Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED-that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2016 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

None.

The Committee noted the information provided in the addendum.

The Chairman varied the order of business to facilitate consideration of the items in the following order:

·         Item 6, 6 Beechworth Close

·         Item 10, 402 Finchley Road

·         Item 13, 21 Temple Fortune Lane

·         Item 17, Factory to the rear of 45-51 Woodhouse Road

·         Item 8, 1 The Ridgeway

·         Item 11, Land rear of 123-131 East End Road

·         Item 9, Sunridge Court, 76 The Ridgeway

·         Item 14, Britannia House 958-964 High Road (new 7^th floor 2 new flats)

·         Item 15, Britannia House 958-964 High Road, extension eastern wing 3 new flats

·         Item 16, Britannia House 960 High Road

·         Item 7, 27 Hendon Way

·         Item 12, 108 Holders Hill Road

·         Item 19, 124 Friern Park

·         Item 18, 29 Christchurch Avenue

Planning application reference number: 16/1277/S73

Proposal:

Variation of Condition 1 (Approved Plans) of planning permission F/01083/13 for "Erection of two new three-storey detached dwellings with basement accommodation using existing vehicular access from Beechworth Close, following demolition of an existing two-storey detached dwelling house" dated 13/05/2013. Variations to include changes to the fenestration to both houses, alteration to light wells, revised rooflight design, creation of lift overrun to both houses, new skylights to both houses, enlargement of basement.

A Planning officer introduced the report.

The Committee heard one representation, from Mr Seamus R Lefroy-Brooks.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

RESOLVED:

1.    To delegate authority to the Head of Planning to determine the application following receipt of an independent technical assessment of the hydrogeological impacts of the scheme subject to the conditions in the addendum.

Planning application reference number: 16/3214/FUL

Proposal:

Demolition of existing building and erection of new five storey building to provide 283sqms of class A2 floor space at ground floor level and 8no self-contained flats above with associated, bike store, amenity space, refuse/recycling storage.

Councillor Cohen left the room due to the interest he had declared.

The planning officer and highways officer introduced the report.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the planning permission in respect of application number 16/3214/FUL be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the addendum.

*Councillor Cohen was absent from the vote due to the interest he had declared

Planning application reference number: 15/05603/FUL

Proposal:

Demolition of existing residential dwelling house and erection of 4 storey building with car parking, refuse and cycle storage in the basement.

The planning officer and highways officer introduced the report.

The committee heard two representations, from Mr Avis Hoddes and Mr Aubrey Glaser and responded to questions from Members.

The planning officer proposed to add a condition which would give priority access for parking to vehicles leaving the public highway.

The committee debated the application and decided to refuse the application, being a reversal of the officers’ recommendations, on the following grounds.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the planning permission in respect of application number 15/05603/FUL be rejected

Reasons for refusal:

• The proposed development would, by reason of its size, siting, bulk, height and design result in a visually obtrusive form of development which would be out of character and appearance within the immediate area and harmful to the character and appearance of the adjacent Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area contrary to policies DM01; DM02 and DM06 of the Local Plan Development Management policies (Adopted) 2012; and the Supplementary Planning Guidance Character Appraisal Hampstead Garden Suburb Character Appraisals’ (October 2010).

·         The Basement parking provision for the proposed development is inadequate and the access to the basement parking is proposed via a single lift access.  Combined with the inadequate parking provision and single lift provision in the event the lift breaking down it is likely that the occupants of the new development are likely to park on public highway resulting in the overspill parking on public highway in the vicinity of the site which is likely to lead to conditions detrimental to the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety contrary to policies CS9 of the Local plan ore Strategy (Adopted) 2012; and Policy DM17 of the Local Plan Development Policies (Adopted) 2012.

• The proposal fails to provide a legal undertaking to enable an amendment to the Traffic Regulations Order and contribution towards the associated monitoring costs to mitigate the on-street parking impact in the vicinity of the site, contrary to policy DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD and the Planning Obligations SPD

Planning application reference number: 16/3759/FUL

Proposal:

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three storey building with 8.no self-contained flats, with landscaping, car parking, cycle and refuse storage.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard two representations from Ms Jenni Stone and Ms Emma Pineiro and asked questions of the objectors.

The applicant made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

Councillor Schneiderman moved a motion for deferral to allow members to carry out a site visit. The motion was seconded by Councillor Tierney

RESOLVED:

1.    Defer to the next Finchley and Golders Green Area Planning Committee to allow members to revisit the site from Grove Road and Lambert Road.

Planning application reference number: 16/4084/FUL

Proposal:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a two storey detached building including rooms in roofspace and basement level comprising of 9no. self-contained flats. Associated amenity space, landscaping, refuse and cycle storage and basement parking.

The planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Mr Philip Arden and asked questions of the objectors.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and decided to refuse the application, being a reversal of the officers’ recommendations, on the following grounds.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the planning permission in respect of application number 16/4084/FUL be rejected.

Reasons for refusal:

• The proposed development  by reason of the number of units proposed would result in an over-intensive use of the site and result in loss of a family dwelling unit detrimental to the prevailing character of the of the area which predominantly comprises houses in single family occupation and as a result would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of The Ridgeway which it forms part of 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 proposed development by reason of its size, siting, bulk and design would result in a visually obtrusive form of development which would be out of character and appearance within the immediate area contrary to policies DM01; DM02 of the Development Management policies (Adopted) 2012

Planning Application Reference number:16/2025/FUL

Proposal:

Erection of 3no two storey dwellinghouses with associated amenity space, refuse storage and provision of 5no parking spaces.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard two representations from Mr Crossan and Ms Alegria and asked questions of the objectors.

The applicant made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

Following discussion the committee agreed to add conditions pertaining to landscaping, the removal of permitted development and obscure glazing of roof lights.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/2025/FUL be granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report and the following three additional conditions:

Before the development hereby permitted is occupied, the proposed  landscaping scheme shall have been fully implemented.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013).

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the general locality in accordance with policies DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/2679/FUL

Proposal:

Partial demolition and rebuild of third floor to create 9 additional bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms and guest toilet to existing residential elderly care home. New front porch. Provisions made for cycle parking, and installation of solar panels on the roof.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Mr Jagannathan and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/2679/FUL be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

Planning application reference number: 16/2568/FUL

Proposal:

Creation of additional floor above top floor level (7th floor) of existing building to provide 2 no. self-contained flats.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Mr Astruc and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and decided to refuse the application, being a reversal of the officers’ recommendations, on the following grounds.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/2568/FUL be refused on the grounds as presented above. 

Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposal would result in the creation of a tall building in a strategically inappropriate location that would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area being contrary to policy DM05 of the Adopted Barnet Development Policies DPD (2012) and policy CS5 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2012).

    

   3.  The proposals provide inadequate amenity space for the occupiers of the proposed flats. This would be contrary to policy DM02 of the Adotped Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and the SPD on Sustainable Design Construction and Residential Design Guidance.

    

   The proposal fails to provide a legal undertaking to enable an amendment to the Traffic Regulations Order and contribution towards the associated monitoring costs to mitigate the on-street parking impact in the vicinity of the site, contrary to policy DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD and the Planning Obligations SPD

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/2602/FUL

Proposal:

Proposed rear extensions above 2nd floor level of existing building to the eastern wing to provide additional 3 no self-contained flats at 3rd and 4th floor levels.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Mr Astruc and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/2602/FUL be granted.

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/2702/FUL

Proposal:

Two storey side extension to provide 2no additional self-contained flats at first and second floor levels

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Mr Astruc and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and decided to refuse the application, being a reversal of the officers’ recommendations, on the following grounds.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/2702/FUL be refused on the grounds as presented above. 

Reasons for refusal:

1.  The proposed two storey side extension would by reason of its size, siting and its close relationship to the neighbouring residential property at 972 High Road would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook from their existing flank window detrimental to the residential amenities of occupiers of this property. As such the proposal would be contrary to; Policy DM01 of the Local Development Management Policies (Adopted) 2012;

2.    The proposals provide inadequate amenity space for the occupiers of the

 proposed flats. This would be contrary to policy DM02 of the Adotped Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and the SPD on Sustainable Design Construction and Residential Design Guidance.

3.    The proposal fails to provide a legal undertaking to enable an amendment to the Traffic Regulations Order and contribution towards the associated monitoring costs to mitigate the on-street parking impact in the vicinity of the site, contrary to policy DM17 of the Development Management Policies DPD and the Planning Obligations SPD

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/3603/HSE

Proposal:

Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension and part single part two storey rear extension

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Ms Horesh on behalf of Mr Horesh and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/3603/HSE be approved subject to the conditions set out in the addendum.

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

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/4234/FUL

Proposal:

Conversion of ground floor flat to form 2no self-contained flats

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard one representation from Mr Grahame and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers. Following discussion the committee agreed to add conditions pertaining to the hours of work permitted on site.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/4234/FUL be granted subject to the following additional condition:

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/4307/FUL

Proposal:

Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a three storey detached building including a fourth floor within a setback roof level, comprising of 8no. self-contained flats, provision of 9no. off-street parking spaces, associated refuse bin storage, cycle storage and amenity space.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee heard three representations from Councillor Hutton, Mr Davies and Ms Brailey-Roberts and asked questions of the objector.

The applicant’s agent made a representation to the committee and answered questions arising from his submission.

The committee debated the application and decided to refuse the application, being a reversal of the officers’ recommendations, on the following grounds:

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/4307/FUL be refused on the grounds as presented above

Reasons for refusal:

1.    The proposed development, by reason of its size, siting, scale, bulk and design and the introduction of car parking within the rear garden, would constitute overdevelopment of the site, would fail to respect, and would detract from, the established character and appearance of the site property and the wider area contrary to policies CS1 and 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 (2013).

2.      The proposed development, by reason of the location of the proposed car parking area and access thereto, would result in the introduction of car movements and associated noise and disturbance into the rear garden area, which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policy CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2013) and Adopted Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2013).

Planning Application Reference Number: 16/4173/HSE

Councillor Ryde left the room due to an interest he had declared.

A planning officer introduced the report.

The committee debated the application and asked questions of the officers.

RESOLVED:

1.    That planning permission in respect of application number 16/4173/HSE be granted subject to conditions set out in the report.

*The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the motion to approve the application. Councillor Ryde was absent from the vote due to the interest he had declared