Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies were received from Councillor Patel, with Councillor Coakley Webb acting as substitute.

There was not a report.

None.

None.

The Committee considered the report and the addendum.

Representations were heard from Barry Neiman, Peter Davis, Councillor Longstaff and the applicant’s agent.

The Chairman moved to the vote to approve the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the addendum:

The Chairman, in line with the constitution, referred the matter to Planning Committee for consideration.

The Committee considered the report.

Representations were heard from Jonathan Sonefield and the applicant’s agent.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report  plus amend cond 1, first plan no – substitute “December 2015” with “February 2016”

The Committee considered the report and the addendum.

The committee considered that the sports pitch, fencing and floodlights were clearly materially different to the previously existing tennis court on site and that which had been previously approved in that the fencing surrounding the court surface would be 4.5m high as opposed to 2.7m previously proposed, there is a lower level timber fence around the inside perimeter of the court and it is also floodlit which the previously approved court was not. The previously existing court was not floodlit. This structure is not a characteristic feature of the conservation area and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area which is exacerbated by its illumination which renders it particularly  obtrusive and alien in the evening darkness.

The siting of the sports pitch close to the boundaries with neighbouring  houses, combined with its size and illumination means that it is overbearing and visually obtrusive. This impact is increased when it is illuminated against an otherwise dark background. The impact on neighbouring residents is further adversely affected by the noise and disturbance arising from its use late in the evening when the rear gardens would generally be quiet. The noise arising from footballs bouncing off the timber fence surrounding the inside of the court further increase noise levels to an unacceptable degree resulting in further loss of amenity to neighbouring residents.

Representations were heard from Mairead Flaherty, Raoul Federman, Councillor Richard Cornelius and the applicant.

RESOLVED that the application be refused, opposing Officer’s recommendations, for the following reasons:

1)    The astro-turf sports pitch with its associated netting  and lighting by reason of its size, siting, appearance and illumination fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Totteridge Conservation Area contrary to policies  CSNPPF, CS5 of the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (Adopted September 2012) and policies DM01 and DM06 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal (Adopted May 2008)

2)    The astro-turf sports pitch with its associated netting  and lighting by reason of its size, siting, appearance, illumination and use is overbearing and visually obtrusive as well as resulting in levels of noise and disturbance detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining neighbouring residents at Manor Lodge and Ridge House,Totteridge Green, 14 Willow End and 99 – 107 (odd) Greenway, N20, contrary to policies CSNPPF, CS5 of the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (Adopted September 2012) and policies DM01 and DM04  of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal (Adopted May 2008)

Information contained within the addendum had been dealt with under individual agenda items.