Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Sitkin on August 5, 2014 at 10:03

Hihi again Laura, just to correct a misapprehension. The risk is not that a local authority will be "bullied" into granting permission. The risk is that the decision will be taken out of the local authority's hands, i.e. if the developer appeals to the planning inspectorate which overrules a rejection at the local level.

You talk about planning law but even more relevant would be to have a look at the hierarchy of actors allocated planning-related decision-making powers.

No worries, we're all on the same side here. And yes I agree, as you know I've always wanted to see a grocery store on the site (amongst other things). Although again, we can't force any one chain to move in. All we can do is try...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nick Rusz on August 5, 2014 at 11:10

I objected to this a year ago and am not suprised it has come back again - not only is every parcel of land being "Over" developed for flats but now this application.

 

some Questions - i assume it was not an accident the application was submitted during the summer holidays - opposition was mobilised at Bowes school last time by parents.

 

Are TFL looking into that part of the A406? - there have been two fatal accidents along that part and extra traffic turning onto there 24 hours will not help (Though seeing ats the footbridge at the end of Ollerton Road has been out of action for weeks and general litter and mess along the "New" A406 continues i am not hopeful)

 

Once this is permitted i assume the "Pie in the Sky" plans for community use of the rest of the Parade will melt into another block of dull shoebox flats.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Kitching on August 5, 2014 at 19:35

Alan, what are our options under the Localism Act to put in place a Neighbourhood Plan and put it to a local referendum, thereby offering local people a say in approving planning consent for these sites (in particular the Ritz Parade)?  The Local Authority is obliged to support.  In your view would this offer complimentary protection in terms of the community's say so in conjunction with policy/NCAAP?  Are we too late?

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbo...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Sitkin on August 5, 2014 at 21:08

Honest answer Matthew is I don't know. There are serious questions about how devoted this Government is to localism in reality. They talk the talk but then impose lots of top-down dictates on local interests: the "presumption in favour of sustainable [!!] development" mandate contained within the Localism Act itself; the problems I've seen in defining what constitutes a community group; not to mention loads of constraints regarding what a Council can do or can't do. So even if I'm supportive of the concept of neighbourhood plans, I'm doubtful that they afford any more protection against unwanted development than the neighbourhood is already getting from the Council and its current Administration (i.e. seeing as we're all singing from the same hymn sheet). 

Permalink Reply by Liz Wright on August 6, 2014 at 12:21

We have just completed our copy of the objection letter which was forwarded from BHORA.  I was one of the over 100 local people who objected to the development last time. Thanks Andrea for giving the link to the BHORA website.  It would be great if others can complete this and send it off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathie Burke on August 10, 2014 at 12:43

Very good point re potentially far more beneficial use of the land.  We need lots of things, but not McDonald's.  And coming up with better ideas re use of land is such a good strategy, much better than just protesting defensively - not sounding like Nimbys, but being proactive about how the site could be better developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Administrator on August 21, 2014 at 20:05

News today (via the Broomfield Home Owners and Residents Association) that Enfield Council has again rejected planning permission for McDonald to build a drive through on the North Circular Road at Ritz Parade, (although this decision could be the subject of a planning appeal).

• Full details on the Enfield Council website.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Sitkin on August 21, 2014 at 23:36

Richard is right - no complacency. Local planning framework works. Residents' letters too. But careful that they don't try to go above our heads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Sitkin on August 22, 2014 at 11:18

Why Enfield Council rejected McDo? See planning framework. Reasons below.

1. The proposals would prejudice the future development of the extended Bowes Road Local Centre as envisaged in the North Circular Area Action Plan with its key objectives to increase  commercial viability of the centre for existing and mix of new businesses and community facilities in that by reason of this development, the opportunity to provide housing, community facilities, local shopping and other facilities would be lost on this key opportunity site. In this regard, it would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the NCAAP, the Core Policy 30 and the Local Plan.
2. The proposals are contrary to the regeneration objectives and site allocation of the North Circular Area Action Plan (NCAAP) in particular policies 11 and 23 and is considered premature with respect to the site's wider regeneration objectives and would be prejudicial to the long term redevelopment plans for this key local landmark site and would undermine the NCAAP. In this regard, it would be contrary to Core Policies 17 and 30, North Circular Area Action Plan policies 11 and 23, Development Management Document policies 28 and 37 as well as London Plan Policies 2.14 and 4.8
3. The proposals by virtue of their orientation and siting of the two storey building separated from the existing shopping parade frontage would result in an unacceptable break and disruption of the shopping frontage failing to retain and strengthen the commercial frontage at ground floor level thereby adversely impacting on its potential for vibrancy and vitality and its continued use and attraction as shopping area for the local area and future residents of the regenerated North Circular Area neighbourhood and would be contrary to Core Policy 30 and DMD Policies 37 and 40 and NCAAP Policy 23.
4. The proposed provision of a fast food restaurant in close proximity to Broomfield primary and secondary schools would be contrary to National and Local Policy aims and objectives to encourage more healthier lifestyles and communities having regard to Development Management Document Policy 32.
5. The proposal prejudices the ability of the site to make satisfactory and safe provision and arrangement for pedestrian and vehicular access, on-site parking, servicing and turning, and cycleparking, in accordance with the standards adopted by the Council. It would therefore result in an unacceptable impact on parking, pedestrian safety, the free flow of traffic by vehicles queuing to gainaccess and/or vehicles reversing and stopping near the access to the detriment of the safety of oncoming vehicles and pedestrians contrary to the principles and strategic objectives of Policies CP24and CP25 of the Core Strategy, Policies (II)GD6 and (II)GD8 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies 6.9, 6.10 and 6.13 of the London Plan, the NPPF, and Policies 45 and 47 of the Submission Version Development Management Document.
6. The submitted Transport Assessment, due to a lack of conclusive information regarding the predicted traffic impact combined with an increase in vehicular and pedestrian movements and parking demand, fails to demonstrate that the site would not have a negative impact on highway conditions and the free flow of traffic on the surrounding roads. The proposal is therefore contrary to the principles and strategic objectives of Policies CP24 and CP25 of the Core Strategy, Policies (II)GD6 and (II)GD8 of the UDP, Policy 6.3 and 6.13 of The London Plan and Policies 47 and 48 of the Submission Version Development Management Document.
7. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the overall energy efficiency of the scheme to accord with the CO2 reduction targets set by the London Plan, DMD51 and the principles of the energy hierarchy. In the absence of an appropriate mechanism to secure a financial contribution for a deficit from this target to accord with the adopted s106 SPD and without the possibility of securing compliance via condition this is contrary to the objectives of Core Policy 20 of the Core Strategy, DMD51 and DMD55 of the Development Management Document and Policies 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the London Plan as well as the NPPF.
8. Insufficient detail has been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to accurately assess the credentials of the scheme against the BREEAM New Construction
9. Insufficient detail has been submitted to enable the Local Planning Authority to accurately assess the credentials of the scheme against the BREEAM New Construction with an objective to  meet a minimum of a 'Very Good' rating. In this regard, the development fails to take into account the principles of sustainable design and construction contrary to Strategic objective 2 of the Core Strategy, DMD49 and DMD50 of the Development Management Document, Policies 5.1 and 5.3 of the London Plan as well as the NPPF.
10. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the development will be designed to minimise the flood risk within an identified critical drainage area with a requirement toreduce surface water run-off and mitigate for flood risk. This is contrary to Policies CP28 and CP32 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMD59, DMD60 and DMD61 of the Development Management Document and the NPPF.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Lionel Hughes on September 5, 2014 at 19:04

Does no one find it peculiar, strange or downright mad to take a ton or two of metal with you to obtain a meal?  Of course this has nothing to do with planning law & arrangements, but the fact that the application can be made shows how daft Homo sapiens has become.

Personally I find the whole thing embarrassing. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page