Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 02 November 2020 be agreed as a correct record.

None.

Councillor Melvin Cohen declared a personal interest in regard to Land Between Broadfields Primary School and Hartland Drive, Edgware, HA8 8JP – 20/4031/FUL.  He stated that he lived within close enough proximity to the application address that he determined that he should withdraw from the meeting and play no part in the consideration or the determination of the item.

Councillor Shimon Ryde declared a personal interest in regard to Land Between Broadfields Primary School and Hartland Drive, Edgware, HA8 8JP – 20/4031/FUL.  He stated that he was on a Board of a Housing Association that had made an unsuccessful bid for the site and therefore he felt he should withdraw from the meeting and play no part in the consideration or the determination of the item.

None.

The Chairman noted that addendum to the Officer’s report had been published on the Council’s website and circulated to Members in advance of the meeting.

The Chairman outline the procedure that would be applied throughout the meeting.   He also informed Members of the Committee, the registered speakers and the members of the public that were watching online the order of business.   This is reflected below.

Prior to the Planning Officer’s presentation, the Chairman noted that Members had received the report and the reasons for bringing it to the committee were stated at the beginning of the report. 

The report and addendum were introduced and slides presented by the Planning Officer.  In doing so Members received a full overview on the application and had the opportunity to raise questions and make comment.  

The Committee received a verbal representation from Mr Michael Sternberg and Nick Jenkins who both spoke in objection.  The Committee heard from Ward Member, Councillor John Marshall who also spoke against the item.  The Applicant’s Agent then gave a representation.

Members had the opportunity to question all the speakers and Officers.

During the consideration of the item the Committee agreed to add an additional contaminated land condition if the Committee were minded to approve the item. 

Having considered the report in depth, the Chairman moved to VOTE on the Officers’ recommendations with the above additional condition.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For – 0

Against – 11

Abstained – 1

The Committee then considered reasons to refuse the item and therefore this led to the Chairman, Councillor Ryde, proposing the reasons below and this was seconded by Councillor Greenspan.  

1. The proposed development, because of the projecting rear balconies, would not be immediately above the existing topmost residential storey, failing to meet Class A of Part 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), as inserted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2020 (as amended).

2. The proposed development, by reason of the proposed use of materials, would have an unacceptable visual impact through the distortion and unbalancing effect of the external appearance of the existing buildings. In addition, the massing, projection and materials of the proposed glazed lift shafts and staircase canopies would be of a poor design and would create further adverse harm, in terms of distortion and unbalancing, to the external appearance of the existing buildings, contrary to paragraph 127 of the NPPF, Policy CS5 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of Barnet's Development Management Policies Document DPD (2012) and the guidance contained within Barnet's Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

3. The proposed lift shafts, by reason of their siting, massing, height, projection and materials would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of existing residents and the visual amenity of neighbouring premises, contrary to paragraph 127 of the NPPF, Policy CS5 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM01 of Barnet's Development Management Policies Document DPD (2012) and the guidance contained within Barnet's Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

4. In the absence of a legal agreement securing appropriate mitigation by restricting future occupiers of the proposed development from obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone, the proposed development would unacceptably increase on-street parking stress. The proposal would therefore not address the transport and highways impacts of the development, contrary to paragraph 108 of the NPPF,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.  In doing so Members received a full overview on the application detail and in doing so Committee Members had the opportunity to raise questions and make comment.  

The Committee received a verbal representation from Mr Rodger Pideon and James Batten who spoke in objection.  The Applicant’s Agent then gave a representation.

Having considered the report in depth, the Chairman moved to VOTE on the Officers’ recommendations.

RESOLVED that the application be approved as reported.

The vote recorded was:

For – 10

Against – 0

Abstained – 0

Absent – 2

During the discussion on the item above, acting in her capacity as Chairman Councillor Eva Greenspan stated that the transaction of business be extended to 10:30pm to deal with the remaining items on the agenda.

Following determination of the item above, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman re-joined the meeting.  Councillor Ryde resumed the chair.

The report and addendum were introduced and slides presented by the Planning Officer.  In doing so Members received a full overview on the application detail and in doing so Committee Members had the opportunity to raise questions and make comment.  

The Committee received a verbal representation from Michael Kölling who spoke in objection.  The Applicant’s Agent then gave a representation.

RESOLVED that the application be approved as reported.

The vote recorded was:

For – 12

Against – 0

Abstained – 0

The report and addendum were introduced and slides presented by the Planning Officer.  In doing so Members received a full overview on the application detail and in doing so Committee Members had the opportunity to raise questions and make comment.  

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant’s Agent.

RESOLVED that the application be approved as reported.

The vote recorded was:

For – 12

Against – 0

Abstained – 0

The report was introduced and slides presented by the Planning Officer.  In doing so Members received a full overview on the application detail and in doing so Committee Members had the opportunity to raise questions and make comment.  

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant’s Agent.

RESOLVED that the application be approved as reported.

The vote recorded was:

For – 12

Against – 0

Abstained – 0

Resolved:

Having considered the report the Committee agreedunanimously the deed of variation as reported.

</AI11>

<AI12>

None.