Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

Apologies were received from Councillor Mark Shooter, and Councillor Sury Khatri attended as his substitute.

None.

None.

None.

None.

The Committee noted the receipt of the tabled addendum to the Officer’s report.

Having heard oral representations from Professor Michael Streat, Mr Robert Davidson, GLA member Andrew Dismore, ward Councillor Helena Hart, Councillors Hugh Rayner and Daniel Thomas, Matthew Offord MP, who all spoke in objection to the proposal, and a response from the applicant’s representative, 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 – 11

Against – 0

Abstain – 0

Reasons for the refusal:

1.    The proposed development would not comprise the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, and would therefore represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would be harmful to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. No very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012), Policy DM15 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (September 2012) and Policy 7.16 of The London Plan 2015.

2.    The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to secure the delivery of sustainable transport objectives and the associated costs and monitoring. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy CS15 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

3.    The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to secure the provision of alternative land for use by the equestrian business and as a result would result in a detrimental impact on rural business and enterprise. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Paragraph 28 of the NPPF, Policy 3.19 of the London Plan 2015, Policy CS15 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

4.    The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to secure the submission, approval and implementation of a long-term landscaping and ecological management plan, and therefore would not preserve the landscape character or ecological value of the site. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy CS15 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), DM01 and DM16 of the Development Management Policies DPD (September 2012) and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

The Committee noted the receipt of the tabled addendum to the Officer’s report.

Having heard oral representations from Mr James Nassour, who spoke in support of the proposal, Helen Lord and ward Councillor Arjun Mittra, who spoke in objection to the proposal, and a response from the applicant’s representative, the Committee

RESOLVED that the item be deferred until the next meeting in order for the applicant to consider the issue of odour.

The Committee noted the receipt of the tabled addendum to the Officer’s report.

Having heard oral representations from Mr Michael Noronha and ward Councillor Paul Edwards, who both spoke in objection to the officer recommendation, and from the applicant’s representative, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse the application, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

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

For – 6*

Against – 5

Abstain – 1

*Includes the Chairman’s casting vote

The Committee noted the receipt of the tabled addendum to the Officer’s report.

Having heard oral representations from Rhona Myers, who spoke in objection to the proposal, and from the applicant’s representative, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve the application, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

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

For – 6

Against – 4

Abstain – 1

Report to follow.

The Committee considered the report and

RESOLVED to approve the designation of the

1.    West Finchley Neighbourhood Area as shown edged in Appendix 1 to the report

2.    West Finchley Neighbourhood Forum as set out in Appendix 2 to the report.