Agenda and minutes

The minutes were approved as an accurate record.

There were none.

There was no report.

An addendum was received in relation to items 10, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 18.

The application had been withdrawn to allow officers to hold further discussions with the applicant.

Cllr Marshall moved to defer the item due to objectors being unable to attend. This was seconded by Cllr Ryde.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (deferral) – 7

Against (deferral) – 0

CARRIED – the application was DEFERRED.

Cllr Ryde moved that the application be deferred for a further site visit to the building next door. He was seconded by Cllr Marshall.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (deferral) – 5

Against (deferral) – 2

Carried – the application was DEFERRED.

Cllr Farrier moved that the application be deferred as speakers could not attend. This was seconded by Cllr Schneiderman.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (deferral) – 6

Abstained – 1

Carried – the application was DEFERRED.

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

Mr Joel Clark spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant, Mr Goldberg, addressed the Committee.

Cllr Ryde moved to REFUSE the application and was seconded by Cllr Farrier. The reasons given were:

1.The proposed rear extensions by reason of their size and siting would appear overbearing and result in loss of outlook which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of 72 North End Road, contrary to policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

2. The proposed development, by reason of the small size and siting of the outdoor amenity areas, would fail to provide adequate amenities for future occupiers, contrary to policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM02 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012), the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) and Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2016).

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 7

Against (refusal) – 0

CARRIED – the application was REFUSED.

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

Dr Brian Coleman spoke in support of the application.

The registered speakers in objection to the application were not present/did not speak at the meeting.

Mr John Murch, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 2

Against (approval) – 5

Cllr Farrier moved to REFUSE the application and was seconded by Cllr Marshall. The reasons for refusal:

1.     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 (2016), contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies (2012) and Policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012).

2.     The proposed development would provide inadequate parking to serve the development and in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a Travel Plan and associated monitoring, an extension to 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 Local Plan Core Strategy (2012).

3.     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 Adopted Development Management Policies (2012), the Adopted Affordable Housing SPD (2007), the Adopted Planning Obligations SPD (2013) and Policy 3.12 of the Mayor's London Plan (2016).

4.     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 Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM14 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies (2012, the Adopted Skills, Enterprise, Employment and Training SPD (2014), and the Adopted Planning Obligations SPD (2016).

5.     The proposed development provides inadequate outdoor amenity and  play space for future occupiers and does not include a  

 formal undertaking to mitigate this loss by contributing to off-site  

 amenity and playspace. The proposal would therefore not  

 address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy 3.6 of the  

 Mayor's London Plan (2016), Policy CS7 of the

 Adopted Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM02 of the Adopted

 Development Management Policies DPD (2012), the 

 Adopted Planning Obligations SPD (2016) and the Adopted Green

 Infrastructure SPD (2017).

6.     The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to provide a contribution towards carbon off-setting to

achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions from the residential component of the development. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy 5.2 of the Mayor’s London Plan (2016),  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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

Mrs Susan Zamet and Dr Hady Bayoumi spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant, Mr Alan Warwick, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 7

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A resident, Mrs Perilly, spoke in objection to the application.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 7

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

An objector who had registered to speak was not present.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 3

Against (approval) – 3

Abstained – 1

The Chairman used her casting vote to approve the application.

Resolved  - that the application was APPROVED.

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

Mr Kieron Kettleton and Dr Sophie Farooque spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Nichole Avan-Nomayo of Hub Architects spoke on behalf of the applicant.

Cllr Farrier moved to DEFER the application to allow a further site visit. This was seconded by Cllr Rich.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (deferral) – 4

Against (deferral) – 3

Carried – the application was DEFERRED.

The Chairman noted that as the objectors had already addressed the Committee they would not be invited to do so in the future.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mr Deepak Chainrai spoke to the Committee in objection to the application.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 4

Against (approval) – 2

Abstained – 1

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

Cllr Ryde and Cllr Cohen left the room for this item.

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

Ms Chris Klein and Mr Afam Edozie spoke in objection to the application.

Mrs Caroline Apcar, the agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 2

Against (approval) – 3

No motion was moved and no reasons were given for refusal. The Chairman asked for the vote to be cast again and this was recorded as follows:

For (approval) 3

Against (approval) – 0

Abstained – 2

Resolved - the application was APPROVED.

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

Ms Gill Sargeant and Ms Barbara Bliss spoke in objection to the application.

The architect and agent for the applicant addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 4

Against (approval) – 3

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Ms S Roy spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Souza, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 5

Against (approval) – 1

Abstained – 1

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Chairman, Councillor Greenspan, left the room. The Vice Chairman, Councillor Marshall, chaired the item.

The Planning Officer presented the reports (both items 20 and 21) to the Committee.

Dr David Grant spoke in objection to the application 17/7880/HSE.

The applicant was not present.

The vote for 17/7880/HSE was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Chairman, Councillor Greenspan, left the room. The Vice Chairman, Councillor Marshall, chaired the item.

The vote for 17/7884/HSE was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 6

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Chairman returned to the room.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

There were no speakers.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 2

Against (approval) – 4

Abstained – 1

Cllr Rich moved a motion to refuse the application and was seconded by Cllr Schneiderman. The reason for refusal:

1.     The wall, by reason of its siting, height and design, would be out of character and detrimental to the character and appearance of the streetscene, contrary to policy CS5 of the Adopted Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 7

Against (refusal) – 0

Carried – the application was REFUSED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

The architect for the applicant, Ms Helen Kyprianos, addressed the Committee.

The following changes were agreed:

       Condition 3 – substitute the plans list with the following:

Site Plan; P.01 “Existing Plans and Elevations” (Excluding forecourt layout); P.01 ”Proposed plans and elevations” (Excluding forecourt layout), P.03 “Existing and proposed block plans”

Add the following condition:-

Before the building hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed window(s) in the north-east elevation facing 146 Hendon Lane shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter and shall be permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening.

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) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted 2016).

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 7

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 7

Against (approval) – 0

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

The applicant was not present.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 5

Against (approval) – 2

Resolved – the application was APPROVED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Cllr Marshall moved to refuse consent for felling of 1 Birch Tree on the grounds that the loss of the tree of special amenity value is not justified as a remedy for the alleged subsidence damage on the basis of the information provided. This was seconded by Cllr Farrier.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusing consent) – 7

Against (refusing consent) – 0

Carried – consent was REFUSED.