Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2016 be approved.

None.

Item 11 - Article 4 Direction Houses in Multiple Occupation

Councillor Melvin Cohen declared a non pecuniary interest as he is a private landlord of a property in the London Borough of Barnet but not a HMO.  He added that the property had no relevance to an article 4 direction and a house in multiple occupation.  Councillor Cohen took part in the consideration and voting process.  

Item 13 - Premier Place

Councillor Melvin Cohen declared a pecuniary interest as his place of work was involved in the negotiation on the application.  Cllr Melvin Cohen therefore withdrew from the meeting room for the duration of the item and therefore did not take part in the consideration or voting process.

Item 11 - Article 4 Direction Houses in Multiple Occupation

Councillor Tim Roberts declared a non pecuniary interest as he in a private landlord of a property in the London Borough of Barnet but not a HMO.  He added that the property had no relevance to an article 4 direction and a house in multiple occupation.  Councillor Roberts took part in the consideration and voting process.  

Item 10 – Brookdene, 71 Holden Road

Councillor Stephen Sowerby declared a non pecuniary interest as he once lived near the location of the proposed development.  He also stated that he was a member of the management committee of the building where he lived.  Councillor Sowerbys took part in the consideration and voting process.  

Item 10 – Brookdene, 71 Holden Road

During the consideration of the item Councillor Sury Khatri declared a non pecuniary interest as an objecting speaker was known to him.  Councillor Khatri took part in the consideration and voting process.  

None.

None.

None.

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The Committee heard oral representation from Ms Irene Nichols and Mr Gordon Nichols who spoke in objection to the application.  The Committee also heard a representation from the applicant who spoke in favour of the application. 

Following the consideration of the item the Planning Committee unanimously Resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officers report and the addendum to the report. 

The Committee requested that officers take into account the management of the disposal of glass.

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

Following the consideration of the item the Planning Committee unanimously Resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report.

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The planning agent made an oral representation which the Planning Committee noted. 

Following the consideration of the item the Planning Committee resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report. 

Vote

For approval – 6

Against officers recommendations – 4

Abstain – 1

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The Committee heard oral representation form Mr Peter Pickering and Dianne Murphy who spoke in objection to the application.   The Committee also heard a response from the applicant’s representative. 

Having considered the report and the information presented the Planning Committee resolved to:

Refused the application against the officers recommendation for the following reasons. 

Refused – against the officers recommendation. 

1       The proposed development by virtue of its height, size, scale, bulk and massing would constitute an overdevelopment of the site that would fail to relate to the immediate context of the site and would harm the character and appearance of the streetscene and the locality in general. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (Adopted September 2012) and policies DM01 and DM02 of the Barnet Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (2012).

Vote

For approval – 3

Against officers recommendations – 6

Abstain - 2

Following the consideration of the officer’s report the Planning Committee:

Resolved to approve the item as outlined in the Officers report.

Vote

Approve – 10

Against – 1

The Planning Committee having heard an oral representation from the applicant’s agent and having consider the officer’s report the Planning Committee unanimously resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report. 

Before the start of the item Councillor Melvin Cohen left the room at 18:05 following a declaration of interest.   Vice-Chairman Councillor Wendy Prentice chaired the meeting for this item alone.

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The Committee heard oral representation form Mr Abe Hayeem, Mr Jack Welby and Mr Andrew Dismore AM, who spoke in objection to the application.   The Committee also heard from Ward Councillor Brian Gordon and a response from the applicants’ agent and resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report. 

Vote

For approval – 5

Against officers recommendations – 5

The Chairman used her casting vote and therefore the application was approved.

Following the consideration and voting process of the application Councillor Melvin Cohen re-joined the meeting and regained the Chairmanship.

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The Committee heard oral representation form Ms Sandra Kyrianides, Mr Tony Coles and Ward Member Kathy Lavine who spoke in objection to the application.  The Committee also heard a representation from the applicant who spoke in favour of the application.  

Having considered the report the Committee resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officers report and the addendum to the report. 

Vote

For approval – 6

Against officers recommendations – 5

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The Committee heard an oral representation from Mr Andrew Dismore AM, and a response from the applicant’s agent. 

Having considered the report the Committee resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report. 

Vote

For approval – 6

Against officers recommendations –  3

Abstain 2

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.

The Committee heard an oral representation from Mr Andrew Dismore AM, and a response from the applicant’s agent. 

Having considered the report the Committee resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report. 

Vote

For approval – 6

Against officers recommendations – 3

Abstain 2

The Planning Committee noted the addendum to the Officers report which was circulated.  In addition to this the committee noted that a further objection had been received and therefore this was circulated.  

The Committee heard an oral representation from Mr Mario Michael, Ms Paddy Little who spoke in objection to the application.  The Committee also heard from Ward Councillor Kathy Levine who also spoke in objection to the application and a response from the applicant’s agent.

Having considered the report the Committee resolved to:

Approved the application as outlined in the officer’s report and the addendum to the report including the following additional condition and amendment to Recommendation I 3 as outlined below:

·       Notwithstanding the details submitted as part of this application, no site preparation works shall take place until a method statement detailing precautions to minimise damage to trees and expanding on the principles of the submitted document in accordance with Section 6.1 of British Standard BS5837: 2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the method statement as approved under this condition.

Reason: To safeguard the health of existing trees which represent an important amenity feature in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012), Policies CS5 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy 7.21 of the London Plan

Amendment to Recommendation I 3:

“(f) Special Site-Specific Obligation

The submission of a Pick up/Drop Off Strategy within 30 days of the signing of this agreement.

Vote

For approval – 4

Against officers recommendations – 4

Abstain – 2

The Chairman used the cast vote to approve the application as amended.

Cllr Shooter left the meeting at 21:03 due to a Mayor function and therefore he did not take part in the decision making process. 

There were no urgent items.