Agenda and minutes

An amendment to the minutes was made on Item 11. 18-2073- 155 CHANCTONBURY WAY LONDON N12 7AE, which now reads as follows:

‘During the consideration of the item an IT issue lead to the failure for Officer’s to deliver their presentation. The Planning Officer circulated hard copy plans for Committee Members. During this stage Councillor Alison Cornelius made a comment in regards to the accuracy of the existing plans. Therefore the Chairman moved to defer the application which was seconded by Councillor Wendy Prentice.

Resolved: That the Committee agreed to defer the item to a future meeting.’

The amended minutes of the meeting on 17 July 2018 were agreed as a correct record.

None.

Councillor Prentice declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8, 1 Sunset View, Barnet/ EN5 4LB, as she knows the objectors to the application.

All Members of the Committee declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6, 51 Greenway Close, London, N20 8ES, as they know the objectors to the application.

Councillor Cornelius declared she was not predetermined on any application.

None.

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

The Committee received the report. Representations were heard from Mrs Barbara Jacobson and Mr Robert Jacobson.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to APPROVE the application;

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions

AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control 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 and addendum, including a verbal addendum from Officers who confirmed that tree protection measures have been included in the conditions to prevent further damage to the trees on site. Representations were heard from the applicant’s agent.

During the discussion, Members agreed to add a further condition to the application to limit the hours within which the work could be completed.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to APPROVE the application, including the additional conditions:

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions

AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control 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. Representations were heard from Mr William Foster and Mr Guy Braithwaite and the applicant’s agent.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to APPROVE the application;

RESOLVED: That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions

AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control 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 and addendum. Representations were heard from Mr Brian Taylor, Councillor David Longstaff and the applicant’s agent.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to APPROVE the application;

It was moved by Councillor Prentice and seconded by Councillor Cornelius that the Officer’s recommendation be overturned and that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons;

The proposed increased operational hours would lead to increased activity, nuisance, noise and light disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers contrary to Policies CS9 of the Core Strategy (2012) and DM01, DM04 of the Development Management Policies (2012).

A vote was taken on the motion to REFUSE the application as follows:

RESOLVED: That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.

The Committee received the report and addendum. Representations were heard from Mr Chris Roche and the applicant’s agent.

A vote was taken on the Officer’s recommendation to APPROVE the application;

It was moved by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Patel that the Officer’s recommendation be overturned and that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons;

The proposed development, by reason of its mass, bulk, size, prominence and design would be out of keeping with, and detrimental to, the character and appearance of the site, in particular, and the streetscene, in general. As a result, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the locality and would be contrary to policies to CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016).

A vote was taken on the motion to REFUSE the application as follows:

RESOLVED: That the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.

None.