Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2017, were agreed as a correct record.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and explained the change in running order.

None.

Items contained within the agenda were dealt with under individual agenda items.

None.

The Committee received the report.

It was moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Williams that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons (as detailed in the report):

The loss of the tree of special amenity value is not justified as a remedy for the alleged subsidence damage on the basis of the information provided.

A vote was taken on the motion:

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED, for the reason detailed above.

The Committee received the report.

Representations were heard from Mrs Carolyn Apcar, Mr Martin Hart, Councillor Rajput and the Applicant.

It was moved by Councillor Levine and seconded by Councillor Cornelius that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The use, for which there is no identified local need, by reason of the introduction of a commercial business of the nature proposed into a residential area, would be detrimental to the character of the property and the wider locality, contrary to policy 7.4 of the London Plan (2016), policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).
2. The use, by reason of comings and goings and associated general activity, would cause noise and disturbance that would be detrimental to the residential amenities currently enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, contrary to policy CS5  of the Adopted Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01  of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

Replace informative 1: The plans accompanying this application are: P1 - Site Location Plan (1:1250, received 11th August 2017), P2 - Existing and Proposed Elevations Oakleigh Avenue, P3 Site Plan, P4 Building Layout, P5 Building Visualisation, P6 - Existing and Proposed Elevations, Planning Design and Access Statement.

A vote was taken as follows:

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.

The Committee received the report and the addendum to the report.

Representations were heard from Mr Peter Ridgewell, Sally Averill and the Applicant.

It was moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Sowerby that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its size, scale, mass, and bulk of the extensions, would not be subordinate to the main dwelling making the building appear incongruous and out of keeping within the street scene, contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy CS5 of the Adopted  Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

2.The proposed first floor extension would be intrusive, overbearing and cause a sense of enclosure which would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, particularly 44 Alan Drive, contrary to Policy CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

Replace informative 1: The plans accompanying this application are: 46AD/P200 Rev C.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.

The Committee received the report and the addendum to the report.

A written representation was received from Dr Nicky Greaves, as she was unable to attend in person.

Oral representations were received from Lydia Bowyer and the Applicant’s Agent.

The Committee voted on the Officer’s recommendation to REFUSE the application, subject to the changes in the addendum, as follows:

RESOLVED that

1.    The application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed in the report and subject to the addendum;

2.    AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Head of Development Management or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee).

</AI10>

<AI11>

The Committee received the report and the addendum to the report.

Representations were heard from Dr Richard Stock and the Applicant.

A vote was taken as follows on the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application:

It was moved by Councillor Sowerby and seconded by Councillor Roberts that the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed below:

1. The television aerial, by reason of its height and design, detracts from  the open and rural character of this site and its surroundings and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Totteridge Conservation Area, contrary to Policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), Policy CS5 of the Adopted  Barnet Core Strategy (2012), policies DM01 and DM06 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012), the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) and the Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2008).

Replace informative 1:

The plans accompanying this application are: Cover letter dated 23.8.2017, Site location plan,  Block plan and letter dated 8.8.2017.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED, for the reasons detailed above.

The Committee received the report.

A representation was heard from the Applicant’s agent.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application as follows:

RESOLVED that

1.    the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report;

2.    AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Head of Development Management or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee).

The Committee received the report.

A representation was heard from the Applicant.

A vote was taken as follows on the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to the conditions detailed in the report:

RESOLVED that

1.    The application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report;

2.    AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Head of Development Management or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee).

The Committee received the report.

A representation was heard from the Applicant.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application:

RESOLVED that

1.    the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and the additional informative:

6. The applicant is reminded to ensure that if the telecommunication equipment currently located on the roof is re-sited  it should be enclosed/ shrouded within the external cladding system or otherwise screened to minimise its impact on the appearance of the building;

2.    AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Head of Development Management or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations or reasons for refusal as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chairman (or in his absence the Vice- Chairman) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee).

The Committee received the report.

RESOLVED that the Planning Enforcement Quarterly Update, for the period of July 2017 to September 2017, be noted.

None.