Agenda and minutes

The minutes were approved as an accurate record.

None.

Cllr Cohen declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Item 6 (1069 Finchley Road) which is close to his home address. He would leave the room for this item.

Cllr Ryde declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Item 7 (55 Cranbourne Gardens) - he lives close to the site and the objectors and applicant are both known to him. He would leave the room for this item.

Cllr Ryde also declared an interest in relation to Item 6 (1069 Finchley Road) – the speakers were known to him. He would leave the room for this item.

None.

An addendum was received in relation to items 7 and 10.

Cllr Cohen and Cllr Ryde left the room for this item.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Mr Ron Banerjee in objection to the application.

A representation was heard from the applicant’s agent, Ms Caroline Apcar.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Against (approval) – 5

Reasons for refusal were discussed. The proposals, in the absence of a legal agreement to amend the traffic order which would prevent residents from obtaining parking permits, would result in increased parking pressures that would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety. The proposals would be contrary to policy DM17 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and policy CS9 of the Adopted Barnet Core Strategy 2012.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 5

Against (refusal) - 0

Resolved – that the application was REFUSED for the reasons above.

Councillor Ryde left the room for this item.

The Planning Officer presented the report and addendum to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Ms Debra Kahan, on behalf of Mr Mordechai Kahan, in objection to the application.

A representation was heard from Mrs Kut-Grun in objection to the application.

A representative for the applicant, Ms Caroline Apcar, addressed the Committee.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) - 1

Against (approval) – 4

Abstained – 1

Reasons for refusal were discussed. The proposals, by reason of its scale, siting, size, height, bulk and massing on the west elevation in close proximity to the boundaries with 1, 3 and 5 Park Way would appear oppressive, visually dominating and have an overbearing appearance which would result in the occupiers of these properties suffering an unacceptable loss of residential and visual amenity. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012 and Residential Design Guidance.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 5

Against (refusal) – 0

Abstained - 1

Resolved – that the Committee REFUSED the application for the reasons given above.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Ms Julia Saunders in objection to the application.

A representation was heard from Mr Niall McKinley in objection to the application.

Ms Rebecca Amos addressed the Committee on behalf of Waitrose.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) – 0

Against – 7

The reasons for refusing the application were discussed. The proposals by reason of the increased hours and vehicle movements and associated activity would result in harmful noise and disturbance to the residents of Vine Lodge, being detrimental to the residential amenities of that property. The proposals would be contrary to policy DM01 and DM04 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012.

The vote on refusal based on the reasons above was recorded as follows:

For (refusal) – 7

Against (refusal) – 0

Resolved – that the Committee REFUSED the application for the reasons above.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

A representation was heard from Mr John Alexander in objection to the application.

The applicant was not present.

Further to hearing the representation and discussing this the Chairman moved to defer the application, to enable officers to clarify matters in the report, and was duly seconded.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (deferral) – 7

Against (deferral) – 0

Resolved – that the application was DEFERRED.

The Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mr Patrick Reedman gave representation to the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

The vote was recorded as follows:

For (approval) 4

Against (approval) 3

Resolved – that the application was APPROVED.

None.