Agenda and minutes

Councillor Cohen reported that his first Declaration of Interest should include the words ‘Councillor Cohen left the room for discussion of this item’.

The minutes were otherwise approved as an accurate record.

Councillor Mittra arrived at 6.20pm

Councillor Ryde left at:

Councillor Mittra declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 17/5651/FUL: Opposite 18-22 Market Place and 51-53 Market Place - he is employed by the London Assembly Labour Group, City Hall.

There was no report.

This was received in relation to items

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was made from Mr Arun Jagannathan in objection to the application.

A representation was heard from a planning consultant on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor Mittra was not in the room for the presentation so he abstained from the vote.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 3

Against – 3

Abstained - 1

The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of approval.

Resolved - that the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee.

Representations were heard from Mr Nick Williams and Mr Ross Culverhouse in objection to the application.

Mr Luke Cadman spoke on behalf of the applicant and developer, Aitch Group.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) - 1

Against – 6

The reasons for refusal were discussed as follows:

The proposed development, by reason of its height, massing, siting, scale, and density, would be an overdevelopment of the site and detrimental to the character and appearance of the streetscene and general locality. The development would be contrary policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the Mayor's London Plan (MALP) 2016, contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Core Strategy 2012.

The proposed development would provide inadequate parking to serve the development and in the absence of a legal agreement to extend the Controlled Parking Zone and prevent residents from obtaining parking permits would have a harmful impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The development would be contrary to policy DM17 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy CS9 of the Adopted Barnet Core Strategy 2012.

The development does not make any provision towards affordable housing. The proposal would therefore not

provide the maximum viable amount of affordable housing, contrary to Policy DM10 of the Local Plan

Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012), Affordable Housing SPD,and the Planning Obligations SPD

(adopted October 2016) and policy 3.12 of the Mayor's London Plan (MALP) 2016.

The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet employment and apprenticeship needs arising from the development . The proposal would therefore not

address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy CS15 of the Local Plan

Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Skills, Enterprise, Employment and Training SPD,and the Planning Obligations SPD

(adopted October 2016).

Councillor Mittra moved to refuse the application and this was duly seconded.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 5

Against – 2

Resolved – that the Committee REFUSED the application for the above reasons.

Deferred from the previous meeting (30 November 2017) for a member of the Highways Team to attend.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee.

Recommendation 1 would be amended as follows:

“That the applicant and any other person having a requisite interest be invited to enter by way of an agreement into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation which is considered necessary for the purposes seeking to secure the following:

1)    Legal Professional Costs Recovery Paying the Council's legal and professional costs of preparing the Agreement and any other enabling arrangements

2)    Enforceability All obligations listed below to become enforceable in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

3)      Amendment to Local Traffic Order A contribution of £2,000 (index  

             linked) to cover the costs of making an amendment the existing Traffic

           Management Order to prevent the future occupiers of the development

           from being able to obtain parking permits for the Controlled Parking

           Zone.”

Condition 3 was to be amended by adding at the beginning ‘Notwithstanding the details already submitted,’.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For - (approval, subject to the above amendment) – 3

Against – 2

Abstained – 2

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Councillor Daniel Thomas spoke in support of the application.

A representation was heard from Mr Martin Carter, the applicant.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 3

Against (refusal) – 4

The Committee discussed the size of the proposed conservatory and the applicant agreed to conditions relating to materials used and timescale.

The Chairman moved to approve the application subject to the above conditions.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 4

Against (approval) 3

The motion was carried.

RESOLVED – that the Committee approved the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Mr Franklin Dannenberg in objection to the application.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 7

Against – 0

RESOLVED - that the Committee approved the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Mrs Laidman, owner of the property.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against – 0

(Councillor Ryde was not present).

Resolved – that the Committee APPROVED the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee.

The following conditions were added:-

“Notwithstanding the details already submitted, before the development hereby permitted is first occupied turning space and parking spaces shall be provided and marked out within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and that area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that parking and associated works are provided in accordance with the Council’s standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policy CS9 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), Policy DM17 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September2012) and 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the London Plan 2016.”

“a) Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, details of the sub-division of the amenity area(s) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under this condition before first occupation or the use is commenced and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenity of future occupiers or the character of the area in accordance with policies DM01 and DM02 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted April 2013).”

Ms Diane Roboth spoke on behalf of Ms Katy Green in objection to the application.

The architect for the applicant spoke on the applicant’s behalf.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 3

Against – 3

Cllr Ryde was not present.

The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the application.

RESOLVED – that the Committee APPROVED the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was heard from the applicant Mr Ricky Kotecha.

It was agreed that condition 6 would be removed.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against – 0

Cllr Ryde was not present.

RESOLVED that the Committee APPROVED the application.

The Planning Officer presented the reports.

Councillor Mittra left the room.

Representation was heard from the applicant on both applications.

17/5651/FUL

It was agreed that an informative would be added: ‘The applicant is advised that the works should not be carried out at the same time as the works under ref: 17/5633/FUL’.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 5

Against – 0

Cllrs Ryde and Mittra were not present.

RESOLVED – that the Committee APPROVED the application.

17/5633/FUL

It was agreed that an informative would be added: ‘The applicant is advised that the works should not be carried out at the same time as the works under ref: 17/5651/FUL’.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 5

Against – 0

Cllrs Ryde and Mittra were not present.

RESOLVED – that the Committee APPROVED the application.

Councillor Mittra returned to the room.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A condition would be added relating to construction working hours.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against – 0

Cllr Ryde was not present.

RESOLVED - that the Committee APPROVED the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee.

Representations were made in objection to the application by Dr Bernadette                                                                                                                                                                     Loughnan and Mr David Brown.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 2

Against – 1

Abstained – 3

Cllr Ryde was not present.

RESOLVED – that the Committee APPROVED the application.

The Committee noted the Planning Enforcement Quarterly Update.