Agenda and minutes

Apologies for lateness were received from Cllr Reith as she would not be taking part in discussions for item 6, Somerset Gardens Health Care Centre as a GP patient at the Centre.

Cllr Mallet identified that she would absent herself from discussions for item 8, land to the rear of 32A Beaconsfield Road N15 4SJ as her property adjoined the site.

Cllr Demirci identified that he lived in the vicinity of Somerset Gardens Health Centre but provide assurance that it would not affect his impartiality in taking part in discussions.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 14 October.

RESOLVED

·        That the minutes of the Planning Committee on 14 October be approved and signed by the Chair.

The Chair varied the order of the agenda to take items 6 and 8 first.

Change of use of healthcare centre from Use Class D1 to incorporate proposed pharmacy resulting in mixed use comprising D1 (non residential institutions) and A1 (retail).

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

[Cllr Solomon arrived late to the meeting and was therefore prohibited in accordance with the Council’s Constitution from taking part in any discussions or voting on this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the change of use of the Somerset Gardens Healthcare Centre from use class D1 to mixed use comprising D1 and A1 to permit the incorporation of a proposed pharmacy. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee was asked to note that the officer recommendation to grant permission was subject to a condition limiting the hours of operation of the pharmacy. Due to the location of the application site, it was considered the proposal would give rise to significant unacceptable noise and nuisance levels in the late hours which would be injurious to the residential amenity. The hours of operation therefore proposed to be imposed by condition on the pharmacy were Monday to Friday 0700hrs-1930hrs only.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points regarding the application:

·        The applicant had made limited effort to engage with the local community regarding the application which was considered essential in light of the residential setting of the Health Centre.

·        The appropriateness of siting a 100hrs pharmacy in a residential area was questioned, particularly in view of likely disturbance caused to residents in the vicinity from increased traffic and footfall in the area, especially in the evenings as the pharmacy would be open beyond the standard operating hours of the Health Centre.  

·        It was of concern that should approval be granted for the pharmacy, that needle exchange and/or methadone treatment services could potentially be offered in the future which was considered to be completely unsuitable in a residential area.

·        The local area was already sufficiently served by pharmacies located in more appropriate and accessible town centre locations. The applicant had not identified a clear need for a new pharmacy in the area.

Cllr Bull addressed the Committee in support of the key points raised by the objectors including the limited engagement undertaken, despite prompting, with the local community in the development of the plans and the lack of an identified need for a new pharmacy in the area. The potential for the new pharmacy to offer needle exchange and methadone services in the future had also been raised as a concern by a number of local people Cllr Bull had spoken to, particularly owing to the residential location and the potential for associated crime and anti-social behaviour.

The applicants addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        The provision of an onsite pharmacy aimed to improve the quality of patient care and health outcomes delivered by the Health Centre through providing integrated medicine management and delivery in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Demolition of Unit 11, Mowlem Trading Estate, resurfacing of trading estate

service road, relocation of electricity substation and redevelopment of land fronting Watermead way in the form of a relocated builders' merchants (Use Class B8) and Industrial and Warehousing (Use Class B 1(c), B2 and B8) floorspace with repositioned access/egress to/from Leeside road.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and the signing of a S.106 legal agreement

Owing to time constraints, this item was deferred to the next Committee meeting.

Construction of 3 x 1 storey dwellings, comprising 1 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed with associated landscaping, car parking and cycle spaces and refuse and recycling store.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions. 

[Cllr Reith now present. Cllr Mallett absented herself for the duration of discussions on this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the construction of 3 x 1 storey dwellings with associated landscaping, car parking and cycle spaces and refuse store on the land rear of 32A Beaconsfield Road. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions. The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to three additional proposed conditions for the application which were tabled and which covered tree protection, refuse arrangements and lighting plans for the site.

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the application;

·        Concerns were expressed regarding the lack of a consultation response received from the London Fire Brigade (LFB) with regards to this backland application. Officers confirmed that the LFB were not statutory consultees and that fire safety issues had been sufficiently addressed under Building Regulations including the provision of underground fire hydrants on the site.

·        Members noted the narrow nature of the site and sought assurances that the measurements on the plans were accurate. Confirmation was provided that officers had cross referenced the plans against OS maps.

·        The designation of the site was queried. Officers confirmed that as no records were held on any lawful use of the land, the site was classified as vacant land as visually it appeared unused for some time. In this regard, the application was considered to have a positive impact on the Conservation Area in terms of bringing the land back into use and securing improvements to boundary treatments.

·        Members expressed concern over the potential impact of the development on nos 30 and 32 Beaconsfield Road located either side of the entrance to the site. Confirmation was provided that the applicant had offered to install insulation measures to help mitigate any noise disturbance caused by vehicles accessing the site.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·        The site was unsuitable for the development proposed due to its narrow nature and the fact that one of the adjacent houses extended above the entrance gateway to the site. 

·        Nos 30 and 32 Beaconsfield Road, located either side of the entrance to the site, would be affected on a daily basis by noise and vibration from traffic entering the development, especially to the bedroom located above the gateway arch.

·        The scheme would result in a loss of privacy to a significant number of neighbouring properties along Beaconsfield and Grove Park Roads whose gardens would back onto the development.

·        Only one of the residential units proposed was family sized which was out of line with demand in the local area.

·        Development on ‘greenfield’ land should not be acceptable in a Conservation Area. In addition, any construction on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Approval on conditions pursuant to condition 42 (boundary treatment) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128.

RECOMMENDATION: discharge condition 42 (boundary treatment) attached to planning permission HGY/2012/2128 subject to s)106 legal agreement.

Owing to time constraints, this item was deferred to the next Committee meeting.

The next meeting was scheduled for 9 December.

The next ordinary meeting was scheduled for 9 December.