acceptable.

Conclusion

In the light of the above, it is recommended that the variation to the previously agreed reserved matters be approved for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development due to its siting, design, external appearance and landscaping would not detract from the character or appearance of the area having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development due to its siting, design, external appearance and landscaping would not detract from the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of adjacent and nearby residential properties having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed access and parking arrangements together with the measures set out in the S106 agreement are sufficient to avoid conditions prejudicial to the free flow and safety of traffic using the adjoining highways from arising having regard to Policies (II)GD6, (II)GD7 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan

4 The siting of the development with reference to the activities contained therein and in particular, the location of the A&E department, would not give rise to level of noise and disturbance that would unduly affect the amenities enjoyed by adjacent and neighbouring residential properties having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5 The proposed development would result in the provision of improved health care for residents of the Borough consistent with Policies (II)CS1 of the Unitary Development Plan.