Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: That the Finchley and Golders Green Area Planning Committee agree the minutes of the meeting that took place on 16^th June 2015, pending the following amendment in respect to item 10:

-       That three members were not in attendance for this item.

No members were absent.

The following interests were declared:

There was none.

Ms Gabrielle Guz made a public comment in respect to Item 6.

Councillor Jack Cohen introduced his Member’s Item, which related to an application for retention of a rear extension at 44 Pattison Road, London, NW2 2HJ.

Following discussion of the item, the Committee unanimously RESOLVED:

-       To instruct officers to bring an update report, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of enforcement action, to a future meeting of the Planning Committee for consideration.

-       The Committee noted that the Planning Committee Members should conduct a site visit

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report and addendum.

The Committee received an oral representation from two speakers who spoke in objection to the application and a response from the applicant’s representative.

Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application.

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report and addendum.

Votes were recorded as follows:

RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendations, with an additional informative encouraging the developer to engage with the nearby school and the following condition:

Amend condition 10 to read:

a) No development or site works shall take place on site until a 'Demolition & Construction Management Plan’ has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

The Statement shall provide for: access to the site; the parking of vehicles for site operatives and visitors; hours of construction, including deliveries, loading and unloading of plant and materials; the storage of plant and materials used in the construction of the development; the erection of any means of temporary enclosure or security hoarding and measures to prevent mud and debris being carried on to the public highway and ways to minimise pollution.

b) The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the measures detailed within the statement.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and good air quality in accordance with Policies DM04 and DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted April 2013) and Policy 5.21 of the London Plan (2011).

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report.

The Committee received an oral representation from a speaker who spoke in objection to the application.

Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

The proposed change in hours would result in additional noise and disturbance to the detriment of the residential amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to policy DM01 [S1] of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies.

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendations, with the additional conditions:

1)    The proposals shall be temporary for a period of one year only and after this period the table and chairs and enclosures shall be removed permanently. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to monitor the impact on local residents.

2)    The tables and chairs shall be removed outside of the permitted hours of use. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of neighbouring residents.

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report.

The Committee received an oral representation from two speakers who spoke in objection to the application and a response from the applicant’s representative.

Following discussion of the item, the Committee RESOLVED to defer the item so that Members could visit no.51 Hodford Road to assess the impact on the neighbouring residents of this property.

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report and addendum.

The Committee received an oral representation from a speaker who spoke in objection the application.

Votes were recorded as follows:

RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendations.

This item was deferred on officers’ recommendations due to there being insufficient information to comprehensively consider this item.

The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report and addendum.

The Committee received an oral representation from a speaker who spoke in objection to the application and a response from the applicant’s representative.

Votes were recorded as follows:

RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendations.

The Officer clarified that a section 106 agreement for the provision of a contribution of £2,000 towards amending the Traffic Management Order would be sought and not a deed of variation as stated in the Officer’s report. The Committee noted the presentation and the information as set out in the Officer’s report and addendum.

Votes were recorded as follows:

RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the Officer’s recommendations.

There were none.