Issue - meetings

The Committee considered a report, previously scheduled, which set out details of the application for planning permission at 606 Lordship Lane, N22, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and assessment. The report recommend that permission be granted, subject to conditions and to a s106 Legal Agreement. The Committee was advised that condition 4 in the report should be deleted, as it had been duplicated and that a new condition should be added requiring a central satellite dish. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report and responded to questions from the Committee.

The Committee expressed concern that those residents who had already moved into the previous development at the public house would now stand to lose their parking rights, as the existing proposal would result in the loss of the car park and, as a car-free development, they would not be able to apply for permits for on-street parking in the CPZ area. Officers advised that when the previous development was approved, it was on the basis that parking would be provided by the developers and would not be provided on-street. The developers were now proposing the current development which would result in the loss of the car-park, and concern was expressed at the precedent it might create to then allow on-street parking in such circumstances.

In response to further concerns raised by the Committee regarding the impact on existing tenants, Mr Dorfman advised that on the basis of analysis showing that the streets in the vicinity were not subject to heavy parking pressure and that there was limited scope for further development in the area, it might be possible to enable existing residents of the existing development, which had not originally been designated car-free, to apply for or keep existing parking permits, but for the new development to be fully car-free and for the existing development to be car-free only in respect of successive occupiers, not current occupiers. Members welcomed this proposal and the Transport Officer advised that they could support such an arrangement. It was confirmed that CPZ restrictions did not apply to anybody who was entitled to a blue badge.

The Committee examined the plans.

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report, with the amendment that the car free requirement should not apply to residents of the existing development, and it was:

RESOLVED

That, with the amendment to the Section 106 agreement such that existing residents of the development would not be affected by the designation of the existing and proposed residential units as ‘car free’ and would therefore be entitled to apply for a residents parking permit:

1)    That Planning Permission be granted in accordance with planning application reference number HGY/2011/1889, subject to a pre-condition that that Simon Oliver Magic Drinks Ltd and [the owner (s)] of the application site shall have first entered into an Agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As amended) and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94