Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – The minutes of the meeting held on the 10^th of May 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

None.

The following interests were declared:

None.

The committee noted the information provided in the addendum.

Officers withdrew the item from the agenda so that the residents can be re-consulted on the Highways Assessment and Revised Plan, which were received after the committee report was written. 

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved a motion to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Jim Tierney. 

The committee unanimously agreed the motion.

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

An oral representation was heard from the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Alan Schneiderman. 

The committee unanimously agreed the motion.

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

The Planning Officer introduced the item.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved a motion to refuse the item, being a reversal of the officers’ recommendation, on the following grounds:

·         The proposed additional storey to the existing development would by reason of its size, bulk, design and proximity to Flats 17 & 18 Goldfinch Court, 713A Finchley Road be overbearing, visually obtrusive and result in a loss of outlook detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of these units contrary to policies 3.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan (Adopted 2016), policy CS5 of the Barnet Core Strategy (Adopted September 2012), policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies Document (Adopted September 2012) and the advice contained in the Barnet Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted 2013).

The motion was seconded by Councillor Shimon Ryde. 

The committee unanimously agreed the motion to refuse the application.

The committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application on the grounds as presented above.

Add Informatives:

1. The plans accompanying this application are:

Site Location Plan; PL-301; PL-302 Rev A; PL-303; PL-304; PL-305; PL-306; PL- 307; PL-308; PL-309; PL-310; PL-312; PL-313; PL-314; PL-315 Rev A; PL-316; PL- 317; PL-318; PL-319; PL-320; PL-321; PL-322; Design and Access; Daylight / Sunlight report

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, the Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions.

To assist applicants in submitting development proposals, the Local Planning Authority has produced planning policies and written guidance to guide applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered.

3. This is a reminder that should an application for appeal be allowed, then the proposed development would be deemed as 'chargeable development', defined as development of one or more additional units, and / or an increase to existing floor space of more than 100 sq m. Therefore the following information may be of interest and use to the developer and in relation to any future appeal process:

The Mayor of London adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge on 1st

April 2012 on all forms of development in Barnet except for a £0 per sq m rate for education and health developments. This planning application was assessed as liable for a payment under Mayoral CIL at this time.

The London Borough of Barnet adopted a CIL charge on 1st May 2013 on residential and retail development in its area of authority. All other uses and ancillary car parking were set at a rate of £0 per sq m. This planning application was assessed as liable for a payment under Barnet CIL at this time. Please note that Indexation will be added in line with Regulation 40 of Community Infrastructure Levy. Liability for CIL is recorded to the register of Local Land Charges as a legal charge upon a site, payable should development commence. The Mayoral CIL charge is collected by the London Borough of Barnet on behalf  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Planning Officer introduced the item.

Oral representations were heard from Ms Ida Newman, who objected to the application, and from the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved a motion to refuse the application, as per the officers’ recommendation. The motion was not seconded, and therefore fell.

Councillor Melvin Cohen subsequently moved a motion to approve the application (subject to conditions) in view of the personal circumstances of the applicant, which the committee had been informed of.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Shimon Ryde.

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

*The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the motion to approve the application.

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application on the grounds as presented above, and subject to the following conditions and informative: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

An oral representation was heard from Councillor Anne Hutton in her capacity as ward councillor.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor John Marshall. 

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

The Planning Officer introduced the application. The committee noted the information set out in the published addendum.

An oral representation was heard from the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Arjun Mittra. 

The committee unanimously agreed the motion.

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

The Planning Officer introduced the item.

Oral representations were heard from Ms Maria Kyriakides and Mr David Bendor, who objected to the application, and from the applicant’s agent.

Councillor Peter Zinkin spoke in his capacity as a ward councillor in favour of the application.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved a motion to refuse the application, as per the officers’ recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councillor Arjun Mittra.

Votes on the motion to refuse the application were recorded as follows:

*The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the motion to refuse the application.

The committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application as per the reasons presented in the officers’ report.

Councillor Shimon Ryde excluded himself for the item due to the interest he declared at the beginning of the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application. The committee noted the information set out in the published addendum.

Oral representations were heard from Mr Simon Birnbaum and Ms Susan Bimbaum, who objected to the application, and from the applicant.  

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor John Marshall. 

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report and information provided in the addendum.

Councillor Shimon Ryde excluded himself for the item due to the interest he declared at the beginning of the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application. The committee noted the information set out in the published addendum.

Oral representations were heard from Ms Stephanie Hall, who objected on behalf of Mrs Estee Stimier, and the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to defer the item in order to request the applicant to submit an amended site plan showing the correct curtilage of the application site.

The motion was seconded by Councillor John Marshall.

The committee therefore unanimously agreed to defer the item on the reasons presented above, and further agreed that they would arrange a site visit to number 20 before next determining the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Oral representations were heard from Dr Anthony Isaacs, who objected to the application, from the applicant’s representative. 

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor John Marshall. 

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

The Planning Officer introduced the item.

Oral representations were heard from Mr Barry Greenby, who objected to the application, and from the applicant’s representative.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved a motion to approve the application, as per the officers’ recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councillor Marshall.

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The motion therefore fell.

Subsequently, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to refuse the application on the following grounds:

·         The proposed development, by reason of the number of units proposed and associated general activity, would represent an over-intensive use of the site which would detract from the established character and appearance of the area consisting of predominantly single family housing contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

The motion was seconded by Councillor Shimon Ryde.

Votes on the motion to refuse the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application on the grounds as presented above.

Add Informatives:

Plans

1.    The plans accompanying this application are:

- Proposed: No. L101 Rev D, E103 Rev D, E101 Rev D, E102 Rev D, P100 Rev C, P102 Rev D, P103 Rev F, P104 Rev D, S101 Rev D, P101 Rev E (received: 06/06/16).

- Existing: No. L001, E001, E002, L002, P001, P002, P003 (received: 23/03/16)

2 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, the Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions.

To assist applicants in submitting development proposals, the Local Planning Authority has produced planning policies and written guidance to guide applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered.

3. This is a reminder that should an application for appeal be allowed, then the proposed development would be deemed as 'chargeable development', defined as development of one or more additional units, and / or an increase to existing floor space of more than 100 sq m. Therefore the following information may be of interest and use to the developer and in relation to any future appeal process:

The Mayor of London adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge on 1^st April 2012setting a rate of £35 per sq m on all forms of development in Barnet except for education and health developments. This planning application was assessed as liable for a payment under Mayoral CIL at this time.

The London Borough of Barnet adopted a CIL charge on 1st May 2013 setting a rate of £135 on residential and retail development in its area of authority. All other uses and ancillary car parking were set at a rate of £ per sq m. This planning application was assessed as liable for a payment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Councillor Eva Greenspan extended the meeting time to 10.30PM, using her powers as outlined at 17.2 of the constitution’s Meeting Procedure Rules.

The Planning Officer introduced the item. The committee noted the information set out in the published addendum.

Oral representations were heard from Mr William Mcormick, who objected to the application, and from the applicant’s architect.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved a motion to approve the application, as per the officers’ recommendation. The motion was seconded by Councillor Marshall.

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The motion therefore fell.

Subsequently, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to refuse the application on the following grounds:

1.            The proposed development by reason of the number and size of units proposed and associated general activity would be an over-intensive use of the site which would detract from the established character of the area and would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance. The proposals are contrary to policies  CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM01 and DM04 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

2.            In the absence of confirmation that the proposed parking spaces can be provided on site to serve future residents, the development would be likely to increase demand for on-street parking in the area, detrimental to the free flow of traffic and highway safety. The proposals would be detrimental to policy DM17 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies (2012).

The motion was seconded by Councillor Alan Schneiderman.

Votes on the motion to refuse the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application on the grounds as presented above.

Add Informatives:

1. The plans accompanying this application are: Site Location Plan; PL01; PL02; PL03A; PL04A; PL05; PL06; PL07; PL08; Design and Access Statement

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, the Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions.

To assist applicants in submitting development proposals, the Local Planning

Authority has produced planning policies and written guidance to guide applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered.

3. This is a reminder that should an application for appeal be allowed, then the proposed development would be deemed as 'chargeable development', defined as development of one or more additional units, and / or an increase to existing floor space of more than 100 sq m. Therefore the following information may be of interest and use to the developer and in relation to any future appeal process:

The Mayor of London adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge on 1st

April 2012setting a rate of £35 per sq m on all forms of development in Barnet except  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Planning Officer introduced the application. The committee noted the information set out in the published addendum.

An oral representation was heard from Ms Madelon Lyle, who objected to the application, and from the applicant. 

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor John Marshall. 

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report and the information provided in the addendum.

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor John Marshall. 

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

Councillor Alan Schneiderman excluded himself for the item due to the interest he declared at the beginning of the meeting.

The Planning Officer introduced the application.

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Eva Greenspan moved to approve the item, as per the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor John Marshall. 

Votes on the motion to approve the application were recorded as follows:

The committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application as per the officers’ report.

None.