Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – That the decisions of the meeting held on the 8 May were approved as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alan Schneiderman.

There were none.

There were none.

RESOLVED – That the Council’s decisions on the applications listed below be as indicated and that the Assistant Director of Planning and Development Management be instructed to convey such decisions to the applicants.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides, duly seconded, moved under Council Procedure

Rule, Section 2 – Committees and sub-Committees, paragraph 17.2 that the time

period for the transaction of business be extended to 10.30pm.

RESOLVED – That the time period for the transaction of business be extended

to 10:30pm

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

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr. Davis speaking against the application;

RESOLVED TO REFUSE the application (this being a reversal of the Officer’s recommendation) for the following reason;

The proposed extension, by reason of its size and design, would represent an overdevelopment of the site leading to a lack of useable amenity space and would not respect the appearance of the property and would harm the character of this part of East Finchley contrary to policies GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, H16, H18 & H27 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Design Guidance 5 (Extensions to Houses).

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

The sub-Committee having form Mr Arul Joseph and Mrs Amy Jovy speaking against the application;

RESOLVED TO REFUSE the application (this being a reversal of the Officer’s recommendation) for the following reason:

1.   The proposed roof extensions, by reason of their size, scale, siting and design, would be a visually obtrusive form of development, detrimental to the appearance of the property, the character and appearance of the area and the visual amenity of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policies GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, H16 & H27 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Design Guidance 5 (Extensions to Houses).

2.  The proposed roof extensions, would by reason of their bulk, siting, height, and size would lead to an increased sense of enclosure and result in significant loss of outlook from and light to the closest windows on the rear elevation of 62 Trinity Road. This would be contrary to polices D5 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of Design Guidance 5 (Extensions to Houses).

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr John Daly speaking against the application;

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report.

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 set out in the report and addendum.

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr Angelo Nicoli speaking against the application and the applicant’s response;

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

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

The sub-Committee having heard from Mr Denis Taylor and David Howard speaking against the application and the applicant’s response.

RESOLVED TO DEFER the application in order to seek further information in respect of the stability of the site.

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

RESOLVED TO REFUSE the application (this being a reversal of the Officer’s recommendation)for the following reason;

The proposed demolition of the existing building, without a suitable replacement building, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Totteridge Conservation Area and Area of Special Character contrary to Policy GBEnv1, GBEnv4, HC1 and HC5 of the adopted London Borough of Barnet Unitary Development Plan 2006, Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy Examination in Public Version, May, 2012 and PoliciesDM01 and DM06 of the Development Management Policies Examination in Public Version, May, 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

The sub-Committee having heard from  Mrs Jacobs, Mrs Rosmaire, Councillor Richard Cornelius, the Ward  Councillor and the applicant’s response;

RESOLVED TO REFUSE (this being a reversal of the Officer’s recommendation) the application for the following reasons;

1.         The proposed development comprising a purpose built block of six flats would, by reason of its design, scale, bulk, siting and layout, be an obtrusive and overly dominant form of development detrimental to the established character and appearance of this part of Totteridge Village, failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the  Totteridge Conservation Area and the North Barnet/Arkley/Totteridge (with North Enfield and Harrow Weald) Area of Special Character diminishing the openness and spacious character of the site and the general locality contrary to policies GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D1, D2, HC1and HC5  of the adopted London Borough of Barnet Unitary Development Plan, Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement, policy CS5 of the Core Strategy Examination in Public Version, May, 2012 and PoliciesDM01 and DM06 of the Development Management Policies Examination in Public Version, May, 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the costs of extra education, libraries, health and social care facilities and associated monitoring costs arising as a result of the development, and therefore would not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Barnet supplementary Planning Documents Contributions to Education (2008), Libraries (2008), Health (2009) and Monitoring (2007) and policies, CS8, CS2, CS13, IMP1, IMP2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2006).

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

The sub-Committee having heard from Professor Pat Caplan speaking against the application and the applicant’s response;

RESOLVED TO APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following informative;

‘The applicant is advised to appoint a constructor that is apart of the considerate constructors scheme.’

The sub-Committee having heard from Dr Elizabeth Abrahams speaking against the application and the applicant’s response

RESOLVED TO REFUSE the application (this being a reversal of the Officer’s recommendation) for the following reason;

The proposed change of use would result in an over-intensive use of the property leading to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance from increase coming and goings to existing and future neighbouring occupiers, and harmful to the residential character of the area consisting of residential dwelling houses contrary to policies GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, H3 and ENV12 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan.