Agenda and minutes

The Committee noted and agreed that under Item 1 the minutes should read “meeting held on 19 July 2017”.

With this correction made, the Committee RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2017 were agreed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rayner and from Councillor Braun.

As the Chairman Councillor Braun was not present Councillor Gordon chaired the meeting. The Vice-Chairman informed the committee the Chairman was unwell and wished her a speedy recovery.

Councillor Khatri declared a non-pecuniary interest on the agenda item relating to 51 Glendale Avenue, Edgware as the applicant is a fellow Councillor and know to him as a colleague.

None.

The Committee noted the addendum.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to North Land Of Garrick Estate Garrick Industrial Centre Irving Way.

Oral representations in objection to the application were heard from Dr Peter Holmes, Adrian Clargo and from the local ward Councillor, Councillor Narenthira.

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

Following discussion of the item, Councillor Sargeant moved a motion to defer the item but as it was not duly seconded it did not proceed to the vote.

Councillor Farrier then moved a motion that was duly seconded, to add a condition relating to the hours of operation to states that any user, including the Bread Factory shall not operate at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, or before 5am or after 11pm on any other day. Any other user will be restricted to between 5am-11pm. This condition was unanimously agreed.

Councillor Khatri moved a motion that was duly seconded, to add a condition requiring further details of the acoustic fence to be submitted to the Local Authority and agreed in writing. This condition was unanimously agreed.

The Chairman then moved to vote on the recommendation in the cover report, addendum and the additional conditions 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:

The proposed development by reason of the siting of the units and associated car parking and hours of use would result in harmful noise and disturbance from general activity including loud delivery trucks, staff changing shifts, people entering and leaving the site on a 24 hour basis that would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the properties at Colin Drive and Colin Gardens.

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 application, which related to Land Rear of 77-79 Hale Lane.

Oral representations in objection to the application were heard from            Michaela Ana Moniz and Margaret Nissim.

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

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:  

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

The proposed development by virtue of its size and siting within the site and its relationship with the rear boundary of 77 – 79 Hale Lane would constitute a cramped form of development that would give rise to an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of these neighbours in respect of its visual dominance which would be overbearing and result in an undue sense of enclosure. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies DM01 and DM04 of the Adopted Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and policies CS1 and CS NPPF of the Local Plan Core Strategy (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 application, which related to 47 Finchley Lane London.

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

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.

The votes were recorded as follows:  

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

The proposed development would by virtue of its size, height, bulk and massing would constitute an overdevelopment of the site harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and policy CS1 and CS NPPF of the Local Plan Core Strategy (2012).

The proposed development would by virtue of its footprint, siting, layout and density would result in an overly cramped form of development with substandard internal and external amenity space detrimental to the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed development. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012) and policy CS1 and CS NPPF of the Local Plan Core Strategy (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 application, which related to The Pillar Chapel, 19 Brent Street London.

Oral representations in objection to the application were heard from Mark Skelton, James Gibson and from the local ward Councillor, Councillor Langleben.

An oral representation was made by the applicant Benjamin Pearl.

As it was 10:00pm the Council’s Constitution, Meeting Procedural Rules, section 17 were invoked. Rule 17.1 outlines that no business at any meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee shall be transacted after 10 pm and any business transacted after that time shall be null and void. At any meeting of the Council, Planning Committee and Area Planning Committees, the Chairman at their sole discretion may extend the period for the transaction of business to 10.30pm. This did not occur and therefore this item was deferred to the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.

The Committee agreed to defer this item until the next meeting of the Hendon Area Planning Committee in accordance with Meeting Procedure Rule 17.3.