Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

Apologies were received from Councillor Eva Greenspan.

None.

None.

None.

None.

The Committee noted that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda to allow a full assessment of a noise report to be submitted by the applicant.

The Committee noted that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda to allow for additional public consultation with residents of an adjoining borough.

The Committee noted the addendum to the report.

Having heard oral representations from Peter Pickering, Diane Murphy and ward member Councillor Caroline Stock who spoke in objection to the proposal, and the applicant, Mr Peter Murphy, the Committee:

Resolved to refuse the application, which was a reversal of the Officer’s recommendation.

Having being put to the vote, the following was recorded:

For – 6

Against – 3

Abstain – 1

Reasons for refusal:

1)    The proposed development by virtue of its height, size, scale, bulk and massing would constitute an overdevelopment of the site that would fail to relate to the immediate context of the site and would harm the character and appearance of the streetscene and the locality in general. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted September 2012) and policies DM01 and DM02 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012).

2)    The proposed development by virtue of its height, size, scale, bulk, layout and footprint would result in an overdevelopment and over-intense use of the site which would result in a sub-standard level and quality of amenity for future occupiers of the proposed development and existing occupiers adjoining the site. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted September 2012) and policies DM01 and DM02 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012).

3)    The detailed design of the proposed development including the materials, building form and elevational design would result in a building that fails to respond to the immediate streetscene context, and the character and appearance of the site and the wider locality.  As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted September 2012) and policies DM01 and DM02 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012).

4)    The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet requirements of a Travel Plan, to prepare a Woodland Management Plan, to contribute to affordable housing, employment and training and to provide sufficient parking without harm to the highway network and highway safety. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to policies DM01, DM02, DM04, DM08, DM10, DM12, DM14 and DM17 of the Barnet Development Management Polices (2012) and Policies  CS NPPF, CS1, CS4, CS7 and CS9 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

The Committee noted the addendum to the officer’s report.

Having considered the report, the Committee:

Resolved to approve the application as set out in the Officer’s report and the addendum.

The Committee

RESOLVED – that under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended).

The Chairman determined that Councillor Laurie Williams could remain in the room for the consideration of this item and the voting process.

Having considered the report, and having heard from ward member Councillor Jack Cohen who spoke in objection to the proposal, the Committee:

Resolved to note the decision by the Officers to discontinue a planning enforcement investigation concerning planning works without planning permission.

Having being put to the vote, the following was recorded:

For – 6

Against – 5

None.