Agenda and minutes

The Vice-chairman noted the spelling errors in item 3 of the minutes, which have been amended.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th December 2016 be agreed as a correct record.

None.

The following interests were declared:

None.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 12-18 High Road.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Mary Hogben.

An oral representation in objection was heard from Michael McGrath.

An oral representation was heard from the applicant’s representative David Brown.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to s106. Votes were recorded as follows:

*The Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the application.

Following the vote, the requisite number of Members (2) indicated they wished to refer the item to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with Responsibility for Functions 6.4. The reasons given got referral were as follows:

·         Loss of heritage to the area,

·         Issues regarding overlooking,

·         Overdevelopment of the site,

·         Loss of light

·         and insufficient parking.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFER the application to the Planning Committee.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to The Sternberg Centre.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Dr Kim Bryan.

An oral representation in objection was head from Mrs Liu.

The applicant Mr Caplin was asked some questions by the Committee.

The Chairman asked the planning officer to assure that the extended hours would not be implemented until the legal agreements have been adhered to.

Councillor Schneiderman asked that the legal agreement be added as a condition.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to s106. Votes were recorded as follows:

The motion therefore fell.

Subsequently the Chairman moved to refuse the application on the following grounds:

The proposed variation to hours in this predominantly residential area would cause harmful loss of residential amenities to surrounding residents. The proposals would be contrary to policies DM01 and DM13 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Mittra.

 Votes on the motion to refuse the application were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application, on the grounds as presented above.

.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 124 Friern Park.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Dylan Davies.

An oral representation in objection to the application was head from Gill Brailey

An oral representation was heard from Councillor Anne Hutton (Ward member) in objection to the application.

An oral representation was heard from a representative of the applicant, Mr Peter Biggs.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to conditions. Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application subject to conditions, as per the officer’s report.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 24 Oak Grove.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Katarzyna Wodyk

An oral representation was heard from the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to conditions. Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application subject to conditions, as per the officer’s report.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 1 Beechwood Avenue.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Mr Mark Nicolaides.

An oral representation was made by the applicant – Telford homes plc representative.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to conditions. Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application, subject to conditions as per the officer’s report.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 129 The Vale London, NW11 8TL.

An oral representation was heard from the applicant.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application following legal agreement. Votes were recorded as follows:

The motion therefore fell.

Subsequently Councillor John Marshall moved to refuse the application on the following grounds:

The proposed conversion to flats would result in the loss of a single family dwelling house and would be harmful to the character of the locality of this road which is characterised by single family dwellings. This would be contrary to policy DM01 of the Adopted Barnet Development Management Policies 2012.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Schneiderman.

 Votes on the motion to refuse the application were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application, on the grounds as presented above.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which related to 57 St Georges Road.

An oral representation in objection to the application was heard from Mr Croke.

An oral representation by the applicant was heard.

Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to conditions. Votes were recorded as follows:

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application, subject to conditions as per the officer’s report.

The planning officer presented the Planning Enforcement Quarterly Update Report to the committee.

RESOLVED – that the committee noted the report.

The Committee noted the addendum in the main report, and considered its contents when deliberating the relevant applications.

None.

The meeting finished at 9.27pm.