The pair say that the decision goes against usual policy and effectively “stuck two fingers up at the public”, reports James Cracknell

Plans for Quakers Walk with Tory councillors Andy Milne (inset left) and Chris Dey (inset right)

Enfield Council has defended a decision to not allow a debate and vote on a planning application which drew scores of objections.

The decision by Labour planning committee chair Mahym Bedekova to allow council officers to handle the application for three homes in Grange Park ward was strongly criticised by its two Conservative councillors, who had personally requested that it be voted on by committee members.

While the council insists it is “normal” for such small planning applications to be decided without a committee debate, there remains scope for such a debate if it can be shown there is significant public interest. The threshold for this is typically ten representations – usually objections – which are often backed up with a request for the committee’s consideration by ward councillors.

Both Andy Milne and Chris Dey, who represent Grange Park, have pointed out the application in question, at Quakers Walk near Bush Hill Park Golf Club, had attracted 55 objections, far exceeding the usual threshold.

The council, in response, said that Cllr Bedekova had “reviewed all the concerns raised”.

But Cllr Milne said: “In the officer’s report on this application, it was recognised that there were 55 representations from the public objecting to this application. It is common practice that such applications with significant public interest should be heard by committee.

“This practice is replicated across the country. Previously in training, councillors have been informed that the threshold for being ‘significant public interest’ was ten. When challenged officers declined knowing anything about a threshold of ten and when asked what would be considered significant, no response was provided.”

The application, approved by officers earlier this month, is for three detached houses, replacing an existing property. In the officer report on the scheme put forward by Hertford Planning, the objections were summarised – with “inadequate parking” among the most frequently made. There is also a listed water tower nearby which some objectors claimed would be “harmed” by the development.

Cllr Milne pointed to two other similar applications in the same local area, both of which had been refused planning permission – including one which was refused at committee, a decision also upheld on appeal.

The Grange Park councillor claims these examples had not been properly considered by officers, but would have been brought up and discussed had there been a chance for debate at committee. He added: “I asked for the papers to support her [Cllr Bedekova’s] decision, and it was clear that the officers omitted the recent similar cases and the fact that they had been refused.

“It also omitted to say that there were a significant number of objectors and that should automatically trigger a committee decision.”

Cllr Milne said the many objectors who had hoped to address the committee had been left feeling “disenfranchised and extremely angry” after the council had “stuck two fingers up at the public”.

Both Cllr Milne and Cllr Dey are now awaiting the outcome of formal complaints against the decision.

A council spokesperson said: “It is quite normal for planning applications with objections to be decided by planning officers rather than going to the planning committee. Although the chair recognised the number of objections received, decisions must be based on whether the issues raised are valid planning considerations and whether they show significant planning harm.

“In this case, the chair of the committee carefully reviewed all the concerns raised. They concluded that the issues did not show a level of planning harm that would require the application to be referred to the planning committee.

“Every comment submitted by residents during the consultation was read, considered, and taken into account as part of the assessment.”

At Enfield Council’s most recent planning committee meeting, held two weeks ago, Cllr Bedekova won approval for her own personal application for a house of multiple occupation (HMO) – which had previously been operating without planning permission, against council rules.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.