Agenda and minutes

The Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, Councillor Nigel Young welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous Strategic Planning Committee held on 7^th September 2022 be agreed as a correct record.

Apologies were received from:

-        Councillor Val Duschinsky who was substituted by Councillor Nick Mearing-Smith

-        Councillor Tim Roberts who was substituted by Councillor Tony Vourou

-        Councillor Richard Cornelius

None.

None.

The addendum was noted and the information considered under the individual agenda items.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum.

Lorraine Ryan Thomas addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The representative from the Applicants team addressed the Committee.

Following discussions, the Chair moved to vote on the planning officer’s recommendations as outlined in the report.

Votes were declared as follows:

For (approval) – 8

Against (approval) – 0

Abstained – 0

RESOLVED that the application was APPROVED subject to conditions attached in appendix 1 of this report AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control or Head of Strategic Planning to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions and associated reasons as set out in this report and addendum provided this authority shall be exercised after consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice- Chair) of the Committee (who may request that such alterations, additions or deletions be first approved by the Committee).

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum. Officers noted that the item requests the Committee’s recommendations and views as the application is the subject of an appeal against non-determination.

Jeffrey Borinsky addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Mary Hogben addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

The agent for the applicant, Jon Murch addressed the Committee.

Following discussions, Councillor Farrier moved a motion which was seconded by Councillor Greenspan to include additional reasons for refusal to the Planning Inspectorate:

-        Overdevelopment and impact on Woodbury Road

-        Design concerns relating to overall height and massing

Votes for the additional reasons were declared as follows:

For (additional reasons) – 8

Against (additional reasons) – 0

Abstained – 0

The Chair then moved to vote to recommend refusal of the planning application including the reasons above and set out in the report, to the Planning Inspectorate. The votes were declared as follows:

For (refusal) – 8

Against (refusal) – 0

Abstained – 0

RESOLVED that the application be recommended for refusal to the Planning Inspectorate for the reasons set out in the report and the additional reasons agreed:

1.          The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height and scale would represent an over development of the site resulting in a discordant and visually obtrusive form of development that would fail to respect its local context and the pattern of development within the surrounding area, to such an extent that it would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS5, DM01 of the Barnet Local Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (September 2012), policies D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the adopted North Finchley Town Centre Framework SPD (February 2018).

2.          The development in its current form would only provide 15% affordable housing (by habitable room) which falls significantly below the strategic target of 50% of the London Plan (2021) and emerging Local Plan of new homes being affordable and below the minimum requirement of 35% contrary to London Plan Policies H4 and H5, Policies CS4 and DM10 of the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Development Management Policies (2012) and Policy HOU01 of the emerging Barnet Local Development Plan.

3.          In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, the application does not include a formal undertaking to secure the planning obligations which are necessary to make the application acceptable. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF; London Plan Policies H4, H5, H7, SI 2, T4 and DF1, Policies DM01, DM02, DM04, DM10 and DM17, Policies CS4, CS9, CS13, CS15 of Barnet Local Plan Development Management (2012) and Core Strategy (2012); the Barnet Planning Obligations (adopted April 2013); Affordable Housing (adopted February 2007 and August 2010) Supplementary Planning Document; the Barnet Supplementary Planning Document on Delivering Skills, Employment and Enterprise Training (SEET) (adopted October 2014); and the Mayor's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing and Viability (2017).

None.