Agenda and minutes

That the decisions of the meeting held on 04 July 2012 and 30 July 2012 be signed as an accurate record.

An apology of lateness was received from Councillor Gill Sargeant which was later followed by an apology of absence by Councillor Jack Cohen who left the meeting early.

The following declarations were made:

Nancy Reuben Primary School - H01372_12

Councillor Eva Greenspan declared a personal but non prejudicial interest as her grandchildren when to Nancy Reuban Primary School.  Councillor Eva Greenspan took part in the consideration and voting process.

Councillor Melvin Cohen declared a personal but non prejudicial interest as he has acted for the synagogue in a professional capacity in the past, but not acted for them for many years.  Councillor Melvin Cohen took part in the consideration and voting process.

194-198 Broadfields Avenue H04874_11

Councillor Melvin Cohen declared a personal but non prejudicial interest as he lives near to the site of the application but far enough away for his declaration to be prejudicial.  Councillor Cohen took part in the consideration and voting process.

108-110 Stonegrove - H01918_12

Councillor Hugh Rayner declared a personal but non prejudicial interest as he lives near to the site of the application.  Councillor Rayner took part in the consideration and voting process.

98 Great North Road - F02634_12

Councillor John Marshall declared a personal but non prejudicial interest and stated that he is familiar with one of the objectors. Councillor Marshall took part in the consideration and voting process.

There were none

There were none

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee having heard from Ms Wells and Mr Walmsey who spoke in objection to the application and response from the applicant’s agent:

RESOLVED TO REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposals would represent an overdevelopment of the site and the associated activity and general noise and disturbance would detract from the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, contrary to policies GBEnv1, GBEnv2,  Env12, D1, D2 and D4  of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan 2006, policy CS5 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy (Adoption Version 2012) and policies DM01 and DM04   of the emerging Local Plan Development Management Policies (Adoption Version) 2012.

2. The development would result in loss of a community facility, contrary to policy CS3 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan 2006 and policy DM13 of the emerging Local Plan Development Management Policies (Adoption Version) 2012.

3. The proposed first and second floor infill extension, by reason of its siting, height and bulk, would be overbearing when seen from the adjoining residential property in Manor Park Crescent and would result in increased overshadowing of the garden of that property, detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers, contrary  to policies GBEnv2, D1, D2, D5 and H16 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan 2006, policy CS5  of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy (Adoption version 2012) and policy  DM01  of the emerging Local Plan Development Management Policies (Adoption version) 2012.

4. The development does not include a formal undertaking to restrict use of the residential units to full –time students attending the college or to provide a facilities management plan,  to meet the costs for the identified need for additional libraries and health services and associated monitoring costs or to mitigate the adverse impacts on the highway through submission and monitoring of a travel plan, meeting the costs of necessary amendments to  controlled parking zones in the area and local highway improvements, contrary to policy 3.8 of the Mayor’s London Plan 2011,  policies CS2, CS13, IMP2, M10 and M13 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan 2006, policies CS4, CS9 and CS15 of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy (Adoption version 2012) and policies DM02, DM09, DM13, DM17 of the emerging Local Plan Development Management Policies (Adoption version) 2012 and Supplementary Planning Documents on Planning Obligations, Contributions to Libraries and Contributions to Health Facilities.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr Muslin and Mrs Hollinsworth (who spoke as a substitute for Mr Hollinsworth) spoke in objection to the

application and response from the applicant’s representative:

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee having heard from Susan Harris who spoke in objection to the application and response from the applicant:

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr Goodall Von who spoke in objection to the application and response from the applicant’s agent:

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee:

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum and including the following additional condition:

Before this development is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to adjoining land and highway(s) and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access and the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the health of any trees on the site.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee:

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum.

The sub-Committee noted the receipt of the additional information as set out in the tabled addendum.

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr Allan (who spoke as a substitute for Mr Hatter) and Mr John Cohen who spoke in objection to the

application.

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the officer’s report and subject to the conditions as set out in the report and the addendum and including the following additional informative:

The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: -

i)  The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in The Mayor's London Plan: July 2011 and the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2006).

In particular the following polices are relevant:

Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2006): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D5, M11, M12, M13

Core Strategy (Adoption version) 2012: CS1, CS5

Development Management Policies (Adoption version)2012: DM01, DM02, DM04, DM17

ii)  The proposal is acceptable for the following reason(s): - The proposals would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene and general locality and would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety.

There were no items deemed urgent.