Agenda and minutes

An error was reported under Item 3 (Declaration of Member’s Disclosable Pecuniary and Non Pecuniary Interests):

Cllr Cohen’s interest under item 6 (1069 Finchley Road) was in relation to his work address (rather than home address as stated in the minutes).

The minutes were otherwise approved as a correct record.

Councillor Marshall stated that he needed to leave the meeting early (he left after the first item).

Councillor Greenspan declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Item 2 (205 Regent’s Park Road). Some of the objectors lived in her Ward and were known to her.

Councillor Cohen declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Item 1. An objector, Mr Elvio Gambaruto, was known to him.

None.

An addendum was received in relation to items 6, 7, 9 and 11.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee for both applications.

He also presented an addendum for Item 17-8219-FUL.

A representation was heard from Mr Elvio Gambaruto in objection to both applications.

An agent for the applicant addressed the Committee.

The Chairman moved to DEFER the items to the next meeting to allow the members of the Committee to visit the site. This was duly seconded.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (DEFERRAL) – 6

Against (DEFERRAL) – 0

Abstained – 1

Carried – it was resolved that both applications were DEFERRED until the next meeting.

Cllr Marshall left for the remainder of the meeting.

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

A representation was heard from Mr Joseph Sassoon in objection to the application.

A representation was heard from Mr Geoffrey Bernstein in objection to the application.

An agent for the applicant, Mr Rhodri Williams, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Against (approval) – 5

Abstained – 1

The Chairman moved to REFUSE the application and was duly seconded. Reasons were discussed.

The proposed change of use would result in harmful noise and disturbance from associated activity, customer collections, vehicular and pedestrian movements, and deliveries. The proposals would be harmful to neighbouring residential amenities, especially those of 42, 44, 46 and 37 North Crescent and be contrary to policy DM01 and DM04 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 5

Against (refusal) 0

Abstained - 1

Carried – it was resolved that the application was REFUSED for the reasons given above.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Mr Stewart Wild in objection to the application.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Against (approval) – 6

The reasons were discussed:

The proposed conversion would fail to provide adequate usable amenity space for the occupiers of the first-floor flat given its siting. This would be contrary to policies DM01, DM02 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and the SPD on Sustainable Design Construction and Residential Design Guidance.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 6

Against (refusal) - 0

Resolved – that the application was REFUSED for the reason above.

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

A representation was heard from Mr Mark Newton in objection to the application.

Mr Nicholas Taylor spoke to the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Against (approval) – 6

The Chairman moved a motion to refuse the application and was duly seconded. The reasons were discussed:

The proposals by reasons of the size and amount of development, intensive nature of the use and associated activity would be detrimental to the character of the locality and to neighbouring visual and residential amenity. The proposals would be contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Core Strategy 2012.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) 5

Against (refusal) – 0

Abstained – 1

Resolved – that the application was REFUSED for the reasons given above.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mr David Alton addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

There were no objectors present.

For (approval) – 0

Against (approval) – 6

The reasons for refusal were discussed:

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

2. 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, policy CS9 of the Adopted Barnet Core Strategy 2012 and the Planning Obligations SPD.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 6

Against (refusal) – 0

Resolved – that the application was REFUSED for the reasons given above.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mr Byder addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

There were no objectors.

The Committee could not gain clarity on the proposed development. The Chairman moved to DEFER the item to allow officers to confirm that they are satisfied that the information contained in the application form is correct. This was duly seconded.

The vote was recorded as followed:

For (deferral) – 6

Against (deferral) – 0

Carried – it was resolved that the application was DEFERRED for the reason given above.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

The applicant, Mr Dominic Dear addressed the Committee.

There were no objectors.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 3

Against (approval) – 3

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

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

None.