Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 4 February, 2016 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

There was not a report.

None.

None.

The Committee received the report and addendum.

Representations were heard from Allen Sheena and the applicant’s agent.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the changes highlighted in the addendum.

The Committee received the report and addendum.

Representations were heard from Barbara Jacobson, Mervyn Nelson and the applicant’s agent.

The Committee voted on the Officers recommendation to approve the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report:

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED against Officers recommendations for the following reasons:

1.The proposed extensions by reason of their size, siting, scale, massing and design would cumulatively appear overly prominent and out of scale with the original house resulting in harm to the character of the existing building, the street scene and the wider area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

2.The proposed extensions by reason of their size, siting, scale, massing and design would appear overbearing and unduly obtrusive resulting in an actual and perceived sense of enclosure to the detriment of the living conditions of neighbouring residents at Nos 61 and 57 Greenway Close. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

3.    The proposed terrace and obscure glass screen would be overbearing and visually obtrusive detrimental to the visual amenities of neighbouring residents at Nos 61 and 57 Greenway Close by reason of its height, depth and siting and, in the absence of the obscure glass screen, would result in overlooking and a loss of privacy to neighbouring residential occupiers at Ns 57 and 61 Greenway Close. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

RESOLVED that the application be deferred, due to abnormalities with the plans submitted.

The Committee received the report and addendum.

Representations were heard from Dr Chris Nightingale, John Lucas and Josh Garside (agent).

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report, changes highlighted in the addendum and with regard to condition 10 amend as follows:

insert the following in between “installed” and “shall”:-  “,including to the front of the proposed roof level terraces facing 1A Sebright Road,”

The Committee received the report and addendum.

Representations were heard from Susi Earnshaw and the applicant’s agent.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the changes highlighted in the addendum.

The Committee received the report.

RESOLVED that the application be agreed, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Committee received the report.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

The Committee received the report.

Representations were heard from Dr Chas Church, Councillor Rajput and the applicant’s agent.

The Committee voted on the Officers recommendation to approve the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report:

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development, by reason of the number of units proposed and their location, would generate additional noise and disturbance which would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the existing units. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

2.    The proposed development fails to provide a refuse/recycling storage facility, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the present and future occupiers of the units and the appearance of the street scene, contrary to Policy CS5 of the Barnet's Local Plan (Core Strategy) DPD and Policy DM01 of the Barnet's Local Plan (Development Management Policies) DPD (both Adopted September 2012) and SPD: Residential Design Guidance (Adopted April 2013).

3.    The proposed development, by reason of the shortfall of internal floor area within flat 1 and lack of outdoor amenity space, would not provide a suitable level of amenity for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policies DM01 and DM02  of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013), and the Sustainable Design and Construction Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

4.    The proposed development does not provide any off-street parking. The proposal would therefore result in an unacceptable increase in parking pressure in the area detrimental to the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety contrary to policies CS9 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DM17 of the Adopted Development Management Policies 2012.

Items contained within the addendum were considered under individual agenda items.

None.