Agenda and minutes

The Chairman introduced the item and invited discussion on the item.

Following discussion the Chairman moved to the vote.

The votes were recorded as follows:

As the votes were tied the Chairman used the casting vote to vote for the agreement of the minutes.

The committee RESOLVED:

RESOLVED - That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2017 be agreed as a correct record

There were none.

Councillor Khatri declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6, relating to 11 Sunnyfield London as he had met the applicant and objectors regarding the application.

None.

The Committee noted the addendum.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 11 Sunnyfield London.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Barbara Lenton.

An oral representation was made by a representative of the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to vote on the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to conditions.

The votes were recorded as follows:

As a consequence of the above vote, Councillor Khatri moved a new motion that was duly seconded to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed variation to the approved plans to raise the roof ridge line of the property by reason of its size, bulk, height and depth would not be subordinate to the original property and would, by reason of the previous cumulative additions to the property, constitute overdevelopment of the site and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider streetscene, contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012).

2.    The proposed variation to the approved plans to raise the roof ridge height of the property would by reason of its size, bulk, height and depth have an overbearing appearance when viewed from the adjoining property No.9 Sunnyfield. In addition, the proposed construction of the rear dormer window would result in an overlooking impact, detrimental to the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012).

Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application which overturned the officer recommendation for the reasons above.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and addendum, which related to Edgwarebury Court Edgwarebury Lane.

There were no oral representations made in respect to this application.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the report subject to the conditions set out in the report and the addendum.

The votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application, subject to the conditions as per the officer’s report and addendum.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and addendum, which related to Land Rear of 18 Maxwelton Close.

An oral representation was made by a representative of the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the report subject to the conditions set out in the report and the addendum.

The votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application, subject to the conditions as per the officer’s report and addendum.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and addendum, which related to Land Side of 22 Rankin Close.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Allon Hazon, Subhash Kotecha and from the local ward Councillor, Councillor Narenthira.

An oral representation was made by a representative of the applicant Alex Omiru.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to vote on the recommendation in the cover report and addendum, which was to approve the application subject to conditions.

The votes were recorded as follows:

As a consequence of the above vote, Councillor Sargeant moved a new motion that was duly seconded to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed dwelling by reason of its siting, size and bulk would result in a visually obtrusive form of development which would lead to an overdevelopment of the site and the residential cul-de-sac of which it forms a part and the introduction of a new gate into the park will lead to increased security risk contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policies DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

2.    The proposal will lead to increased car parking pressure  which would lead to increased kerbside parking to the detriment of free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety , contrary to policies CS1 and CS9 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policies DM17 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application which overturned the officer recommendation for the reasons above.

None.