Agenda item

The Committee received the report and addendum to the report, as well as reports from the September and October Committee meetings.

This application was originally presented to Planning Committee on 28 September.  The Planning Officer report included an Officer recommendation to approve the scheme subject to conditions.  Following much debate, the Committee was ‘minded to refuse’, however, in the absence of agreeing a planning reason to refuse the scheme, the Committee requested Officers bring back a report to the next meeting, outlining reasons for refusal.

As requested, a report was presented to Planning Committee on 25 October providing five reasons for refusal to reflect the areas of concern raised at the meeting on 28 September. The Committee voted on each of the five suggested reasons for refusal and no majority was agreed on any of them.  A recommendation was then moved and seconded to approve the application subject to the reasons and conditions. The application was then approved by the Committee but as yet no decision had been issued by the Council.

Following the meeting on 25 October, the Monitoring Officer advised that not all of the Members had all the information in front of them (from the earlier meeting on 28 September) including having heard from the objectors as well as the applicant and this could be perceived as having an impact on the decision.

Consequently, the Committee was recommended to review their resolution to grant permission by re-hearing the application in full including hearing from the objectors and the applicant. The Committee was therefore requested to reconsider and review the proposal for change of use to a betting shop (Sui Generis).

Representations were heard from Robert Huang, Jeannie Harris, Councillor Narenthira, Andrew Dismore and the applicant’s agent.

It was moved by Councillor Farrier and seconded by Councillor Tierney that subject to the application be approved, the hours of opening be limited to 9am to 6pm, with closure on Sundays.

A vote was taken on Councillor Farrier’s motion as follows:

A vote was taken the Officer’s recommendation to approve the report:

It was moved by Councillor Farrier and seconded by Councillor Shooter that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal has failed to provide evidence of effective marketing of an A1 use or any of the other uses previously approved under application H/05856/13 for this unit or any of the other units within the 128 Colindale Avenue parade contrary to parts iii and iv of policy DM12 in the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012);

2.    The proposed change of use will result in noise and disturbance to residential amenities, in particular residential units of 128 Colindale Avenue contrary to Policy 7.15B (parts a and b) in the London Plan (2016) and part d of Policy DM04 in the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012);

3.    The proposed use would be out of character with the surrounding area, would adversely impact the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider locality, contrary to Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the aims and aspirations of the adopted Colindale Area Action Plan..

A vote was taken on Councillor Farrier’s motion to REFUSE the application, subject to the reasons detailed above.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons detailed above and it be noted that if the refused Paddy Power schemes goes to appeal, Cllr Shooter offered to represent the Council.