Agenda and minutes

The minutes were approved.

Apologies were received from Councillor Melvin Cohen.

Childs Hill

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Garden Suburb

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee. A verbal update to the addendum was noted: paragraphs 1 to 3 of section titled ‘National Planning Policy framework and National Planning Practice Guidance’ should be deleted.

Mr Alan Cohen and Mr Graham Hirschfield spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Councillor Marshall moved a motion to refuse the application and was seconded by Councillor Ryde and the Chairman, for the reasons below:

The proposed development, by reason of its size, scale and design, would represent an overdevelopment of the site and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area, contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policies DM01 and DM06 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), the Adopted Residential Design Guidance (2016) and the Adopted Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area Character Appraisal Design Guidance (2010).

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) - 5

Against (refusal) - 0

Abstained – 1

Carried – the application was REFUSED.

West Finchley

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.An amendments was agreed to informative 1 - refer to paragraphs 38 – 57 of the NPPF.

As the item had been deferred from the previous meeting there were no speakers.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) - 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

East Finchley

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

No objectors were at the meeting.

The applicant addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

Childs Hill

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Dr R Sepel spoke in objection to the application.

The architect for the applicant addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Councillor Ryde moved a motion to refuse the application and was seconded by the Chairman. The reason for refusal:

“The rear patio and boundary wall, by reason of their size and siting, have an overbearing appearance and result in a loss of privacy, detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of no. 38 Harman Drive, contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).”

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 6

Carried – the application was REFUSED.

Finchley Church End

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

Mr Keith Wilmott and Mrs Ruth Geiger spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant, Mr Jonathan Dibble, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) - 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

Golders Green

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

No objectors were present.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Councillor Marshall moved a motion to refuse the application. This was seconded by Councillor Ryde. The reason given was:

The proposed development would result in the loss of a single family house and would be detrimental to the established character of the area which comprises predominantly single family dwelling houses, contrary to Policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 6

Against (refusal) – 0

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

Garden Suburb

Councillor Ryde left the room for this item.

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

Ms Lavinia Banerjee and Ms Christine Klein (on behalf of Mr Richard Morawetz) spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Emily Benedict, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 2

Against (approval) – 3

Councillor Farrier moved a motion to refuse the application and was seconded by Councillor Schneiderman. The reasons given for refusal:

1. “The proposed development, by reason of the number of units proposed and inadequate level of amenity space to serve future occupiers, represents an overdevelopment of the site and would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future residents, contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policies DM01 and DM02 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) and the Adopted Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2016).”

2.    “The development fails to provide a legal undertaking to enable an amendment to the Traffic Regulation 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.”

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 3

Against (refusal) – 2

Councillor Marshall requested that his dissent from voting for refusal be recorded.

Carried – the application was REFUSED.

West Finchley

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mrs Beverley Friedgood spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Felice Crown spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant, Mr Nilesh Lukka, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 4

Against (approval) – 0

Abstained – 2

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

Childs Hill

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

Mr Alfred Nathan spoke in objection on behalf of his mother, Mrs Dorothy Brown.

Ms Emily Benedict, agent of the applicant, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Against (approval) – 6

Councillor Marshall moved to refuse the application and was seconded by Councillor Ryde. The reasons given:

1. The proposed development would result in the loss of a single family house and would be detrimental to the established character of the area which comprises predominantly single family dwelling houses, contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

2.  The proposed development, by reason of its size, siting, bulk and design, would be out of character within this part of Fernside/ Finchley Road and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the streetscene and wider locality, contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance (2016).

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 6

Against (refusal) – 0

Carried – the application was REFUSED.

Childs Hill

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

Dr H Nissenbaum spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Matthew Wheeler, Chartered Surveyor, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 1

Against (approval) – 5

Councillor Ryde moved to refuse the application and was seconded by the Chairman. The reason for refusal:

The proposed development, by reason of its size, siting, bulk and design and loss of trees associated with the provision of basement parking, would be out of character within this part of Woodstock Road and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the streetscene and the visual amenities of the wider locality, contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance (2016).

For (refusal) – 5

Against (refusal) – 1

Carried – the application was REFUSED for the above reason.

Childs Hill

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mr Anthony Woolich spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Sergio Perelberg spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Sharon Irving spoke on behalf of the applicant.

An amendment to condition 16 was agreed:

“No demolition or construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am or after 1.00 pm on Saturdays, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm pm on other days.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with policy DM04 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).”

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 5

Against (approval) – 1

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

East Finchley

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

The applicant, Ms Claire Carter, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 0

Against (refusal) – 6

Councillor Farrier moved to approve the application and was seconded by Councillor Rich. The Committee gave delegated authority to officers to attach the appropriate conditions. The conditions below were agreed:

1.   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: SITE LOCATION PLAN, 2017.04.1531-01, 2017.04.1531-02, 2017.04.1531-03 REV A, 2017.04.1531-04 REV A, 2017.04.1531-05 REV A, 2017.04.1531-06 REV A and 2017.04.1531-07 REV A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no windows or doors, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be placed at any time in the side elevation(s), of the extension(s) hereby approved, facing 15 Leicester Road.

 Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012)

Delete informative 1

Amend informative 2 to refer to paragraphs 38 – 57 of the NPPF.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

Childs Hill

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

No speakers were present.

The below amendment to condition 3 was agreed:

The heat pumps hereby granted permission shall be removed, within two months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iii) below:-

i)a) within one month of the date of this decision, a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to be retained and size, species, planting heights, densities and positions of any soft landscaping, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) All work comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting and seeding season following approval of the submitted details.

c) Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season.

ii) within three months of the date of this decision the scheme shall have

been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority refuse to approve the scheme or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State.

iii) if an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development on the street scene and character of the area in accordance with Policies CS5 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

Amend informative 1 to refer to paragraphs 38 – 57 of the NPPF.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

Childs Hill

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

There were no speakers.

An amendment to informative 1 was noted: refer to paragraphs 38 – 57 of the NPPF.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.